American Constitution: President Threatens to Usurp Constitution

[JohnyMac]

“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation to make sure that we’re providing Americans with the help that they need,” Mr. Obama said from the White House while Vice President Joe Biden, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel looked on, among other cabinet members. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions…that move the ball forward.” President Obama

Obama: ‘I’ve Got a Pen and I’ve Got a Phone’ Wall Street Journal

Well folks here we are - The President of the United States openly stating he is going to usurp the United States Constitution.

Over the past five years President Obama has been saying that "our laws" do not allow the Executive branch from usurping the Legislative branch; However he now openly states that he will.

So my question (s) to this illustrious group of preppers is - What will happen? Will Congress challenge EO's (Executive Orders)? If the President gets away with the first "go around" what will he tackle next: Gun control, First Amendment, Suspension of the Twenty-second Amendment?

[Alex1992]

Why this is not pissing off Americans is far beyond me 

[APX808]

In South America many presidents have decided to declare "Emergency States" that allowed them to rule by decree, even using their bought congress seems to be slow or cumbersome for their tyrannical points of view. Really sad to see this happening in the cradle of freedom.

Sadly most people  will approve the decree usage as they will see it as a faster way to reach goals bypassing all the complications generated by the opposition at congress. I think the reason is because people don't understand the "Republic" concept and will buy the government argument that if you don't like what they do you can try winning the elections in 4 years and doing what you please then.

[Well-Prepared Witch]

I think a very important question to ask about this is why is it so impossible to get anything through Congress to the point where Executive Orders (NOT a new thing with Obama, bee tee dubs) are the only way to get things done in a timely fashion. 

[APX808]

I think the problem with the Congress is that every congressman votes whatever their party ask to, so there is no debate, no different opinions but just a mathematics and bribes game.
Also each party wants their projects to be approved as they are without any modification.

[CrystalHunter1989]

In South America many presidents have decided to declare "Emergency States" that allowed them to rule by decree, even using their bought congress seems to be slow or cumbersome for their tyrannical points of view. Really sad to see this happening in the cradle of freedom.

Sadly most people  will approve the decree usage as they will see it as a faster way to reach goals bypassing all the complications generated by the opposition at congress. I think the reason is because people don't understand the "Republic" concept and will buy the government argument that if you don't like what they do you can try winning the elections in 4 years and doing what you please then.

This. Don't forget the line that every Communist nation has used to justify more bloodshed: "The Revolution is in danger from enemies. We must protect it." Stalin had Trotsky and his followers murdered, then kills millions more for alleged conspiracy with him. Mao did the same thing when he Politburo tried to sideline him, and caused a whole generation to turn against their elders.

How much longer until the President is equated with the office of the Roman Emperors?

[crudos]

How much longer until the President is equated with the office of the Roman Emperors?

In my view, the office of President was subverted long ago.

[JohnyMac]

Wellie asked:
I think a very important question to ask about this is why is it so impossible to get anything through Congress to the point where Executive Orders (NOT a new thing with Obama, bee tee dubs) are the only way to get things done in a timely fashion.

Fair question Wellie. "In my opinion" and only "my opinion" Our President currently only has the support of 40 or so percent of the country. Hence the other 50 or so percent have been voting into office men and women that share their views. Plus they have been writing to their Congressman;  liberal, independent and conservative, lobbying them stop the expansion of government.

With that thought lets look what the current administration in the Executive branch has given us:

> Larger Government. National debt was $9B when President Obama entered office and now it is $17B
> Ignores current law. Will not arrest and then export folks who are here illegally. Changes parts of
   a law like the Affordable Care Act without Legislative branch making those changes and sending
   the changes to the Executive branch for approval or veto.   
> Forces social changes down peoples throats. Don't ask don't tell. Forcing religious Orders to go
   against their doctrine, e.g. Catholic Church and abortion and contraceptives. Are a few that
   come to mind. Putting a wedge between races and pitting the poor against the rich.
> Not fulfilling promises made during two political campaigns like being the most "transparent
   administration in the history of the USofA." Lets check out that record now:
   * Fast & Furious
   * IRS Scandal. The FBI just reported, "Nothing to see here folks" yet they never interviewed
      one group who made a complaint
   * Benghazi - The TOP SECRET hearing transcripts were just released and and the Generals did
      testify that they told the President the facility in Benghazi was under attack by terrorists.
      So why the cover-up with the video story?
   * Promised Americans that their health insurance would go down and "If you like your
      insurance you can keep your insurance...PERIOD." 

So American citizens are waking up. Back in 1980 they were called the "silent majority." Well the silent majority is voting into local & state along with Federal Legislatures people that are like them To fight the continued advance of thisFascist regime. President Obama is not a dictator he is an American citizen who was put into office to execute the laws enacted in Congress NOT to execute his laws (Executive Order) or to ignore the laws passed by this and past Congresses.

Again great and appropriate question Wellie. That is my 2¢ worth. 

[CrystalHunter1989]

Wellie asked:
I think a very important question to ask about this is why is it so impossible to get anything through Congress to the point where Executive Orders (NOT a new thing with Obama, bee tee dubs) are the only way to get things done in a timely fashion.

So American citizens are waking up. Back in 1980 they were called the "silent majority."

Actually, it was Nixon who first used this phrase when he ran in 1968.

Trouble is, I don't think you can point to one. We've continued to de-homogonize.

[JohnyMac]

Personally, the biggest let-down of President Obama's legacy is his inability to unite the country post polarizing presidency's of Clinton & Bush.

Just think of the "bully pulpit" he had (Has) to unite black & white. To help the poor class move into the middle class. To truly be a President of the people.

Instead what I have seen is that his team tries to put a wedge between the races and pit poor against black.

I ask this question in support of my opinion: Was race relations better in 2008 or today - 2014? Is there more rhetoric from the Executive branch on fairness, or the rich paying their fair share in Bush's 2008 white house or today? Just food for thought. 

 

[crudos]

JM, don't you think it's up to the cooperation and compromise among Congress to also build and pass solid ideas for the President to sign into law? The executive can't do it all or really any of it unless Congress backs him, as by design of the founding fathers. As for any 'scandals' (real or imagined), well, give me a President who emerged untarnished after two-terms, then we can talk about legacy.

[JohnyMac]

Crudos wrote:
As for any 'scandals' (real or imagined), well, give me a President who emerged untarnished after two-terms, then we can talk about legacy.

Obama-We're the Most Transparent and Ethical Administration in U.S. History!

Please do not compare President Obama to Bush or Clinton as he promised us he would raise the office above other administrations. I rest my case on this issue.

Crudos Wrote:
JM, don't you think it's up to the cooperation and compromise among Congress to also build and pass solid ideas for the President to sign into law?

Please note that Zero Republicans votes for the bill in the House of Representatives and Zero Republicans voted for the bill in the Senate. This was a purely lopsided bill that was not bipartisan in any way. This bill IMO was rammed down the throats of the citizens of this country. There was no cooperation nor compromise by the Democrats. "We want it our way and we will get it our way." Hence the zero vote in either houses of congress by the Republicans.

Here is the definition of compromise.
 

[Well-Prepared Witch]

JM, don't you think it's up to the cooperation and compromise among Congress to also build and pass solid ideas for the President to sign into law? The executive can't do it all or really any of it unless Congress backs him, as by design of the founding fathers.

Amen! All this "we won't cooperate unless we get our way, and only our way" makes me sick to my stomach. If we refuse to compromise and work together, to help raise each other up, we're going to create our own downfall.

[crudos]

You mean the way Congress compromised under Bush on any number of items, when it was GOP full-boat majority? We got a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, record deficits, spending like drunken sailors, Dick Cheney. Tell me how that is somehow better than the current Commander-In-Thief?

[crudos]

This was a purely lopsided bill that was not bipartisan in any way. This bill IMO was rammed down the throats of the citizens of this country. There was no cooperation nor compromise by the Democrats. "We want it our way and we will get it our way." Hence the zero vote in either houses of congress by the Republicans.

Here is the definition of compromise.

No attempt to compromise? You might want to checkout the original Affordable Health Care Act and compare it to what was passed and signed into law. Just saying.

[CrystalHunter1989]

You mean the way Congress compromised under Bush on any number of items, when it was GOP full-boat majority? We got a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, record deficits, spending like drunken sailors, Dick Cheney. Tell me how that is somehow better than the current Commander-In-Thief?

"Dick Cheney."

*Boos and hissing*

"...and that's all I have to say about that." - Lewis Black

[JohnyMac]

  Wellie

Amen! All this "we won't cooperate unless we get our way, and only our way" makes me sick to my stomach. If we refuse to compromise and work together, to help raise each other up, we're going to create our own downfall.

Crudos wrote:
You mean the way Congress compromised under Bush on any number of items, when it was GOP full-boat majority? We got a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, record deficits, spending like drunken sailors, Dick Cheney. Tell me how that is somehow better than the current Commander-In-Thief?

Please, I do not want to ratchet up the rhetoric on your writing's Crudos - Here are some facts:
> 107th Congress (2001- 2003)was 49/51 Republican/Democrat in the Senate and 220/210
   Republican/Democrat in the house
   * On a 98 ayes to 0 nays in the Senate and 420 ayes and 1 nay vote Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists was passed
    * On a 77 ayes to 23 nays in the Senate and 297 ayes and 133 nays votes the Authorization for Use        of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed
> 108th Congress (2003- 2005) again was 49/51 Republican/Democrat in the Senate and 222/209
   Republican/Democrat in the house
> 109th Congress (2005 - 2007) was 45/55 Republican/Democrat in the Senate and 225/207
   Republican/Democrat in the house
> 110th Congress (2007 - 2009) was 49/49 Republican/Demarcate with two Independents that held
   caucus with the Democrats in the Senate and 178/256 Republican/Democrat in the house

Two things:
1) I do not see the "full boat" in which you are referring too during the Bush years Crudos, but I do
    see quite the "full boat" in the year the Affordable Car Act was passed during the 110th Congress.
2) Please do not throw up the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as that is a "straw man argument." During
    both votes a super majority (Republican & Democrat Congressmen) voted for both conflicts.

What original Affordable Health Car Act Crudos? I did a search and can't find an original vs. the finalized.

In reality it doesn't matter what President Bush or the Respective 107th - 109th Congress did or didn't do. Our President, President Obama said...

Obama-We're the Most Transparent and Ethical Administration in U.S. History!

[crudos]

No rhetoric here JM. What the House crafted and passed, what the Senate passed are shells of what was originally wanted by the Administration. There was tons of compromise on this, yet still no Republicans voted for it, despite having things they wanted in, things they wanted out. Do the research and tell me I'm wrong, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act

Also, you do realize the Iraq War was manufactured, right? Here's another two words for you, Tora Bora, to contemplate on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Ah, the heady old days of Bush/Cheney running our nation into the ground without nary a peep from the GOP.

[JohnyMac]

Thanks Crudos