Saturday, February 13, 2010

Obama Planning to Use Executive Orders- to bypass Congress?

From the "With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."

Yes, the Constitution does give the President the power of the Executive Order. Further the Constitution does allow for recess appointments. However...

The purpose of the Executive Order was partly to allow the President to take action in an era when the carriage ride to Washington may take weeks and mail was carried by horse. During that era, without the ability of the President to make recess appointments, and Executive Orders, the Government would not function (there is something to be said for the Government being unable to do anything--like raise taxes-- but I digress).

However, Obama has already expressed that he will use Executive Order power to DEFY CONGRESS and to DEFY the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I site as example, when, during the State of the Union, Obama stated he would sign an Executive Order to override a vote of the Senate.

Executive Order is NOT intended for the President to make law what has been voted down by the Congress. The CONGRESS is empowered to make laws- NOT THE PRESIDENT. His use of the Executive Order, depending on what those orders are, could be called dictatorial.

Obama's State of the Union showed him as a potential dictator. "[T]he Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward." Although he may think he is the ultimate power in this country, he is not.

His argument of "obstruction" by Republicans is also a load of crap- He had a super majority until last month and even now he has every vote he needs to pass anything he wants (with the exception of those few issues that require 2/3's majority) within his own party.

Obama had best be careful in how he uses the Executive Order--

"[G]overnments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it," -The Declaration of Independence

William at The Pirates Cove and Stop the ACLU is also discussing this issue. His article is a good read.


  1. Those of us who have watched Obama closely since he campaigned, "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," knew this was coming. We blogged about it as liberals accused us of fearmongering. America!!!! Wake up!!! Stop this man before the liberal Democrats vote him in as permanent-term president!! This is how it begins!! Read history! Pay attention!!

  2. I wonder, you acknowledge that certain laws were enacted in a different time (e.g. when people travelled by horse-drawn carriage), do you also agree that the right to bear arms is also outdated and irrelevant today?

  3. The right to keep and bear arms-- is a right not a law... it applies to the people, as the Court decided in Heller and I am sure will further explain when it decides again in McDonald. Further, the right of self defense is an inherent right-- that is protected by the 9th amendment (unenumerated rights).

    Self defense is certainly not outdated-- and since concealed carry lowers crime - as does open carry- they are not outdated. (Totalitarianism and Dictatorships also seem to be alive and well in the world- we could go down that path as well).

    The Executive Orders Power is not outdated law. It is part of the power granted the Executive by the Constitution... My point was that they are possibly being abused by this President by clearly defying the will of the Congress.

  4. Matt, clearly you are well versed in this subject, but I think you are purposefully ignoring why the right to bear arms was included. The right was to ensure that the U.S., as a fledgling nation, would have a militia to stand up to outside threats. The framers of the constitution would never have conceived of the situation in the U.S. as it is today - I can't imaging they would have approved of the gun-related violence that the constitution has "stimulated". I would also note that the right to bear arms is quite different and unrelated to the right to self defense. Obviously we are on different sides of the same coin and I should point out that I own many firearms - I just think that the right to bear arms has resulted on unresponsible gun ownership and usage.

  5. As you are also well versed in the subject, you will also remember that the Framers had just fought a war against their own government. That government having been Tyranical. The Framers were the ones that wrote that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." I am NOT advocating violence here. I am pointing out one of the reasons the second amendment was written.

    Gun violence is horrid. Having previously worked in Emergency Departments and as an EMT I have seen the violence first hand. However, the problem is not the lawful ownership of firearms- rather the unlawfull ownership or possesion of firearms- Amy Bishop after all was NOT a lawfull gun owner- she borrowed the gun she used from someone else.


All comments are welcome- However, Anonymous Comments might be subject to deletion.