Emperor Obama And The Lawless Society

[Truth2Know]

Unfortunately, President Obama can never be held accountable for violating the Constitution because he is operating at the highest level of which he is capable.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Executive Orders and theft by taxation and regulation.....apply the worst aspects of human nature.....

...all to accrue political power.


The totalitarians....Liberals/Progressives/Democrats....have latched on to the dark side of human nature....and it has put them in the ascendancy:




Material 'equality' without the commensurate hard work....that's what the Liberal totalists promise 'em.


5. Everyone, it seems, wants to believe that he is just as good as the next guy, and in a democracy, the government adds its authority by the ‘leveling’ process.

“ But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent.

The contradiction between social reality and the combined wishes of his heart and the law, therefore incites and nourishes a devouring passion in everyone: the passion for equality. It will never cease until social reality is made to conform with his and the law’s wishes.”
Pierre Manent, “An Intellectual History of Liberalism,” p. 107-8.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did I mention that Obama is king of lawlessness....?



6. "Obama’s executive amnesty is the most public and egregious example of immigration lawlessness to date."
Practical Thoughts on Immigration Imprimis




Not everyone is willing to simply roll over and allow lawlessness to be the operating system in America.

a. "Federal judge Andrew Hanan of the Brownsville, Texas federal court issued a temporary order blocking implementation, scheduled to start Wednesday, of President Obama’s amnesty program. Acting on a lawsuit brought by Texas Governor...

.... the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."

"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.
Blog Federal judge halts Obama amnesty program


How unusual..... Andrew Hanan, a judge who actually loves America.


How very different from the would-be dictator and his acolytes who wish to 'fundamentally change America.'

 

[Camp]

Part of American history and culture is to constantly and consistently make fundamental changes. We adapt, adjust and progress as our intellectual and technological abilities advance. Rarely does a decade or two go by that the United States does not make huge fundamental changes. It is what maintains our strength in the world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Part of American history and culture is to constantly and consistently make fundamental changes. We adapt, adjust and progress as our intellectual and technological abilities advance. Rarely does a decade or two go by that the United States does not make huge fundamental changes. It is what maintains our strength in the world.

"....huge fundamental changes."


Let's specify what you mean by that post.

Based on your history, it would seem that you are fixated on the deleterious effects of the administration of Joseph Stalin's long-time associate, Franklin Roosevelt, under whose auspices, the Constitution and the rule of law was set aside.

It takes a certain kind of sickness to find that sort of 'fundamental change' beneficial.
Raise your paw.

 

[bendog]

I love it when PC throws in the phrase "There is no way to deny the above."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I love it when PC throws in the phrase "There is no way to deny the above."

Let's consider the rest of your post.....

....hmmmm.....

You couldn't deny anything, huh?



Wipe that drool off your chin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Now, Judge Hanan, loyal to America and the law, actually moderated his criticism of the tyrant. Rather than use the constitutional infractions by Obama, based on the separation of powers, he merely pointed out the overreach by DHS.



" The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as “legal presence.”

But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow legal status. The amnesty program represented a “complete abdication” of DHS’s responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hanen declared. Indeed, DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.

Pursuant to traditional canons of judicial interpretation, Judge Hanen ruled against the Obama administration on the narrowest possible grounds in order to avoid reaching the constitutional question.

He based his decision on the law governing agency rulemaking, rather than on separation of powers grounds. But his rebuke was just as scathing."
imprimis, Op. Cit.




Nor was this the first law-writing by Obama....He decided to re-write his own ObamaCare Law, altering the phrase “established by the State."

" The case, known as King v. Burwell, centers on the meaning of a phrase in the Obamacare statue. The phrase is “established by the State".....the best way to handle the statutory question is to send the law back to the branch of the government that actually wrote it in the first place and see if it’s willing to do a rewrite."
Scotus Get Us Re-write - The New York Sun



Did I mention that Obama represents 'lawlessness' personified?

And for Bendoggie......"There is no way to deny the above."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Beyond the lawlessness of Obama.....the plan itself is just plain stupid....you know, like Obama voters.
After all....if one needs to hide from the clear and obvious motive of the plan, i.e., to prepare a wave of Democrat voters of the future, what is the value to America?

Right....none.


8. " The erosion of the rule of law is bad enough. But the social consequences of mass illegal immigration are equally troubling. We are importing poverty and educational failure.... [example] state of California, which is a generation ahead of the rest of the country in experiencing the effects of unchecked low-skilled immigration.



Nearly 50 percent of all California births are now Hispanic, and the state’s Hispanic population is now almost equal to the white population. The consequences of this demographic shift have been profound. In the 1950s and ’60s, California led in educational achievement. Today, with a majority Hispanic K-12 population and the largest concentration of English language learners in the country, California is at the bottom of the educational heap. Over a third of California eighth graders lack even the most rudimentary math skills; 28 percent are equally deficient in reading. The mathematics performance gap between Hispanic and white eighth-graders has not budged since 1990; the reading gap has narrowed only slightly since 1998.

California is at the epicenter of the disturbing phenomenon of “long-term English learners.” You would think that an English learner would be someone who grew up in a foreign country speaking a foreign language, and who came to the U.S. only later in life. In fact, the vast majority of English learners are born here, but their cognitive and language skills are so low that they are deemed non-native English speakers. Nationally, 30 percent of all English learner students are third-generation Americans.



Hispanics are the biggest users of government health care and the biggest supporters of Obamacare. They favor big government and the higher taxes necessary to pay for it.

The claim that low-skilled immigration is an economic boon to the country as a whole is false. It fails to take into account the government services consumed by low-skilled immigrants and their children, such as schools, hospitals, and prisons."
imprimis, Op.Cit.



And....for those Obama-supporter dunces: "There is no way to deny the above."

 

[Camp]

Part of American history and culture is to constantly and consistently make fundamental changes. We adapt, adjust and progress as our intellectual and technological abilities advance. Rarely does a decade or two go by that the United States does not make huge fundamental changes. It is what maintains our strength in the world.

"....huge fundamental changes."


Let's specify what you mean by that post.

Based on your history, it would seem that you are fixated on the deleterious effects of the administration of Joseph Stalin's long-time associate, Franklin Roosevelt, under whose auspices, the Constitution and the rule of law was set aside.

It takes a certain kind of sickness to find that sort of 'fundamental change' beneficial.
Raise your paw.

Good lord you are an ignorant person. You are the one with the fixation on FDR, not me. I simply defend some of his policies that I believe have been helpful and beneficial to America. You are the one who seems addicted to him. I was speaking of historical events that changed America throughout our history from long before FDR and periods long after FDR. You will probably never comprehend the impact of being an immigrant nation and blending cultures has been to building the unique American culture that by definitions brings about drastic and fundamental changes on a regular basis. Hence, you will never understand the true nature of America's strength. I don't believe FDR had anything to do with the waves of immigration that had profound impacts and caused fundamental changes. Nor did he have much to do with the ending of slavery, or even the introduction of integration into the military and schools. He had little to do with the discovery of gold in California, the Louisiana Purchase, the policies of Teddy Roosevelt that transformed business and boosted the use of Executive actions as a common form of Executive law making. Nor did he have anything to do with the inventions and developments of technology that drastically transformed our nation and made fundamental changes in the way we live. You know, things like electricity, mass production of steel, railroads, the automobile, the telegraph, telephone and pony express. You would be amazed at what lies outside that little shoe box you live in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Part of American history and culture is to constantly and consistently make fundamental changes. We adapt, adjust and progress as our intellectual and technological abilities advance. Rarely does a decade or two go by that the United States does not make huge fundamental changes. It is what maintains our strength in the world.

"....huge fundamental changes."


Let's specify what you mean by that post.

Based on your history, it would seem that you are fixated on the deleterious effects of the administration of Joseph Stalin's long-time associate, Franklin Roosevelt, under whose auspices, the Constitution and the rule of law was set aside.

It takes a certain kind of sickness to find that sort of 'fundamental change' beneficial.
Raise your paw.

Good lord you are an ignorant person. You are the one with the fixation on FDR, not me. I simply defend some of his policies that I believe have been helpful and beneficial to America. You are the one who seems addicted to him. I was speaking of historical events that changed America throughout our history from long before FDR and periods long after FDR. You will probably never comprehend the impact of being an immigrant nation and blending cultures has been to building the unique American culture that by definitions brings about drastic and fundamental changes on a regular basis. Hence, you will never understand the true nature of America's strength. I don't believe FDR had anything to do with the waves of immigration that had profound impacts and caused fundamental changes. Nor did he have much to do with the ending of slavery, or even the introduction of integration into the military and schools. He had little to do with the discovery of gold in California, the Louisiana Purchase, the policies of Teddy Roosevelt that transformed business and boosted the use of Executive actions as a common form of Executive law making. Nor did he have anything to do with the inventions and developments of technology that drastically transformed our nation and made fundamental changes in the way we live. You know, things like electricity, mass production of steel, railroads, the automobile, the telegraph, telephone and pony express. You would be amazed at what lies outside that little shoe box you live in.

You can run, but you can't hide.

It was Stalin-associate, Franklin Roosevelt who did what you stated....fundamentally changed America.

The change was the disrespect and disregard for the Constitution.

There are numerous examples....

Here's one.


1. Some believe that there are three co-equal branches of government, yet, under FDR, that was only intermittently true. The Supreme Court, for example, upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court caseHome Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..” Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise.
American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp

In 1937, the court buckled and ceased to act as the guardian of economic liberty, and as a limit on the extension of federal government power. It now upheld many New Deal measures.
The reason? Franklin Roosevelt 'fundamentally changed' America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under Obama and his coterie, we are a lawless society.
The fools who voted for, and support same, fail to realize that, sooner or later, they will be the victims of lawlessness.



9. "..... we must reassert the primacy of the rule of law.

At the very least, that means rehabilitating deportation and ceasing to normalize illegal immigration with our huge array of sanctuary policies.

Liberals appear indifferent to the erosion of law, and even too many conservatives are willing to excuse immigration law-breaking in order to placate what they imagine to be a conservative voting bloc in waiting. But let us hope the rule of law is not lost."
imprimis, Op. Cit.



And the Supreme Court making the correct decision on King v. Burwell would be an auspicious beginning.

 

[natstew]

"Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator."

No, if it stands, it will be because you are wrong.

No asshole, you are wrong, here's more of Obama's unconstitutional tyranny:

BREAKING Obama Announces He ll Shred the Constitution to Help Muslim Country JEWSNEWS