* * *
For all the hand-wringing about the threat to liberty and
constitutional government posed by the major party presidential candidates,
there is little discussion of how this threat is due to the political class’s
long history of supporting expanded presidential power.
* I REMARK UPON IT CONSTANTLY.
(*SHRUG*)
There is also little talk of how the imperial presidency
is just as much a creation of Congress as it is of power-hungry presidents.
* AGAIN... I REMARK UPON IT CONSTANTLY.
Since war is the health of the state, it is not
surprising that presidential power expanded in tandem with the expansion of the
warfare state. Perhaps the best, and most terrifying, example of how “national
security” has been used to justify giving the president dictatorial powers is
the Defense Production Act.
This law, which is regularly renewed with large
bipartisan congressional majorities, grants the president broad powers over the
economy. For example, it explicitly authorizes the president to tell
manufacturers what products to make, impose wage and price controls,
“manage" labor relations, control the use of natural resources, and even
allocate credit. All the president need do to exercise these powers is declare
a national emergency.
* YEP. I'M AWARE.
The Defense Production Act is hardly the only example of
congress's complicity in the growth of presidential power. For example,
Congress rarely, if ever, insists that the president seek a formal declaration
of war before commencing military action. When I attempted to force Congress to
vote on a declaration of war against Iraq, a prominent member of Congress, who
was considered a constitutional scholar, told me that the constitutional
requirement that Congress declare war was an "anachronism."
* NOTICE PAUL DOESN'T MENTION THE "PROMINENT MEMBER'S"
NAME.
(*SIGH*)
Many neoconservatives claim that the president’s status
as commander in chief gives him the inherent authority to take whatever actions
he deems necessary for national security. This turns a limited grant of power
intended to preserve civilian control of the military into an unlimited
authorization for military control of civilians.
* HEY... YOU'RE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE, DR. PAUL!
Presidents have hardly limited their abuse to foreign
policy. Ironically, many conservatives who (correctly) oppose abuses of
presidential authority in the domestic sphere support giving the president
unlimited authority over “national security.” These conservatives fail to
realize unfettered presidential discretion in foreign policy will inevitably
lead to presidential usurpation of Congress’s authority in domestic matters.
* DUH! (AGAIN... PREACHING TO THE CHOIR, DR. PAUL!)
Modern presidents routinely use executive orders to
create new laws or rewrite existing statutes.
* OBAMA CERTAINLY DOES.
President George W. Bush regularly usurped congressional
authority via signing statements listing the parts of congressionally-passed
legislation he would refuse to enforce.
* UM... SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE A BIT DIFFERENT. SIGNING
STATEMENTS ARE INTENDED (WERE INTENDED) SIMPLY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT REGARDING
FUTURE COURT CHALLENGES. (SURELY DR. PAUL IS AWARE OF THE DISTINCTION...)
(*SHRUG*)
In his 2014 State of the Union address, President Barack
Obama actually bragged about his intention to use his “pen and phone" to
go around Congress via executive orders and regulations.
* YES. (FAR DIFFERENT FROM BUSH'S SIGNING STATEMENTS; AND
AS YOU ALL KNOW, I'M NOT EXACTLY A BUSH FAN - AND CERTAINLY NOT A BUSH
APOLOGIST.)
Some members of Congress do criticize presidential
usurpation of congressional authority. However, few members of Congress raise
concerns about presidential overreach when the White House is occupied by a
member of their political party. This suggests that most legislators are more
concerned with partisanship than with protecting their constitutional
authority.
* DUH!
As long as people expect the president to provide
economic and personal security, the presidency will be a threat to liberty
regardless of who holds the office. Therefore, instead of obsessing over
whether demagogue A is less dangerous than demagogue B, we must focus on
spreading the ideas of liberty.
* WRONG. WE MUST STOP HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FROM
BECOMING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE IN SO DOING SHE'D LOCK IN LEFTIST CONTROL
OF GOVERNMENT AND THUS THE END OF ANY SEMBLANCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
* EVEN IF TRUMP IS A DEMAGOGUE, CLINTON IS A LEFTIST.
AGAIN... ELECT TRUMP AND BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENTS - AS
WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT, THE MEDIA, AND ACADEMIA - WILL COOPERATE TO A
CERTAIN EXTENT TO ENSURE TRUMP STAYS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF HILLARY IS ELECTED... SHE'LL ENSURE THE SUPREME
COURT GOES LEFT AND EVEN IF THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS OPPOSE HER (WHEN THE
RECORD IS CLEAR THEY DIDN'T OPPOSE OBAMA - AT LEAST NOT EFFECTIVELY) THE
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS - ALONG WITH ENOUGH REPUBLICANS - WILL BACK WHATEVER
POWER GRABS SHE ENGAGES IN.
* FOLKS... RE-READ THE ABOVE COMMENTARY - THAT LAST PARAGRAPH I WROTE. THINK ABOUT IT. I'M RIGHT.
Only when a critical mass of the people demand it will we
return to limited constitutional government.
* ARE YOU F--KING STUPID? SERIOUSLY? ARE YOU SENILE?
THERE IS NO "CRITICAL MASS" FOR FREEDOM. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK
SKULL. WHAT THERE IS IS A NEAR CRITICAL MASS FOR SOCIALISM AND LEFTIST
DICTATORSHIP AND EACH DAY THE LEFT - VIA EXECUTIVE POWER AND A COMPLAINT
CONGRESS - LITERALLY "IMPORTS" MORE LEFTISTS (SOCIALIST LEANING AT
THE VERY LEAST) INTO THE BODY POLITIC WITH THE GOAL BEING TO NATURALIZE THEM...
GIVE THEM CITIZENSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS... AND FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE.
The growth of the liberty movement gives me hope that we
will soon see a day when our peace, prosperity, and liberty is not threatened
by the results of the presidential, or any other, election.
* I WONDER IF PAUL IS A DRUGGIE... OR JUST INSANE?
"GROWTH...???" RYAN IS HOUSE SPEAKER. MCCONNELL IS SENATE MAJORITY
LEADER. CRUZ LOST TO TRUMP. PAUL LOST TO CRUZ.
(*SNORT*)
* WHAT PLANET IS THIS FRIGGIN' LUNATIC LIVING ON?
* ONE MORE TIME: THERE'S GONNA BE AN ELECTION IN
NOVEMBER. IT'S TRUMP vs. CLINTON. IF CLINTON WINS... AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT IS
GONE.
* ONE MORE TIME: IF MCCAIN COULDN'T WIN IN 2008... IF
ROMNEY COULDN'T WIN IN 2012... IF BUSH LOST THE POPULAR VOTE IN 2000... IF CLINTON
WAS FIRST ELECTED AND THEN RE-ELECTED IN 1992 AND 1996 RESPECTIVELY... WHERE
IS THIS HUGE "FREEDOM MOVEMENT" THAT PAUL IS BABBLING ABOUT AND WHAT
MAKES HIM THINK THAT AFTER FURTHER MILLIONS OF "IMPORTED" DEMOCRATIC
VOTERS HIT THE ROLLS HIS "FREEDOM MOVEMENT" IS GOING TO OVERTAKE AND
OVERWHELM AN EVEN MORE SKEWED ANTI-FREEDOM DEMOGRAPHIC REALITY?!
No comments:
Post a Comment