Obama's power grab flouts Constitution
snipe
2012/08/06 21:09:33
Democrats and Republicans alike should be distressed by President Barack Obama's disregard for constitutional limits on his authority. The president's flouting of the separation of powers risks turning this country into something other than a representative democracy. Congress should move in a bipartisan rebuke of Obama's overreach before he neuters that institution.
In a blatant challenge to the legislative branch, Obama by executive order tossed out the Clinton-era welfare reform that required able-bodied aid recipients to work, saying the federal government will no longer enforce the law.
This follows the president's unilateral rewrite of immigration law, using an executive order to implement elements of the DREAM Act, which Congress refused to adopt. He also has thumbed his nose at the No Child Left Behind Act, and has put in place cap-and-trade carbon rules that were specifically rejected by Congress.
He can't do these things, by any reading of the Constitution. And yet he is. Because Congress, whose powers he is usurping, hasn't risen to stop him.
The Constitution separates powers between the legislative, administrative and judicial branches to more effectively limit government authority, and thus protect individual liberty.
Obama apparently does not recognize those constitutional limits on his power.
He is doing these things under the rallying cry of "We Can't Wait," contending that the gridlock in Congress caused by Republican gamesmanship is impeding his agenda.
But this is how the founders intended government to work. The responsibility is on the president to forge a working relationship with Congress. Obama's inability to do that does not give him the power to act unilaterally, even if it were true that the opposition wants to see him fail.
The imperial presidency Obama is building should worry Democrats as much as it does Republicans. This has never been an "end justifies the means" nation. Even if you agree with the outcomes the president is seeking, his running roughshod over the rule of law should be objectionable, because the powers he is claiming will not be forfeited by the next Republican president.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120806/OPINION01/2080603...
Top Opinion
-
mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/08/06 21:40:24
this has been my perception !
He does these things because he owns the RINOS and he knows it. They will never bite the hand that feeds them. Never.
Also, EOs typically involve changes to social policy, or pieces of larger legislative works that have little to no fiscal impact on the annual federal budget. If there are $$'s at stake to spend or gain as a result of a new executive order, Congress still must convene and authorize any new spending under such a law.
For instance, Bush the Younger scaled back enforcement of several aspects of environmental enforcement.
A good example of this is Don't Ask Don't Tell. When Obama first got elected, he got pressure from a lot of pro-gay groups to simply end DADT by executive order, which he could have done very easily. But had it done it that way, instead of going through Congress, then it could have very easily been overturned with the next Presidency. He wanted the repeal of DADT to be permanent, so he had to get it's repeal done through Congress.
"The Constitution doesn't allow Obama to do that. Congress has the responsibility to tell him so."
Congress should tell him so by cutting off funding for Obama's unconstitutional activities.
Grace to you, Glory to God!