A constitutional tipping point

[Quantum Windbag]

What the world needs is more honest left wing progressives speaking out against the excesses of Obama as he single handily takes apart out government.

James Madison fashioned a government of three bodies locked in a synchronous orbit by their countervailing powers. The system of separation of powers was not created to protect the authority of each branch for its own sake. Rather, it is the primary protection of individual rights because it prevents the concentration of power in any one branch. In this sense, Obama is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he has become the very danger that separation of powers was designed to avoid.
A glance at recent unilateral moves by Obama illustrates how executive power has expanded, largely at the cost of legislative power.
The suspension of a portion of the ACA is only the latest such action related to the healthcare law:
• The heart of the healthcare law was a set of minimum requirements for insurance plans. After Obama was embarrassed by the cancellations of millions of nonconforming plans (when he had said no one would lose a plan they had and liked), he created first one temporary exemption and then, last week, another, adding two years to the compliance deadline set by law.
• On his own authority, Obama also chose other dates for compliance with the employer mandate.
• Congress ended a subsidy for members of Congress and their staffs so that they would obtain insurance under the ACA on the same terms as other citizens. Obama ordered that the same subsidies would continue, in defiance of the law.
The president has shown similar unilateral inclinations in other areas:
• He asked Congress to change the law to exempt certain classes of immigrants — particularly children — who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation. Congress refused to pass the so-called Dream Act, but Obama proceeded to order agencies to effectively guarantee the very same changes.
• The administration ordered all U.S. attorneys to stop prosecuting nonviolent drug crime defendants who would be subject to what Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. called draconian mandatory minimum sentences. The new rule effectively negates sentencing provisions set by Congress.
• Obama opposed the No Child Left Behind Act and in effect nullified it through waivers of his own making.
• For years, the Wire Act was interpreted to mean that Internet gambling was prohibited, which some states and businesses opposed. The Obama administration declared the act would now be treated as having the inverse meaning.
Some of these changes are admittedly close questions, and federal agencies are given considerable discretion in crafting regulations.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TIPPING POINT | JONATHAN TURLEY

 

[Duped]

Don't hold your breath - they are cultist!

 

[Little-Acorn]

What the world needs is more honest left wing progressives

If they were honest, they wouldn't be left wing progressives.

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama sucks ballz.

The end.

 

[Gopher]

I've just discovered this forum, I'm very surprised to see how many posts seem to defend Obama and his antics. R S E P T and they make fun Bush. Hypocrits.
There must be a reason for their blind devotion, either they are goofing on us with their absurdity, or they are profoundly under-informed politically or they lack the intellectual ability to comprehend the seriousness of our situation or they are socialist/marxists. Whatever the reason, they are allowing our great nation to be decimated by Obama's radical agenda. Soros is smiling.

 

[Spoonman]

Then again, if we just had fewer liberals we'd be in better shape

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have reached A constitutional tipping point so that we can't go back to the 1950s: thank heavens.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama arrogates power to himself daily, secure in the knowledge that the media will flack for him, as they did for Bill Clinton, and Congress will not impeach and remove "the first black president."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We have reached A constitutional tipping point so that we can't go back to the 1950s: thank heavens.

I bet you loved Turley when he was jumping on Bush for the same thing.

From my link in the OP.

To be sure, it did not begin with the Obama administration. The trend has existed for decades, and President George W. Bush showed equal contempt for the separation of powers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Recently, a bizarre scene unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shocked the framers of the Constitution. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had decided to go it alone in areas where Congress refused to act to his satisfaction. In a system of shared powers, one would expect an outcry or at least stony silence when a president promised to circumvent the legislative branch. Instead, many senators and representatives erupted in rapturous applause; they seemed delighted at the notion of a president assuming unprecedented and unchecked powers at their expense.

Nonsense.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 gave surprisingly little attention to the executive branch of government. In contrast to the protracted debates over the powers of Congress, the powers of the president were defined fairly quickly and without much discussion. This might in part be due to the reluctance of delegates to offend George Washington, the presiding officer of the Convention, and the man all delegates assumed would be the nation's first president. As a result, one can study Madison's Notes of Debates without ever reaching a clear understanding of the scope of the authority the framers intended to give the executive. Justice Robert Jackson, commenting on the unclear Convention record, wrote that it was "almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for the Pharaoh."

In Medelln v Texas (2008), the Court considered whether President Bush had the power to order Texas courts to reopen a criminal case after the International Court of Justice issued an order to that effect, finding that Texas officials had (inconsistent with the Vienna Convention) failed to notify Medelln, a Mexican national, that he had the right to contact the Mexican consulate after his arrest. The Court held that the president lacked the constitutional authority to turn a non-self-executing treaty into a treaty that effectively bound state officials.

Presidential Powers under the U. S. Constitution

Consequently, as with Congress, the courts determine whether the president has acted in an un-Constitutional manner, or used powers not afforded him by the Constitution.

Moreover, the president never said he was going to ‘bypass Congress,’ ‘go it alone,’ or ‘create laws’ absent Congress:

[W]hat I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.

State of the Union 2014 speech transcript (full text, video) - POLITICO.com

“[W]herever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…” in the context of the authority afforded the president by the Constitution. And should any citizen believe the president has used authority not afforded him by the Constitution, that citizens is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the president’s actions, as we saw with regard to George W. Bush in Medelln v Texas.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Recently, a bizarre scene unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shocked the framers of the Constitution. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had decided to go it alone in areas where Congress refused to act to his satisfaction. In a system of shared powers, one would expect an outcry or at least stony silence when a president promised to circumvent the legislative branch. Instead, many senators and representatives erupted in rapturous applause; they seemed delighted at the notion of a president assuming unprecedented and unchecked powers at their expense.

Nonsense.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 gave surprisingly little attention to the executive branch of government. In contrast to the protracted debates over the powers of Congress, the powers of the president were defined fairly quickly and without much discussion. This might in part be due to the reluctance of delegates to offend George Washington, the presiding officer of the Convention, and the man all delegates assumed would be the nation's first president. As a result, one can study Madison's Notes of Debates without ever reaching a clear understanding of the scope of the authority the framers intended to give the executive. Justice Robert Jackson, commenting on the unclear Convention record, wrote that it was "almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for the Pharaoh."

In Medelln v Texas (2008), the Court considered whether President Bush had the power to order Texas courts to reopen a criminal case after the International Court of Justice issued an order to that effect, finding that Texas officials had (inconsistent with the Vienna Convention) failed to notify Medelln, a Mexican national, that he had the right to contact the Mexican consulate after his arrest. The Court held that the president lacked the constitutional authority to turn a non-self-executing treaty into a treaty that effectively bound state officials.

Presidential Powers under the U. S. Constitution

Consequently, as with Congress, the courts determine whether the president has acted in an un-Constitutional manner, or used powers not afforded him by the Constitution.

Moreover, the president never said he was going to ‘bypass Congress,’ ‘go it alone,’ or ‘create laws’ absent Congress:

[W]hat I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.

State of the Union 2014 speech transcript (full text, video) - POLITICO.com

“[W]herever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…” in the context of the authority afforded the president by the Constitution. And should any citizen believe the president has used authority not afforded him by the Constitution, that citizens is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the president’s actions, as we saw with regard to George W. Bush in Medelln v Texas.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court does not get involved the issues you just claimed that the fact they never ruled on proves that they are constitutional? If it actually works that way, and since the courts have never declared that I am not God, I must be God.

 

[MisterBeale]

What the world needs is more honest left wing progressives

If they were honest, they wouldn't be left wing progressives.

If we had the government that the original constitution set up, anarchy-capitalists, syndicalists, and communitary voluntarism socialists could all live side by side unmolested by the jack booted heal of big government.

Back in the day, "liberal" meant we ALL believed in the tenets of the bill of rights. Meaning limited government. Progressives believed charity worked and an enlightened society of free individuals accomplished things better than state planning ever could. Now free handouts and protection of big business seems to be the rule of the day.

The majestic American Eagle of freedom has two wings, a right wing and a left wing, with out both, liberty does not fly.

 

[OKTexas]

Recently, a bizarre scene unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shocked the framers of the Constitution. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had decided to go it alone in areas where Congress refused to act to his satisfaction. In a system of shared powers, one would expect an outcry or at least stony silence when a president promised to circumvent the legislative branch. Instead, many senators and representatives erupted in rapturous applause; they seemed delighted at the notion of a president assuming unprecedented and unchecked powers at their expense.

Nonsense.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 gave surprisingly little attention to the executive branch of government. In contrast to the protracted debates over the powers of Congress, the powers of the president were defined fairly quickly and without much discussion. This might in part be due to the reluctance of delegates to offend George Washington, the presiding officer of the Convention, and the man all delegates assumed would be the nation's first president. As a result, one can study Madison's Notes of Debates without ever reaching a clear understanding of the scope of the authority the framers intended to give the executive. Justice Robert Jackson, commenting on the unclear Convention record, wrote that it was "almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for the Pharaoh."

In Medelln v Texas (2008), the Court considered whether President Bush had the power to order Texas courts to reopen a criminal case after the International Court of Justice issued an order to that effect, finding that Texas officials had (inconsistent with the Vienna Convention) failed to notify Medelln, a Mexican national, that he had the right to contact the Mexican consulate after his arrest. The Court held that the president lacked the constitutional authority to turn a non-self-executing treaty into a treaty that effectively bound state officials.

Presidential Powers under the U. S. Constitution

Consequently, as with Congress, the courts determine whether the president has acted in an un-Constitutional manner, or used powers not afforded him by the Constitution.

Moreover, the president never said he was going to ‘bypass Congress,’ ‘go it alone,’ or ‘create laws’ absent Congress:

[W]hat I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.

State of the Union 2014 speech transcript (full text, video) - POLITICO.com

“[W]herever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…” in the context of the authority afforded the president by the Constitution. And should any citizen believe the president has used authority not afforded him by the Constitution, that citizens is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the president’s actions, as we saw with regard to George W. Bush in Medelln v Texas.

NO one can just file suit against unconstitutional actions of the government, no matter which branch. The supreme court has taken away the right of the normal American petition the government for a redress of grievances as granted in the first amendment. The bad thing, the people let them get away with it.

 

[Mojo2]

The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights.

Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent.

Constitution 101 - Part 1 - Lecture - Hillsdale College Online Courses

Listen to Judge Napolitano describe what the Progressives are about.

[ame=http://youtu.be/ddANx44C46U]Judge Napolitano: Woodrow Wilson Was A Notorious Racist - YouTube[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

You folks have been singing this song for 5 years now. It's played and false

 

[FA_Q2]

Recently, a bizarre scene unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shocked the framers of the Constitution. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had decided to go it alone in areas where Congress refused to act to his satisfaction. In a system of shared powers, one would expect an outcry or at least stony silence when a president promised to circumvent the legislative branch. Instead, many senators and representatives erupted in rapturous applause; they seemed delighted at the notion of a president assuming unprecedented and unchecked powers at their expense.

Nonsense.

Consequently, as with Congress, the courts determine whether the president has acted in an un-Constitutional manner, or used powers not afforded him by the Constitution.

Moreover, the president never said he was going to ‘bypass Congress,’ ‘go it alone,’ or ‘create laws’ absent Congress:

[W]hat I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.

State of the Union 2014 speech transcript (full text, video) - POLITICO.com

“[W]herever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…” in the context of the authority afforded the president by the Constitution. And should any citizen believe the president has used authority not afforded him by the Constitution, that citizens is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the president’s actions, as we saw with regard to George W. Bush in Medelln v Texas.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court does not get involved the issues you just claimed that the fact they never ruled on proves that they are constitutional? If it actually works that way, and since the courts have never declared that I am not God, I must be God.

Those that require the government to have unlimited powers require this view in order to support the asinine idea. It is unfortunate that the average person now sees things this way - the all powerful and benevolent government must be able to do anything it wants. We are sliding away from a separation of powers and people seem to be more than ignoring it - they are demanding it.

 

[hazlnut]

Don't hold your breath - they are cultist!

Says the tea bagging red koolaide drinker…. LOL

 

[candycorn]

Nonsense.

Consequently, as with Congress, the courts determine whether the president has acted in an un-Constitutional manner, or used powers not afforded him by the Constitution.

Moreover, the president never said he was going to ‘bypass Congress,’ ‘go it alone,’ or ‘create laws’ absent Congress:

“[W]herever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…” in the context of the authority afforded the president by the Constitution. And should any citizen believe the president has used authority not afforded him by the Constitution, that citizens is at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the president’s actions, as we saw with regard to George W. Bush in Medelln v Texas.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court does not get involved the issues you just claimed that the fact they never ruled on proves that they are constitutional? If it actually works that way, and since the courts have never declared that I am not God, I must be God.

Those that require the government to have unlimited powers require this view in order to support the asinine idea. It is unfortunate that the average person now sees things this way - the all powerful and benevolent government must be able to do anything it wants. We are sliding away from a separation of powers and people seem to be more than ignoring it - they are demanding it.

Your comments are interesting. And I mean interesting in truth--not trying to be ironic or insult you.

Recently, Representative Issa shut off Representative Cummings microphone during a hearing. This has been done by both parties to members of the minority party during hearings.

Constitutionally all representatives are equal. Yet We the People have allowed these political parties to empower some more than others. If there is a Constitutional problem that we face is that our representatives have placed party servitude at the front of their to do list.

Turning back the clock to the Issa/Cumming and any of the previous times this happened, had the chair just let the minority member speak, the speech she/he gave would be quickly forgotten yet when these extreme measures are taken to silence opposition; well it's something that gains attention.

As for your post...blame the parties for this "you must comply" mentality. It is not only important for the survival of you as a political animal (no patronage, no Pesos during election season), but it's now become a reflex. Had Issa or any of these other guys who have done this to the minority thought about it...they would have just let the opposition speak and gavel the hearing to a close and the public would never notice.... Do you know what happened in Congress on February 25? Me neither. Were they in session? Dunno...there were no fireworks.

Power comes from the parties and our representatives are 100% vested in servitude to these thoroughly unconstitutional and, in my opinion, un-American entities.

There is your crisis.

 

[bedowin62]

Don't hold your breath - they are cultist!

Says the tea bagging red koolaide drinker…. LOL

obviously this left-wing nutjobs got the whole 9 yards of conditioning from failed progressives

 

[editec]

What the world needs is more honest left wing progressives

If they were honest, they wouldn't be left wing progressives.

The Left wing has been hammering Obama for years and years. And unlike the so called CONS the LEFT WING'S complaints are reality based, too.

But the right wing know-nothings still think the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is left wing, so the right winger morons never notice.

Honestly, the OWS movement and the Tea Party often complain about exactly the same things.

The major difference is the real left wingers knows that both the DEMS and the REPS are in on the scam.

The TPers are still so ******* obsessed with Obama Derangement Syndrome, they don't have time to LEARN ANYTHING REAL about their world.