Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Obama: Dictatorship as “Policy Strategy”

By Nicholas Stix

At least, Hitler needed an Enabling Act before turning the Weimar Republic into a garrison state. “Obama” hasn’t even displayed that bit of relative daintiness.
* * *

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws
By Steve Friess
June 16, 2012
Politico

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

(Also on POLITICO: Obama energizes Latino vote)

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

A White House official said the strategy is the result of a stalemate in Washington. [N.S.: No; the strategy is the expression of “Obama’s” lawlessness.]

“We work to achieve our policy goals in the most effective and appropriate [sic] way possible,” the official said. “Often times, Congress has blocked efforts (ie [No Child Left Behind] and DREAM) and we look to pursue other appropriate means of achieving our policy goals. Sometimes this makes for less-than-ideal policy situations — such as the action we took on immigration — but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics [read: The constitution], he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.” [He is waging war on the American people! Oh, I get it. He is speaking of illegal aliens from Mexico, Central, and South America as “American people.”]

For Obama — and future presidents should Washington remain polarized to the point of perpetual inaction — it may be the only way to fulfill a range of campaign promises. [In simple English, that’s called the rule of crime, as opposed to the rule of law.]

As of Friday, the federal government won’t deport undocumented immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States as children. It is a temporary, de facto [unconstitutional, dictatorial] implementation of a part of the stalled DREAM Act.

The result: a loud message to Hispanic voters to remember Obama in November.

On gay rights, too, the administration has asked agencies to do less. In February 2011, the Justice Department announced it would not defend DOMA against court challenges — an unusual [and unconstitutional] step for the agency, which typically [and is constitutionally obligated to] defends legal challenges to laws on the books. But the 1996 law, which bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriage, appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court via either the 9th Circuit or 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

(PHOTOS: 20 gay rights milestones)

In August, Obama’s DHS announced it would no longer deport the noncitizen spouses of gay Americans — a direct contradiction to DOMA as well.

The tactic has its start in the earliest days of the administration. In October 2009, the Department of Justice announced it would not prosecute medical marijuana users or suppliers in states where it’s legal, despite the state laws contradicting federal law.
Federal law generally trumps state law in such matters.

Last September, the DOJ also announced a change of legal interpretation [sic: Unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers] the that effectively legalized Internet gambling. Two statutes seem [sic] to ban it – the Wire Act of 1961, which bars betting across state lines using the telecommunications devices, and the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which bans American banks from processing payments to online casinos.

On education, too, Obama has made policy by not enforcing the law. By fiat, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan granted waivers to 10 states, freeing them from the strict requirements of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. In doing so, the president removed the mechanism that would force certain school standards to be improved.

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law scholar at George Washington University Law School, known for his support of progressive causes as well as his ire at Obama for not prosecuting Bush officials in connection with alleged torture of terror suspects.

“In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. [No; “Obama” has installed a dictatorship, something Nixon never strove to do.] On everything from [DOMA] to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator [dictator]. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

[This is extremely strong language from a fellow lefty, and stronger than one is hearing from GOP leaders.]

That Nixon analogy may be apt [don’t be ridic!], said John Eastman, a constitutional law professor known for his support of conservative causes at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif. He cited Nixon’s abuse of the traditional presidential power of not spending, or impounding, allocated funds as an earlier example of a president opting not to carry out the will of Congress.

Yet other scholars cited a more recent example: President George W. Bush’s signing statements. The Republican came under fire from Democrats for his frequent decision to attach statements to bills he signed that indicated he found various provisions unconstitutional and, thus, would not enforce or follow them.

“There’s a difference between refusing to enforce a statute (as Obama is doing) and refusing to recognize a statute that binds the executive,” Roosevelt said. [All federal statutes bind the executive.] “The latter is what the Bush administration used to do. When Bush issued signing statements that he would construe laws so as not to infringe on his commander in chief power, he was saying that he reserved the right to disregard them if he thought it was necessary to protect the country, since that’s what the secret memos said the commander in chief power required. … I view that as more extreme.”

Roosevelt, like Eastman and Turley, worries that the Obama approach will give a future president the license “to decide we’re not going to prosecute insider trading or enforce EPA regulations. They could do that.”

And while giddy liberals on Friday marveled at Obama’s brazen craftiness [how is steamrolling the Constitution “crafty”?], legal experts say supporters might feel a lot differently if the tactic becomes an enduring precedent.

“Say a Republican were to follow this strategy after regaining the White House in January of 2013 and the Supreme Court upholds the health care bill, and Romney can’t repeal it because the Democrats in the Senate filibuster it, he could basically repeal it through non-enforcement,” said Eastman.

They theoretically could but won’t, said former Obama legal adviser Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School constitutional professor and prominent liberal scholar.

“It’s always possible to conjure hypotheticals that test the outer boundaries of the broad principle that the president is generally obligated to enforce laws duly enacted by Congress but has a paramount duty to obey the Constitution,” Tribe wrote POLITICO in an email. “Obviously, the rule of law and the importance of orderly and stable governance in a system that relies principally on the judicial branch to ‘say what the law is’ precludes promiscuous presidential exercise of the prerogative of non-compliance. Yet it is also surely true that presidents cannot blindly follow congressional directives unless and until a court tells them to stop. What if a Congress were to tell the president to shoot all self-proclaimed Mormons on sight, the way the governor of Missouri once did in the 19th century? Surely no president with a constitutional conscience could comply with such a directive.”

[What a specious analogy! Is Tribe saying that a 19th-century governor of Missouri told the President to shoot all self-proclaimed Mormons on sight? Of course, not. What does a state executive have to do with the relation between the federal chief executive and congress? Nothing. Tribe’s non sequitur would be disturbing, coming from a first-year law student.]

14 comments:

  1. Mr.Stix - Don't ever compare someone to Hitler. It is demeaning for the people who suffered. Hitler killed more than half a million jews; He is a murderer (probably Satan)

    How dare you compare an American President to the most evil person of the past century. I do not want to call you a racist, but I would like you to question yourself. If you are a racist, then you can be compared to Hitler (as he was one)

    BTW, Obama used executive orders to do good things. What is the crime that young child did to into this country at a young age, work hard to complete high school (unlike our white drug addict students). They should be spared of immigration issues. This is not only on humanitarian grounds, but also considering they would be an asset to this country as they are educated and have no criminal background.

    For gay rights - Jesus just said treat everyone equally..he did not say treat the WHITE folks equally (He was not even white..)

    So stop this nonsense on your blog and may be you can be saved from your sins..

    I went the anonymous route as I do not want to give you FREE information about myself..

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  2. And you will have him for 4 more years..CRY MF Cry...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe Tribe is the constitutional scholar who said that the constitution was the space between the written lines of the constitution. I think Obama greatly admires him and I'm surprised he hasn't nominated him to the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I always thought that the American version of the Enabling Act was the Patrior Act. Congress' power has been declining steadily over quite a long time. Bush set the precedent of lawlessness and now Obama is carrying it even further. Things can only go further downhill from here.

    "A constitution republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts has always appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master." Tocqueville

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe Barry Soetero is an evil person. He's right up there with Pol Pot and Stalin. I can't think of anyone more evil than the lying and destructive Soetero. His whole life is fiction and evil.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Nicholas. First of all I want to mention that the Anon who went on a rant because you compared Obama to Hitler clearly did not read that paragraph properly. I think the comparison you made is justified, and you were merely trying to show that even someone as evil as Hitler had more respect for the laws of his country than Obama does[I think this is what you meant].
    Anyway, I just wanted to say that Obama is the most worthless and damaging President the USA has ever had. He was voted in based largely on his charisma and his ability to make pretty speeches and obviously on his race. Blacks voted for him because he was black, plain and simple. They would have voted for him even if his campaign promises had been to launch all nuclear weapons at random targets in the world. A lot of whites voted for him because of 'white guilt' or because they did not want to appear racist. A small minority of people voted for him because of his promises(most of which he failed to live up to).
    Obama's policies of ignoring laws that he disagrees with clearly shows what he really thinks of America and its laws. He thumbs his nose at Americans each time he chooses to spit on the law.
    I find it scary as Hell the way Obama is practically giving citizenship to illegal immigrants in order to insure the hispanic vote. Does Obama really care about illegal immigrants? I really doubt it.Does he care about all those hispanic votes? Definitely.Ironically, there are many who believe that Obama isn't even a USA citizen himself. I don't believe he is, and obviously faked and sketchy birth certificates don't do much to sway my opinion on that.
    I have noticed that Romney seems to be gaining the lead in the polls, so perhaps this is a sign that people are waking up to the fact that if Obama gets elected again, the country will fall so far into the toilet, that we may never be able to plunge it out again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous who says Obama is the worst president..Wait for 20 more years and history will decide on the following:

    1. President to get Osama
    2. President who passed Health Care (as Health Care reform will be the initial step taken to fix the system)
    3. First President to be for Gay Marriage
    and many more

    History will be on his side..As a matter of fact, most History scholars are already on his side..

    I am sorry that you would have to swallow this fact when you will be old.

    I would say Reagan was the worst president by removing all regulation..You cannot let the people with money run this country however they like..You need regulation..

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, who STILL does not believe the president is a US citizen - It has been proven time and time again..The republican party members from Hawaii certified its (Birth Certificate) authenticity, CNN investigation team has certified its authenticity. Even Fox news now says its authentic..If you still do not beleive, then YOU ARE A RACIST..get prepared to meet satan

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank God for people like Nicholas Stix. Please, please keep up the good work.

    All you DWLs should thank Mr. Stix. People like hiim are who built this country, which allows you to post your naive, selfish viewpoints.

    To all the realists out there, please donate to Stix ( or Vdare). We must support those who are willing to stand on the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For the Anon who posted on Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:28:00 PM EDT.

    Well, I suppose it all depends on whether or not you can ignore all the bad things that have happened under his administration. I understand that people don't agree unanimously on either side.
    Many believe he is the worst thing to ever happen to America, and there are those who think that he is the second coming of Christ himself.
    As to the point you made:

    1.Obama did not personally get Bin Laden. He simply signed the check. It was the brave men and women of the military that got Bin Laden. Any president would have signed the same check, and this does nothing in my eyes to make Obama a hero.

    2. and 3. This is highly subjective, and again depends on what your individual beliefs are. To some, the fact he has done these things has made America a worse place to life. Those who are liberals would probably agree these things are good things.

    As for the future, Obama, at best, will be seen as a mediocre president and aside from the race thing, an unremarkable president. More likely he will be seen as a very damaging president.

    'Historical scholars' may well record him as the best president we ever had and that he saved the country. Of course, revisionist history has always been accepted as fact. Our history is full of heroes who were in fact villains, and full of 'evil' characters who are hailed as heroes.

    Everything is subjective. I just know that right now, right here, Obama is destroying the United States at a much faster rate than any other president before him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For Anon who posted Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:34:00 PM EDT

    well, this is the last time I post on this article. I thank Nicholas for allowing posts such as yours, just so we can see how the media brainwashes people.

    Anon, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I believe in free speech.

    Hmmm? So, if I believe the birth certificate is fake this somehow makes me a racist? I would like to see your reasoning. The fake(my opinion) birth certificate has nothing to do with race and I don't care what race the 'president' is. Well, thanks for letting me know I will burn in Hell for my belief that Obama faked his BC. I don't recall reading in the bible that questioning Obama's citizenship is a hell-worthy sin. Perhaps you can direct me to the passage so I can look it up. Or were you implying that Obama is a divine being and therefore any doubt is blasphemy?

    As for CNN and FOX...I trust the mainstream media about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat(not very far).

    So, as I said Anon. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs (and delusions). Maybe people like you, Anon, can one day learn to respect the opinions of others without calling them a racist on the fast track to Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The logic behind Obama certificate being authentic:
    1. Any independent/bipartisan investigation says its authentic.
    2. Number of officials from government employee to the governor of Hawaii (number of republicans are also included in here) certify that it is authentic
    3. Senate minority leader (R) McConnell and House Majority Leader (R) Eric Cantor and all the republicans EXCEPT extreme tea partiers believe it is authentic

    WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND IT BEING FAKE? Please let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous, who says Not beleiving in Obamas Birth cert is not racism - question yourself sir..your sins are yours not mine..

    Another question - would you be happy of a black man marries one of your close family members..This should answer your question.

    If so many authorized people are saying it is authentic, then y r u still not believing in it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. well, I guess i stand corrected about Obama's birth certificate. It must be real since all those government officials say it is.

    After all, the government has never lied to us before and would certainly never be involved in any sort of cover-up.

    Let me know if those government officials all jump off a bridge so that I can too.

    As far as all the race-nuts go, it's not racist to say something against a black person. What? Since Obama is black, we aren't allowed to criticize or question him? And if we do we are instantly a racist? That's a load of crap and anyone with a brain can see that it isn't automatically racism. Of course, society has told most of you 'everything is racist' freaks and religious zealots what to think for so long, that you've probably forgotten what it's like to think for yourselves.

    Sin? The only sin I see here is not using the brain that your god gave to you, and instead you judge those who have a different opinion to be 'racist' simply for believing a piece of paper is fake.

    ReplyDelete