Obama: “Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -– an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.”
Founders: First and foremost, the president does not have the constitutional authority to “lay out a blueprint” for the American economy. He is not legislator-in-chief or the prime minister. He can make “recommendations” as the Constitution states, but that does not involve a legislative agenda.
Incorrect. That was, in fact, a "recommendation," and there is nothing in the Constitution that says the president's recommendations cannot include a legislative agenda. He cannot actually ENACT legislation, of course, but he has as much right to SUGGEST legislation as I do, or anyone else.
Obama: “Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China.”
Founders: Where does the Constitution give you such authority?
It's not the Constitution, it's Congress, which has authorized a number of federal agencies with that authority.
Obama: “Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help.”
Founders: Again, Mr. Obama, where can you find the constitutional authority for such activity? There are no delegated powers in the Constitution, either for the congress or the executive to build educational partnerships. That is a state issue.
Untrue. All the power to do this comes either from the first clause of Article I, Section 8 (the tax and spend clause), or else is merely a matter of communication, which any American may do.
Obama: “Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched.”
Founders: And only the federal government can provide these resources?
It's not a question of CAN. It's a question of WILL. And in many cases, the answer is yes.
First, they are unconstitutional.
Article I, Section 8, first clause. No, they're not.
Second, the most innovative things in the history of the world were produced by private enterprise
Most of them were produced with substantial government assistance, direct or indirect.
and third the United States is broke.
It's impossible for a nation with control over its own currency to ever be "broke." Nor does it make any kind of sense to balance the budget by cutting investment that is crucial for future wealth production. There are plenty of much better places to cut. That's not a good choice.
Obama: “I’ve already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats.”
Founders: You have “sent this Congress legislation”? See our first point.
Obama can send Congress legislation. For that matter,
I can send Congress legislation, although if he does it Congress is more likely to take it seriously. He doesn't get to vote on it, but
anyone can propose it. You just have to be able to communicate.
Obama: “The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy, so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”
Founders: This is, perhaps, the grossest distortion of the Constitution of the night. The executive branch was designed not to be the focus of the government. We assured the people of the States in 1787 and 1788 that the president would have limited power.
Just because the government as originally implemented and as it existed for decades did not have as much power in the executive branch as it does today, does not mean that the Constitution was written with that in mind. In fact, the document was crafted with considerable flexibility to it, and with the potential to implement powers that were not exercised for a very long time.
Furthermore, congress cannot “grant you the authority” to do anything.
Nonsense. The flow of government is: Congress makes the law, the executive branch enforces/implements it. EVERY act of Congress, therefore, grants the executive branch the authority to do something, or else denies it that authority explicitly where it was once granted.
As a final point, for any one person to speak for "the Founders," as if they were of one mind and opinion, is a remarkably ignorant conceit. There is almost nothing that can be said that all of them agreed on, except that we did not want a monarchy and that we needed a stronger central government. All else in the Constitution is a compromise among divergent interests and beliefs.
