For years, it was pointed out that Richard Nixon believed he was an imperial president. He even made statements to the press in that regard.
And the Democrats ran with that.
And sometimes won.
Now, we have one of the current President’s closest advisors making this assertion…
Valerie Jarrett: Americans ‘hungry’ for Obama to act like an imperial president
With regard to the State Of The Union Address, Ms. Jarrett stated the following (in part):
On Tuesday, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Americans are “hungry” for Obama to take unilateral action, bypassing Congress wherever he can to get things done, CNS News reported.
“People around our country are hungry for action,” she said. “And what you’ll hear from the president tonight is going to be all about action — creating opportunity — and it’s going to be a very optimistic speech.”
According to Jarrett, Obama will “set forth very specific, concrete proposals that he thinks will move our country forward — create opportunity for hard-working Americans who want to succeed.”
Although Obama will prod Congress to act on his agenda, Jarrett said Obama “will make clear tonight that he will take action on his own,” bypassing Congress when he sees fit.
Can we invoke Nixon now?
I can only speak for me, but I don’t want a President from any party “bypassing Congress when he sees fit.”
I’m not that hungry.
I mentioned John Locke (author of The Social Contract, philosopher extraordinaire, and unwitting mentor to Thomas Jefferson) in this blog the other day.
Then, quite serendipitously, I took note on an early blog post by Joel…
I haven’t read this blog, The Art of Not Being Governed, very extensively so if it turns out to be a neonazi or everytown front, don’t blame me, okay? But so far I’m enjoying it.
It’s got a recurring feature called Statist Fallacies, basic stuff but pretty good so far. Here’s a lovely take-down on the mossy old “social contract,” which TUAK readers probably know is a particular bugaboo of mine.
Enjoy. I’m going out to play now.
I’d forgotten about Joel’s distaste for ‘the concept of The Social Contract’. So I thought WTH?
Libertarian, statist and sovereign citizen alike - what do you gentle readers think about this?
First a NEGATIVE, in part…
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
From time to time I read about proposals for a national law requiring reciprocity of concealed carry permits between the states. The most recent example is the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced by Senator John Cornyn, R-TX.
Sadly, I have some bad news about this proposal, and about a national CCW reciprocity law in general: It would be unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. (Fill Yer Hands)
Second, a POSITIVE response, in the comments…
While they certainly do not bring points for the most civil, moral or efficient. Or Constitutionally libertarian. They are definitely not the WORST!
Exhibit One (courtesy of Cato @ Liberty)
The 31st Congress, which passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850
The 5th Congress, which passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798
The 21st Congress, which passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830
The 77th Congress, which passed Public Law 503, codifying President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 authorizing the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans, in 1942
The 65th Congress, which passed the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition), the Espionage Act, and the Selective Service Act, and entered World War I, all in 1917
And let us not forget the rubber stamping of Constitutional Amendments changing election of Senators to popular vote (effectively eliminating State Power and increasing Federal Power) and creation of The Federal Income Tax, AND the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act and Assault Weapons Ban. AND, The Patriot Act and her illegitimate children.
I could go on. And on.
Why do they insist on being called LAWMAKERS? Shouldn’t they MODERATE and ADJUST for REMOVAL of Laws, not just add to them?
But, I repeat myself.
When I learned that the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2015 was being rushed to the floor for a vote—with little debate and only a voice vote expected (i.e., simply declared “passed” with almost nobody in the room)—I asked my legislative staff to quickly review the bill for unusual language. What they discovered is one of the most egregious sections of law I’ve encountered during my time as a representative: It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American.
On Wednesday afternoon, I went to the House floor to demand a roll call vote on the bill so that everyone’s vote would have to be recorded. I also sent the letter below to every representative.
With more time to spread the word, we would have stopped this bill, which passed 325-100. Thanks to the 99 other representatives—44 Republicans and 55 Democrats—who voted to protect our rights and uphold the Constitution. And thanks to my incredibly talented staff.
Oops, they did it again!
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”
Is the above even passingly familiar to ANYONE?
h/t Brock Townsend
If you have read this blog at all, you know I believe in the rule of law, The Constitution and Bill of Rights, yatta, yatta, yatta…
But these folks need to be drawn and quartered, as slowly as possible.
Speaking as someone who lost a child, and would give anything to have her be here, healthy and well, these people deserve much worse than the system will undoubtedly dole out.
Guess that makes me a hypocrite.
That is all…
…tell us what you REALLY think!
aka MADISON’S NIGHTMARE
(from Cold Fury, in part)
Moreover, as Madison and Hamilton took for granted in The Federalist Papers, which they wrote (with five by John Jay) to urge ratification of the Constitution, taxes would chiefly take the form of import duties or excises on such commodities as whiskey—and these taxes, Hamilton asserted, were naturally self-limiting because if they grew excessive, people would stop buying the overtaxed article, and overall tax revenues would fall. In the unlikely event of an imposition of any direct tax on everybody, or on citizens’ land or wealth, as opposed to these indirect levies, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution required that it be levied equally or proportionally, though scholars debate the meaning of that clause. But one thing the Framers never dreamed of was a tax on incomes. And for generations, they were right.
But in 1913, after 20 years of Progressive-era agitation, the Sixteenth Amendment, passed by Congress in 1909, won ratification. It imposed a graduated income tax—a direct tax that did not fall proportionally on all. Indirect taxes such as import duties and excise taxes, the argument went, fell disproportionately on the poor and provided too unpredictable a revenue stream to a federal government that Americans increasingly thought needed strengthening. Though the income-tax rates were but 1 percent for incomes up to $483,826, rising to a modest 7 percent on incomes over $11.6 million, the now-constitutional machinery for the tyranny of the majority that Madison had feared was fired up and ready to confiscate wealth as surely as the Stamp Act confiscated property. And since in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment—instituting direct popular election of senators—also won ratification, the upper house no longer served, even theoretically, as a brake on the passions of the people.
Today, Madison’s nightmare has become America’s everyday reality.
And, remember folks, 1913 was 101 years ago.
What has happened governmentally in the past 100+ years that has been detrimental to this Constitutional Republic?
I’m thinking A LOT!
Go to the link to see the whole thing.
Firehand bring us this from La La Land…
Under the proposed law, California gun owners could face a loss of their Second Amendment gun rights and confiscation of their firearms without prior warning. The proposed law allows the government up to two weeks following the issuance of a restraining order to set a hearing in which the subject of the order could argue for the reinstatement of their Second Amendment rights and return of any firearms seized.
“The subject of a restraining order and confiscation warrant may not even know they have been accused until there’s a SWAT team at their door.”
According to the bill’s text, courts would be required to issue a restraining order if a person–who doesn’t even have to know the target of the order–submits a form saying that a gun owner “poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or others by owning or possessing” guns. (emphasis Guffaw)
Hey great! Fink on family, friends, neighbors – that annoying bastard down-the-street (or in the mall) to whom you took a dislike and decided they should be forced to give up their rights and guns without due process (or the Constitutional ability to face their accuser)…
And then they are given an opportunity to defend themselves up to two weeks after the fact to take the matter to court!
YES! We can all be mental health ‘professionals’ properly assessing the mental state of anyone; able to deprive them of their rights for any reason!
Just fill out this form.
Truly a Renaissance Man in the Age of Enlightenment!
Kerodin educated me further on him, to wit:
KIEV, Ukraine (AP) — The mayor of Ukraine’s second-largest city was shot in the back and pro-Russia insurgents seized more government buildings Monday as the U.S. hit Russia with more sanctions for allegedly fomenting the unrest in eastern Ukraine.
Impeachment is a recent invention, brought to our Founding Documents by Benjamin Franklin. Until Mr. Franklin offered the concept, there were only two options for dealing with politicians/tyrants who violated their mandate – tolerate it, or kill them. My thanks to CA for sharing that history with me a few years ago.
Mr. Kerodin goes on to expound on this with some ideas which may be repellent to some. Obviously, you may visit the link above and draw your own conclusions.
I hate to mention or quote such a vile figure as Mao, but,
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
How DOES one measure a President’s greatness? Can we really compare John Adams to Millard Fillmore? Is it holding to the Constitutional base? Preserving the Union through extra-legal means? Being a good guy?
I remember as a kid being taught Washington was great because he was offered kingship and declined. And he was a great general who never told a lie. Of course, he wasn’t so great during the French and Indian War, and the whole Whiskey Rebellion thing.
Jefferson. One of my heroes. Governmental minimalist. Except, he too, took the reins and expanded governmental power. And, he was a nasty slave owner, like Washington. Of course, he did draft the 3/5 compromise, setting the stage for eventual emancipation of the slaves.
Lincoln. Preserved the Union! Through extra-legal means like suspending Habeus Corpus. Massacred Indians. Freed slaves in States over which he had no control.
Theodore Roosevelt. Rough Rider. Trust Buster. Progressive. Racist.
Franklin Roosevelt, his second cousin. Kept us in the Great Depression much longer than the rest of the World. Another Progressive. Locked up the Nisei. Military tribunals for combatants and civilians. Was elected FOUR times!
JFK. Didn’t duck. Daddy bought him the White House by dealing with Sam Giancana. Had style. Charisma.
Reagan. Likable. Snowed the Soviets into disbanding and taking down the wall. High taxes. Central American underground war stuff.
G.W. Bush. Also likeable. Kept us ‘safe’ after 911 with the War in Afghanistan and The PATRIOT Act.
You notice certain names are conspicuous by their absence…?
So what do YOU think?