Obama: Rule of Law, Due Process, Constitutional Fidelity, and Separation of Powers ‘Sets Our Country Back’
Posted: June 23, 2016 Filed under: Breaking News, Crime & Corruption, Law & Justice, Politics, White House | Tags: Amnesty, Barack Obama, DREAM Act, Executive Branch, Executive Orders, Illegal Immigrants, Immigration, Immigration law, Migrants, SCOTUS, Separation of powers, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional 1 Comment
President Obama said Thursday that the Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision that will block his 2014 executive actions on immigration “sets our country back,” and is “heartbreaking” for the millions of illegal immigrants still in the country.
“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system, and to allow people to come out of the shadows,” he said at the White House.
[Read the full story here, at Washington Examiner]
The 4-4 tie left in place a lower court ruling that found against Obama’s actions. But Obama cast the ruling as one that showed the Supreme Court was “unable to reach a decision,” and argued that it’s more evidence that the Senate needs to consider his nominee for the high court, Merrick Garland, so that the court cannot deadlock again.
“This is part of the consequence of the Republican failure so far to give a hearing to Mr. Merrick Garland,” Obama said.
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
Kimberley A. Strassel: No Political Guardrails
Posted: December 11, 2015 Filed under: Crime & Corruption, Global, History, Politics, Think Tank, White House | Tags: Authoritarian, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Divisive, Donald Trump, Ethics, Executive Branch, Fascist, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Kimberley A. Strassel, National security, Populist, President of the United States Leave a comment
President Obama broke all the boundaries—and now Clinton and Trump are following suit.
Kimberley A. Strassel writes: Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote a blockbuster Journal editorial titled “No Guardrails.” Its subject was people “who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them,” as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.
“Can such leaders be trusted to administer Washington fairly? Of course not. That guardrail is also gone. Mr. Obama egged on his IRS to target conservatives, used his Justice Department to exact retribution on politically unpopular banks, and had his EPA lead an armed raid of an Alaskan mine.”
We are today witnessing the political version of this phenomenon. That’s how to make sense of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality by the day.
“Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms.”
Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law.
[Read the full text of Kimberley A. Strassel’s article here, at WSJ]
If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway. “As to limits, you set your own,” observed Dan in that editorial. This is our president’s motto.
“Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. ‘If Congress won’t act,’ she promises, ‘then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.’”
Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It 
has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
“Today’s divisive president never misses an opportunity to deride Republicans or the tea party. He is more scornful toward fellow Americans than toward Islamic State. This too sets new norms.”
Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
“Think what you may about George W. Bush’s policies, but he respected the office of the presidency. He believed he represented all Americans. He didn’t demonize.”
[Read the full text here, at WSJ]
Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.
“For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers.”
On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law. Read the rest of this entry »
Executive Branch Pre-American Realism
Posted: November 19, 2014 Filed under: Mediasphere, Politics, Think Tank, White House | Tags: Charles C. W. Cooke, Constitution, Executive Branch, Twitter 1 CommentHello, old friend. pic.twitter.com/d2d38Yx2wj
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) November 19, 2014
The “President” of the United States of America
Posted: March 16, 2014 Filed under: History, Humor, Mediasphere, Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, commander in chief, Congress, Executive Branch, Jonah Goldberg, National Review, President, President of the United States, Quote-Unquote Presidency, United States 2 Comments
The “President” of the United States of America is the “head of state” and “head of government” of the United States. The “president” leads the “executive” branch of the federal government and is the “commander-in-chief” of the United States Armed Forces.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the “executive” power of the United States in the “president” and charges him with the “execution” of “federal law”, alongside the “responsibility” of appointing federal “executive”, diplomatic, regulatory, and judicial officers, and concluding treaties with foreign powers, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The “president” is further empowered to grant federal pardons and reprieves, and to convene and adjourn either or both houses of Congress under extraordinary circumstances. Since the founding of the United States, the power of the “president” and the federal government have grown substantially and each modern “president”, despite possessing no formal legislative powers beyond signing or vetoing congressionally passed bills, is largely “responsible” for dictating the legislative agenda of his party and the foreign and domestic “policy” of the United States. The “president” is frequently described as the “most powerful person in the world”.
Days Until the Presidential Election – National Review Online – The Quote-Unquote Presidency
The Fine Print: Support Building for Congress to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws
Posted: December 12, 2013 Filed under: Law & Justice, Politics, U.S. News | Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Executive Branch, House of Representatives, Lawsuit, United States, United States House of Representatives 3 Comments
Carolyn Kaster / AP
30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action
Daniel Halper reports: Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body “to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.” In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.
“President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President. However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents,” Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.
“This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies.”
pundit from another planet 