Separation Of Powers Abused By White House

[From article]
One virtue possessed by all bad presidents, whether they’re evil, venal, lazy, or incompetent, is that they always reveal the weakness of the political system at the time of their tenure. In this, Obama is no different than any other bozo that has inhabited the White House.
Separation of powers is the one element that distinguishes the United States from previous democratic systems. (And before people hurt themselves in their rush to point out that “the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy” -- a “republic” is any governmental system that’s not a monarchy. Nazi Germany and the USSR were “republics.” The U.S. is a republic utilizing a system of representative democracy.)
[. . .]
Montesquieu’s understand of history informed him that concentration of power leads inevitably to despotism -- no matter how solidly a democratic system was founded, eventually an Augustus or a Lorenzo would show up, concentrate all power in his own person and eventually undermine senate or council. From that point on, whatever it might call itself, the state was a simple autocracy. There was never a way back, and the usual sequel was degeneration and collapse.
Montesquieu’s solution was separation of powers:
[. . .]
Though often criticized -- largely by progressives who knew what had to be done and wanted what amounted to a temporary dictatorship to do it -- separation of powers has been a great success. At no point, even during the Civil War, has the United States ever been in danger of the deterioration into autocracy that plagued previous republics. But as the Obama administration has clearly revealed, separation of powers has been crippled for the better part of a century through the metastasis of the executive branch.
[. . .]
The explosion of agencies under the New Deal, each of which was touted as necessary for the salvation of the country and most of which accomplished absolutely nothing, introduced a factor unforeseen by the Founders: concentration of power in the executive through organizational hyperdevelopment. All those agencies are under direct presidential control, and subject to his orders with no effective oversight from the other branches.
[. . .]
To keep a neverending story short, this is how, eighty years later, we’ve attained our current state of a government overburdened with agencies that solve nothing while constantly spinning off sub-organizations.
This has badly skewed the balance of powers toward the executive, something that Obama has been quick to seize on in his effort at permanent transformation of the American system.
No president has more abused the power of the executive. Obama was raised in Indonesia during key formative years, a nation that in the 1960s was run as a strict military autocracy. At the time that Obama was attending school there, the state’s founder Achmed Sukarno had just been overthrown by Gen. Mohammed Suharto. Accompanying this transfer of power had been a nationwide purge that murdered at least 100,000.
[. . .]
In the privacy of his head, Obama is not a president at all -- he’s a pemimpin, the Indonesian term for führer. (This can also be seen in his constant vacations, golf rounds, etc.
[. . .]
One of the major techniques he learned is rule by decree -- to give orders without any effort at gaining consensus. How does he get away with it? In large part because he controls the agencies. Obama has discovered that the bloated hypertrophy of the bureaucracy has effectively put him beyond the reach of our system’s constitutional safeguards.
His decrees range from the idiotic to the grotesque -- his order to the EPA to shut down the coal industry, the repurposing of NASA as a Muslim PR effort, the post-legislative changes to ObamaCare
[. . .]
It’s long been understood that agencies such as the EPA, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy are useless. It’s now clear that they are a threat to the commonwealth.
[. . .]
The Democrats [. . .] create these structures, these methods of short-circuiting the political process, and are shocked -- shocked -- when somebody else takes advantage of them.
[. . .]
The real problem here is that the progressives -- and possibly a much larger segment of the country -- have simply forgotten how the American system is supposed to work. And that may well be the most lethal aspect of all.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/obama_versus_the_separation_of_powers.html

December 7, 2015
Obama Versus the Separation of Powers
By J.R. Dunn

Supreme Court And Power Hungry Lawyers Usurp Power

[From article]
In a supermarket checkout line, a copy of Time magazine bore the headline "The Supreme Court: Decisions That Changed America."
That headline tells us that the U.S. is no longer a representative republic.
As Lincoln pointed out, under the Constitution, the American government is "of the people, for the people, and by the people." That's why all laws are supposed to come from the people's elected representatives. If laws don't come from the Congress, the government is no longer of the people, but over the people.
If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives. If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.
[. . .]



What Time is celebrating is precisely the unconstitutional experiment in judicial tyranny that Americans have been living under for more than 60 years.
The people's representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that "changed America" on these issues.
Similarly, the legalization of pornography – and the resulting exploitation of people as objects to be used rather than as people to be loved – and the transformation of the "justice" system from one that seeks to punish the guilty and free the innocent into one that cares only if minute procedural rules are followed, even if that means the guilty are freed to prey on the innocent, were not accomplished through the will of the people. They were accomplished by rich, mostly white, mostly male Supreme Court judges.
[. . .]
But if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that in time, forces not to the liking of modern liberals will hold the reins of the Supreme Court. Hence, transferring power to the judiciary and away from the people will eventually hurt all Americans, no matter their political persuasion.
Liberals may not care, however, since they know that conservative judges will not abuse power the way liberal judges do, just as they don't care that the Obama presidency is far more imperial than Nixon's was. Sadly, far too many modern liberals are quite comfortable with justifying the means by the ends.
[. . .]
Ask them if they really want to live in a semi-monarchy where lawyers have the final say in defining what America is.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/time_magazine_declares_america_no_longer_a_republic.html

December 8, 2015
Time Magazine Declares: America No Longer a Republic
By Tom Trinko

How Republicans Could Reduce White House Lawlessness

How Constitution Established Government


[From article]
The power of the legislative . . . [is] only to make laws, and not to make legislators." The CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] is empowered to "declare," with no legislative guidance or institutional inhibitions, that certain business practices are "abusive." It also embodies progressivism's authoritarianism by being, unlike any entity Congress has created since 1789, untethered from all oversight mechanisms: Its funding, "determined by the director," comes from the Federal Reserve.
[. . .]


How Lawlessness Current Occupant Of White House Sees It 

Under this constitutional travesty, an executive-branch agency makes laws unless the legislative branch enacts alternative means of achieving the executive agency's aim. The Affordable Care Act stipulates that no measure for the abolition of the board can be introduced before 2017 or after Feb. 1, 2017, and must be enacted by Aug. 15 of that year. So, one Congress presumed to bind all subsequent Congresses in order to achieve progressivism's consistent aim — abolishing limited government by emancipating presidents from restraint by the separation of powers. This impertinence by the 111th Congress requires a firm rebuke by the 114th.
[. . .]
Mandate completion of the nuclear waste repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The signature achievement of Harry Reid's waning career has been blocking this project, on which approximately $15 billion has been spent. So, rather than nuclear waste being safely stored in the mountain's 40 miles of tunnels 1,000 feet underground atop 1,000 feet of rock, more than 160 million Americans live within 75 miles of one or more of the 121 locations where 70,000 tons of waste are stored.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will110614.php3

The first steps Republicans should take
By George Will
Published Nov. 6, 2014

Lawless Washington DC Bureaucracies

Sir William Blackstone

[From article]
Everything you really need to know about the Constitution (and that’s barely an exaggeration) -- why it is structured the way it is, what led to it, its purposes -- is found in pages 2 – 12 of the March 9 concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in the Dept of Transportation v Assn of American Railroads case. Although it received little media attention, Justice Thomas has provided us a masterpiece of constitutional thinking, explaining why “administrative law” -- the practice of delegating to bureaucrats the making and enforcement of rules with the force of law – is so profoundly unconstitutional.
[. . .]
The Constitution corrected several flaws of the English system including limiting the authority of the legislative branch by placing the Constitution – this written law of the land – over all three branches of government.
[. . .]
Professor Philip Hamburger and his brilliant book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Justice Thomas shows America is back to the problems that the Constitution was written to prohibit by writing a mini-treatise on the Constitution itself.
[. . .]
William Blackstone…. defined a tyrannical government as one in which “the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men,” for “wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty.”
[. . .]
vintage Justice Thomas -- plainly written, and just plain brilliant.
We have overseen and sanctioned the growth of an administrative system that concentrates the power to make laws and the power to enforce them in the hands of a vast and unaccountable administrative apparatus that finds no comfortable home in our constitutional structure. The end result may be trains that run on time (although I doubt it), but the cost is to our Constitution and the individual liberty it protects.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html

March 20, 2015
A little-noted masterpiece of constitutional scholarship by Justice Thomas
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

One Man's Transformation of A Nation

Courts Rebuke White House Abuses of Power

[From article]
There are much bigger issues here than the one upon which King and the other two cases that have received judgments were fought. One of these other issues is the growing lawlessness of the executive branch -- the president seems to think he’s a law unto himself. On July 7, Red State reported that the Court had delivered twenty unanimous rebukes against the Obama administration for actions smacking of rank overreach. The IRS regulation in question is another case of an imperial president ignoring duly enacted laws and inventing his own out of whole cloth. And now the president threatens to continue down this road with an executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens.
[. . .]
Another issue that may sound a bit precious to those who aren’t offended by an imperial presidency is the integrity of The Law. Not only is ObamaCare bad policy and bad economics and bad for our health, it is bad law. The government’s lawyers are even reduced to defending ObamaCare by citing its ambiguity. If our laws are unclear on central points, like financing, then Congress should clarify them, not the Court, and certainly not the executive.
The incoherence of ObamaCare was made worse by the Court itself when it allowed the law to stand in NFIB v. Sebelius. It was a fine victory for fans of limited government when the Court ruled that Congress could not command individuals to purchase health insurance. But what we’re left with is a Congress that can tax us for not doing what it has no power to command us to do.
[. . .]
The text of ObamaCare shows 91 instances of “State shall,” and 24 additional instances if pluralized. One wonders what the crafters of the bill were thinking when they included that language: Congress cannot make demands of the States to effectuate a federal program. So, all those instances of “State shall” are dead code. If the feds tried to bring the States to heel by suing them for not complying with “State shall,” it would be a fool’s errand. “Dual sovereignty,” both federal and state, still applies in America.
[. . .]
Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon applauded the Court and then wrote:
Since January, the Obama administration has been spending billions of unauthorized federal dollars, and subjecting nearly 60 million Americans to unauthorized taxes, all to hide the full cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. The administration’s actions have not only violated the law and caused massive economic disruption, they have also subverted the democratic process.
[. . .]
The Court rightly found that Congress has no authority under the Commerce Clause to command individuals to engage in commerce by forcing them to buy health insurance. Consequently, all those references in ObamaCare to “interstate commerce,” the original justification for the mandate, are dead code.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/obamacare_if_the_wine_is_sour_throw_it_out.html

November 17, 2014
ObamaCare: 'If the Wine Is Sour, Throw It Out'
By Jon N. Hall

Executive Order Abuses Not Unknown

[From article]

Understanding why pending executive action by President Obama on immigration, residency, and citizenship are objectionable, imprudent, and unconstitutional – and what can be done legally and politically about them, if he proceeds – requires a snapshot of history and law.  Ten arguments stand between the president and such bold, unilateral actions.
First, executive directives of all kinds – and some have been creative – started with George Washington.  They are theoretically justified by the indeterminate “executive powers” vested in each commander in chief by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  Their legal justification begins and ends there, and is necessarily nested in a larger constitutional text and intent, which has always favored avoiding unilateral executive actions unless absolutely necessary (as for national security).  Thus, unless ceremonial or peripheral, the justification for directing agencies one way or another has been to clarify a law – never to create one.
[. . .]
Since the over-assertion of executive powers by Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have ruled unconstitutional any Executive Order (EO) that seeks to usurp or effectively legislate where Congress has spoken or reserves the right to speak.
Thus, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned five of FDR’s EOs (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284 and 6855) for overreaching.  Similarly, the Court threw out President Truman's EO 10340, in which he attempted to control the country’s steel mills to put down labor strife.  The Court was clear: the EO sought to make law, not clarify it.  Again, an appellate court confidently nixed President Clinton’s EO 12954, which sought to prevent federal contracting with those who hire strike breakers.
[. . .]
The first three arguments against the Obama EO are simple, and should be swiftly confronted in court if he issues broad executive action bestowing new rights on those otherwise not entitled to them under existing law or patently misinterpreting existing law to serve a political end, such as altering the process of citizenship.  In sum, if he (one) obviously exceeds all formerly accepted constitutional authority, (two) seeks to legislate where the law is already clear or is clearly the province of Congress, or (three) intentionally disregards the law, the EO should be legally discarded, or viewed as “void ab initio” – that is, of no credibility or force.
[. . .]
We are a nation and people of laws, not of whimsy or capricious acts by self-adulating leaders, not subject to any dictator or the assumption of power by this or that president.  These lines are well-drawn.  The U.S. Supreme Court long ago made the point.  We are not ruled by executive order, never have been, legally and prudentially cannot be, and should not now be.  For any president to believe that he has the power to step upon all these legal and prudential considerations, because he has a pen and a phone, indifference to rule of law, or illusions of unilateral authority is simply misguided.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/ten_arguments_against_obamas_executive_action.html

November 17, 2014
Ten Arguments against Obama's Executive Action
By Robert Charles

White House Acts Like Dictatorship

[From article]
When a tyrant asserts the right to rule by decree in a state that has formerly been subject to the rule of law, he is commonly described as carrying out a coup d’etat.

That is just what the Obama administration has done, and reportedly will continue to do. When Obama changed the Affordable Care Act by decree–to name just one example, substituting “2014″ for “2013″ in a critical provision of the statute–he acted as a tyrant. In his refusal to enforce the immigration laws, contrary to the Constitution which requires him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” he has acted like a tinpot dictator, asserting the right to change or ignore the law by fiat. If he now directly nullifies Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act by legalizing, and issuing work permits to, five or six million illegal immigrants, thereby repealing federal law by decree, how else can we describe his action but as a coup?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/is-barack-obama-plotting-a-coup.php

POSTED ON AUGUST 3, 2014

BY JOHN HINDERAKER
IS BARACK OBAMA PLOTTING A COUP?

Palin Again Calls For Obama Impeachment

[From article]
Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate, blasted President Barack Obama on Saturday and demanded his removal from office.
The tea party speaking-circuit darling said at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, Colorado that talk of impeachment 'has got him nervous.'
Condemning the White House's response to a swarm of illegal immigrants cascading across the U.S.-Mexico border, she accused Obama of 'not defending [America's] borders and called it a 'dereliction of duty, violating the oath of office.'
'If that's not impeachable, then nothing is,' she said to generous applause. 'And if he's not impeachable, no one is.'
[. . .]



In addition to immigration – 'amnesty' in conservative parlance – she rattled off a list of scandals including the mistreatment of veterans by VA health centers; a cover-up about the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya; Justice Department spying on journalists, the IRS's alleged pattern of targeting conservative nonprofits for undue scrutiny; and the president's unilateral changes to his medical insurance overhaul law.
Obama, she said, is 'spinning from one scandal to another scandal. He has vertigo.'
[. . .]
Palin showed her comfort with hyperbole, comparing his administration to an organized crime syndicate whose capo is insulated from responsibility by staying at arm's length from murder and mayhem.
Obama, she said, can't 'feign ignorance of all of this, any more than a mob boss can claim innocence because, well, "he didn't personally do the hit." The buck stops with the guy at the top.'
Saying Obama has fashioned himself more as 'a ruler, not a president,' she brought some to their feet by declaring that American colonists 'had a revolution in 1776 because we don't do kings.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698614/If-hes-not-impeachable-no-one-Sarah-Palin-pounds-Obama-immigration-policy-compares-mob-boss-wants-play-God.html

'If he's not impeachable, no one is': Sarah Palin pounds Obama on immigration policy and compares him to a 'mob boss' who 'wants to play God'
Former VP candidate blasts the president for 'dereliction of duty' in 'amnesty' plan
'There's only one remedy for a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors, and it's impeachment'
'Gang-bangers and terrorists' are mixed in with children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, she said; 'We're offering to take care of them'
'We had a revolution in 1776 because we don't do kings,' she shouted, saying Obama has made himself 'a ruler, not a president'
Palin spoke to the Western Conservative Summit in Denver
By DAVID MARTOSKO, U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR, IN DENVER
Daily Mail (UK)
PUBLISHED: 17:46 EST, 19 July 2014 | UPDATED: 17:46 EST, 19 July 2014

U.S. House Speaker Sues President For Abusing of Power

[From article]
“This is about defending the institution in which we serve,” he said. “What we’ve seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch.”

http://nypost.com/2014/06/25/boehner-to-sue-obama-for-abusing-executive-power/

Boehner to sue Obama for abusing executive power
By Associated Press
New York Post
June 25, 2014 | 2:40pm

Obama's Efforts To Thwart the Constitution

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/obamas_second_term_transformation_plans.html

May 8, 2012
Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans
By Steve McCann
American Thinker

Obama's Constitutional Crisis


http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/04/a-constitutional-national-security-crisis-of-obamas-own-creation/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

A Constitutional National Security Crisis of Obama’s Own Creation
Conn Carroll
January 4th, 2010 at 12.01pm
The Foundry
Heritage Foundation
in Protect America.