Obama showed the way to executive tyranny, and Hillary plans to follow
I wrote about this topic yesterday in discussing the Matt Yglesias piece about Hillary Clinton’s ruthless use of power. Today proves that Yglesias is not alone. In fact, his praise for the idea of a president “liberally” using executive action to get around Congressional opposition was a bit tame and restrained compared to this about the coming Hillary dictatorship written by Jonathan Allen.
Obama’s been boiling the American frog for six and a half years now, slowly but surely, and the public has gotten nice and cooked. Now it’s ready for more of the same, please, and ready to applaud it. Ends justify means; doesn’t everybody know that? After all, those obstinate nasty Republicans won’t do what the Democratic president wants, just because they’re the majority in Congress. How dare they!:
Sure, there are some Democrats who chew their nails when thinking about Clinton’s Machiavellian side, but most are nonetheless glad to see signs that she’s not going to get rolled by a Republican Congress. The scope of what she’s promising to do by herself is unprecedented from a top candidate for the presidency.
The view from inside the campaign, said one official, is that it’s important to be specific about how Clinton would use the unilateral powers of the presidency “because of the level of frustration” Democrats have felt when Obama’s priorities have been blocked by Republicans in Congress. Even if Democrats are able to elect one of their own as president in 2016, he or she is all but assured of facing a Congress in which one or two of the chambers are controlled by Republicans.
It used to be that when the American people expressed their wishes for a certain party to control Congress, and a president was from a different party, that president took it to mean that he had to work with Congress. Clinton’s husband Bill—remember him?—sometimes actually seemed to understand that principle. Little did he know that it was okay to do away with it. But Obama has shown the Democrats how. This is the way it is now, according to Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden:
“I think Democrats are definitely in a more feisty mood than they’ve been in the past, so they’re willing to take on more fights with the Republicans,” Tanden said. “I don’t think they’re concerned that doing an executive action offends the other side.”
It’s not about offending the “other side.” It’s about respecting the Constitution as well as the will of the American people.
The Democrats don’t need an enabling act; they’ll do it without one. There used to be a consensus between the parties that certain lines were not to be crossed, because the foundation of the republic rested on them and no one wanted to undermine what was one of the best governments on earth (or, as Churchill might say, the worst government on earth except for all the others). But that political social contract is now officially over.
[NOTE: I realize that presidents have long used executive actions for many things. But—and correct me if I’m wrong—until Obama, they did not habitually use them to accomplish aims that a majority Congress [addition: of the opposing party] had explicitly rejected, in arenas that were usually considered under Congressional control.]
Right. When I was growing up, it was not uncommon for someone to moan that Washington was “deadlocked”, because the President and Congress were under the control of different parties… which inevitably caused someone to reply immediately: “that’s the idea”.
We don’t get an executive of one party, and a legislative branch controlled by the other, by accident. We get it because that’s what the people want! They want Congress to keep the President’s feet to the fire… and vice versa.
And once upon a time, politicians had more respect for the will of the people, whether they liked it or not. (As one politician voted out of office is reputed to have said: “The people have spoken… the bastards.”)
Obama showed the way to executive tyranny, and Hillary plans to follow [on her dreams]
collusion is what reaching accross the aisles means, and the wittle people just dont get that…
just imagine if you were going to court and he prosecutor and your lawyer were reaching across the aisle on your case… yeah, that works (not)
Ours was a government of divided and distinguished sovereignties, or three classes of sovereign powers. Primary was the sovereignty of the people (inalienable); secondary and derived from that of the people were the sovereign powers of the States; and tertiary is the sovereign power of the Federal Government, derived from the States and the people who created them. All were expected to deliberate on every matter of action, with the exception understood that there are times when deliberation is not possible (we think of FDR informed that Pearl Harbor has been attacked). Crisis, in a word.
Into this crack in the wall steps the deliberate executive creator of crises, in order to govern without need for the deliberation of other powers. He is a self-circling wheel of individual will.
Isn’t “executive tyranny” exactly what supporters of Trump want?
How I wish I could correct you for being wrong.
Ann,
Yes.These “conservatives” don’t seem to care much about conserving the constitution.
and correct me if I’m wrong
only half wrong… FDR… remember him?
3,728 Total Executive Orders Issued
many were not liked but his confiscation of the gold was one of the most hated…
but note that obama is not just using executive orders, he has several equivalents that he has been using besides that.
but then again, wasnt it a few years back that i was warning about these things and how in a state of emergency he can just negate the constitiation? i wonder if putin or iran or any number of things would provide that emergency? not that it matters since technically we already have that state of emergency, they just havent exercised powers yet.
and there are tons of unconstitutional laws that they dont apply that sit there waiting for the day that things change and they all come in force (which is why they abused the discretion to prosecute, allows you to make all the laws you want and no one can challenge them until someone is arrested in the old system)
the WORST executive orders give the state powers to take over the country (and they can do it any time they want but only those pesky guns and peoples reaction and the mess it would make prevent it for now)
Special report: America’s perpetual state of emergency
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/22/president-obama-states-of-emergency/16851775/
An emergency declared by President Jimmy Carter on the 10th day of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 remains in effect almost 35 years later
A post-9/11 state of national emergency declared by President George W. Bush – and renewed six times by President Obama
“What the National Emergencies Act does is like a toggle switch, and when the president flips it, he gets new powers. It’s like a magic wand. and there are very few constraints about how he turns it on,” said Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor at Princeton University.
160 laws giving the president emergency powers
however its the EOs that give even MORE power.
they can take over radio and telivision, seize all food assets, relocate people to other locations or camps, take over businesses and factories, and so on
pretty much over night we become a soviet state and there is no way to stop it as no one cared to do anyting once it was done, and so, its WAY TOO LATE to act now years later.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO allows the government to confiscate your property without due process
all kinds of fun stuff… but most of the worst is years old… and i did point it out and its pish tosh.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Democrats aren’t appalled by the thought of an unaccountable, rogue executive. Are we witnessing the last days of the Republic?
heh, the Republic is so long gone one cannot even see it disappearing over the horizon.
in fact the stuff goes back to huxley who said:
huxley Says: July 10th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Artfldgr: You are the largest purveyor of tinfoil on this blog.
and
July 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Artfldgr: When I was a leftist in the Eighties, I heard the same tinfoil about REX84 from my more paranoid fellow leftists.
from 2009 to 2015/16 – and now we are worried that its not tin foil? too funny.
well, that was within one year of obama in office and before the EOs that create more power and control, the orders that align us with UN law, and a whole bunch of stuff we have yet to even consider and talk about here..
most of the links to the EO, the other lawas and such are gone, they were replaced with [edited for length by neo-neocon]
TWO years after that all was said to me and no one wanted to discuss if it was real or if not, why not, and if not, if there were other things…
Some orders are new, some are adjustments of old orders, and some are adjustments that give more power, or move powers to other organizations, like having civilians control military, etc.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order (Executive Order 13603) is an order of the United States’ President signed by President Barack Obama on March 16, 2012
Executive Order 13603 provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defens
Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
which may or may not be related to
Army Regulation 210—35
Civilian Inmate Labor Program
http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr:
Oh, I’m aware that FDR was the predecessor for overreach. However, he was in a very different position re Congress, which during his era was completely Democratic to a degree hardly seen before or since.
So although he tried a lot of overreaching actions, he was not also defying a majority Republican Congress. But I should have clarified what I was writing in the “note” to the post by adding “they did not habitually use them to accomplish aims that a majority Congress of the opposite party had explicitly rejected, in arenas that were usually considered under Congressional control.
Under FDR, sometimes even the heavily Democratic Congresses defied him, and as much as he could he tried to go around that with executive orders. But at least the American people had spoken by electing Democrats to be in control of both houses of Congress as well as the presidency when all this was happening, and at least his own party was sometimes against him and thus was showing a bit of integrity.
Today it’s more extreme. Hillary is proposing to follow Obama in explicitly going around a Congress elected by the people to put the opposite party in control, and Hillary and Obama are doing this for the express purpose of thwarting the will of the people. And the Democratic Party now functions as a complete lackey, applauding these actions of Obama and these proposed actions of Hillary. In this country, anyway, I think that state of affairs is unprecedented.
Ann, Sharon, expat:
How is it possible to conserve Constitutional integrity when the document had been relegated to the reliquary? Unless what is meant by conserve is to put it under glass in a clean room, preserved for sight-seers and nostalgists. Had the five majority justices in the Obergefell decision consulted the Constitution? The majority in the Roe v Wade decision? Myriad others?
There is a war going on. There’s no waging war without waging war — tit/tat. Conventional response in the event of nuclear attack is not waging war, it is losing the war. Waging a secular response in the event of a holy attack is losing the war. Waging a measured, proportionate response to an attack is the way to lose a war. In the event Trump — then absolutely executive tyranny. And when they had enough wouldn’t it be wonderful to see the Democrats signing on to a reduction of executive powers (along with GOP/Cons) and Congress reasserting itself as first among equals.
Extremism in the defense of freedom is graced by latitude; extremism in the pursuit of submission is illegitimate from the start.
oh, and dont forget his “Memoranda” orders
they are like excutive orders but cause people dont know the laws as well or how things work, they forget or dontknow about them.
President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history – using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
but i warned about that in 2014
Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.
Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda – all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.
http://imgur.com/fTwfaNM.png
The difference may be one of political messaging, he said. An “executive order,” he said, “immediately evokes potentially damaging questions of ‘imperial overreach.'” Memorandum sounds less threatening.
he created MyRA with memoradums, and allow certain borrowers to cap their student loan payments at 10% of income, The most controversial Obama executive memorandum is his amnesty-to-illegals memo.
OBama now has passed Truman for the most EOs and thats not counting the memorandums and things he has done with the military and other places…
the sad part its WAY too late to do anything, because when i suggested it, it was before his second term. now there is nothing one can do about any of them…
anyone remember this?
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (then there was HR 675 – which in effect nationalizes the police)
which led to
On December 18, 2014, President Obama signed an executive order creating the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. In May 2015, the task force came out with its Final Report, which is commonly given the title “21st Century Policing.”
“I’m going to be asking Eric Holder and the Justice Department and his successor to go through all of these recommendations so that we can start implementing them, I know one area that’s going to be of great interest is whether we can expand the COPS program that in the past has been very effective, continues to be effective, but is largely underfunded.” – Obama
i have to stop here or else get cut down to size.
the rest of the discussion is up to you all… i have already had my say on all this 6 years ago and was attacked as a crackpot… now we are discussing the EO, the memorandum, and the questions of whether a man made disaster will result in us waking up to a new USA.
@neo-neocon sorry i took you so literally when it wasnt qualified… anyway, obama passed truman… and he has adjusted the nationalizatio EOs, and did a bunch of other thigns whie you guys were talking about other, sometimes silly stuff… (but mostly not silly, but a lot less important than the fence they were erecting around the hogs)
see Artfldgr Says: May 29th, 2015 at 4:45 pm
http://neoneocon.com/2015/05/29/what-law-did-hastert-violate/#comment-897335
sorry again…
Artfldgr:
Here it is again: what makes you think you were considered a crackpot for discussing things like executive action or orders? While it is true that the commenter known as “huxley” was on your case for it, I don’t recall anyone else, and certainly not many others, who were on huxley’s side.
You keep harping on huxley as though he represented some huge group. I don’t recall any such group, and certainly not the majority of commenters here.
I will continue to shorten these comments of yours for length.
I call your attention to some general posts of mine early on (particularly in 2009) that make it clear I thought Obama was on a path to tyranny and overreach, and that ignoring that fact was very dangerous. See this, this, and this one from before the 2008 election, where I call Obama a socialist and statist in the Chavez mold.
Ann Says: Isn’t “executive tyranny” exactly what supporters of Trump want?
no, its what the opposition says to scare you… they always project what they are doing onto others and will stand up and jasccuse first to insure no one gets the highground over what they are doing.
expat Says: Yes.These “conservatives” don’t seem to care much about conserving the constitution.
almost missed your quotes.. ha ha.
but this has to do with the trotskyite process of entryism i brought up before
Entryism (also referred to as entrism, occasionally as enterism) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program
it started a long while ago. democrats started running as republicans. this year a democrat was arrested for bribes to be the republican candidate.
if you control both sides of an issue you control the whole thing and the rest is just a good cop bad cop show…
Ben338:
I think we are.
Leftists have always felt the ends justify the means. Liberals used to be split on that; a lot of them used to believe the ends didn’t justify the means. Now you can search very very hard and not find many of that second type in the Democratic Party.
I’ve noticed more and more in the last couple of years on the right who espouse the idea that the ends justify the means, too, unfortunately.
neo-neocon Says:
October 9th, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Artfldgr:
Here it is again: what makes you think you were considered a crackpot for discussing things like executive action or orders?
because i just went back and read those threads with huxley and several called me a tin hatter, and then other things as well in several threads.
however, eventually many came around as things changed over time. you were quite magnanimous in the idea of waiting to see how things panned out.
but i guess i live in a world (academia) where its dangerous to speak. today i made a mistake that way… one of the libs complained that there were not enough urinals in the bathroom, and i slipped up and pointed out the new laws that favor women and change the construction and such…
o wa
ta goo
sy am
thanks for the thread links i will go read them, i may have missed yrou posts.
after all, being in the psychology area you do realize that we remember negatives more than positives (a survival thing)… so of course, i remember that over the nicer things that didnt register as hard.
again. sorry
In one of those early days youtube recordings of Obama teaching community organizing (prior to his first run for an Il. State Sen. seat) he says something like this to his students: ** One of the first rules taught to us in law school is that process is the substance of justice. **
Process indeed. One need not control “sides” of an issue when the process in place will only result in one outcome.
Artfldgr:
You are absolutely correct that people tend to remember negatives more than positives. I suppose it has some survival value, but it can skew memories.
Huxley was definitely critical of you. I’m sure there were some others. But I most definitely don’t remember it as a general rule for large numbers of people.
sdferr:
Ever see this?
Sure, many many years ago.
If we risk, since Thomas More the writer of Utopia was in harmony with Plato to some extent, we might say in the spirit of the eide of which Plato was so fond, that without the form or the “look” (here, process in the American Constitutional context) of justice, the substance of justice cannot be obtained.
But how with the eidos of tyrant or tyranny? Has that particular look or form “tyranny” any portion of the appearance of justice?
But that political social contract is now officially over.
It was over a long time ago, once Democrats started gaining power after 1830.
Huxley was definitely critical of you.
Huxley was critical of a lot of things, because he was insecure and wanted public approval of his views, whether he knew it or not. When going up against Art, those two personalities don’t mix well, because Art also has issues getting approval from others because of his traits.
because i just went back and read those threads with huxley and several called me a tin hatter, and then other things as well in several threads.
That’s how humans are, it has little to do with you Art or your Asbergers. You just became a convenient target at the moment, but humans would pick on some other target in due time. It’s part of the mainstream consciousness.
The reason why Demoncrats and Leftists called Bush II Hitler and a fascist commander of US policies, is because they would have done that in his position. They just weren’t honest about recognizing that love of tyranny and projected it, displaced it on Bush II and American patriots.
Bush II had the power to crack down on Democrat traitors and use the Armed Force’s COIN that took out Hussein in Iraq and AQ in Al Anbar, against the Democrat unions in cities like Chicago. But Bush II decided not to use it, instead conferring and hold out his hand to the Democrat traitors. Which is why he got what he got. A lot of people mistook Bush’s II lack of effectiveness or use of power during 2004, to be evidence that the office of the President wasn’t powerful enough or had certain inbuilt limitations. But that’s only half true. It is as powerful as the person in the seat wants it to be.
As for me, I was often equally offended by agreement with me as by disagreement with me, so I’m very far on the outlier of normal statistics there. Social conditioning makes it possible to treat agreements favorably, but that’s only due to artificial efforts at reconditioning.
Now a days, people are coming to the same conclusion as I did 7+ years ago. I wouldn’t consider that agreement, it’s more like coming to the same answer using the same or different methodology (actually thinking). Agreement and consensus is worth little to nothing. It is conflict and a difference in pov that allows breakthroughs to happen.
heh, the Republic is so long gone one cannot even see it disappearing over the horizon.
Cleverly stated.
To Ben, the inability to understand evil is why Civil War II is inevitable in the US. Islamic INvasion Horde as a bonus perhaps.
If people had understood it and defeated it earlier, if France had moved on the Rhineland to stop Hitler sooner before WWII, there wouldn’t be the need for so much bloodshed. But it is what it is.
Humanity will never learn. There is no racial or genetic memory that directly transfers into wise decision making.
Ymarsakar:
On failing to learn from history, see this, this, and this.
Neo, hey I made a comment on one of those threads in 2007.
To Neo, while it may not matter concerning the effects, it does matter concerning the solution. Meaning, what you do to solve unintended consequences are not the same things as you do to solve intended consequences. Unintended consequences may be solved through reason and education and dialogue. Intended consequences must be solved with violence, conflict, execution, and force.
They must be made to no longer wish to brainwash the new generation. Whereas if people are ignorant and are doing harm on accident, then simply educating them would be enough to solve the problem.
Ahead of the curve, but less specific due to some security concerns that Snowden only later broadcasted to the people in detail.
Intended consequences must be solved with violence, conflict, execution, and force.
And that was in 2007, as I’ve claimed numerous times before.
Also brainwashing is in there, although I figured out some of the Left’s other R and D projects in the time after.
Participatory politics are more than and subsume electoral politics.
The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.
If you want to preserve and protect Constitutional government in principle, on your terms, you had better win the activist game to establish the full spectrum of social dominance necessary to do that. There’s no alternative.
And this is what it’s come to:
A large portion of the population has unmoored itself from even the idea of legal restraint. I say that we have a moral duty to show them the error of their ways, and to make sure the lesson sticks, it must be as painful as possible.
@ Eric
There’s no “winning” the activist game because the other side will never relent. What do you imagine will happen, that the Republicans win so overwhelming a victory that the other side just gives up?
War is over when the “defeated” agree it’s over; unless you’re willing to commit genocide.
Matt_SE Says:
October 9th, 2015 at 9:40 pm
And this is what it’s come to:
A large portion of the population has unmoored itself from even the idea of legal restraint. I say that we have a moral duty to show them the error of their ways, and to make sure the lesson sticks, it must be as painful as possible.
Start a petition
Republicans win so overwhelming a victory that the other side just gives up?
There’s a certain point where an organization can be damaged to the point where they can no longer regenerate, no matter how many babies they sacrifice to their evil god for miracles.
There’s a certain point where an organization can be damaged to the point where they can no longer regenerate, no matter how many babies they sacrifice to their evil god for miracles.
Gotta keep movin’:
Democrats Moving Left Faster Than Republicans Moving Right
Last word.
Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Gotta keep movin’:
On a positive note, that should make the people on the vanguard, less hesitant about collateral damage and ROEs.
HRC’s pseudo tyranny and vindictiveness pure distilled, is merely proof that Leftists will Obey their Orders.
As I stated before, they have nothing inside of them strong enough to resist the power of the World’s Authority. They are zombies, they exist Only to Obey their orders from sufficiently hierarched necromancer lords.
Humans? They stopped being human a long time ago, when they sold their free will and soul for some peanuts and beads.
What else can we expect from an elected King?
As per Frank Buckley’s “The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America”
http://www.amazon.com/The-Once-Future-King-Government/dp/1594037191/ref=cm_rdp_product