“I'M SICK OF THIS!” I said in a Facebook post, and then related some of the comments below. Not to my surprise, several liberal friends appeared to render to Mr. Obama’s defense, by suggesting that the President’s contemptuous bark was justified. They went so far as to exonerate his latest action through past presidents such as Abraham Lincoln.
Mr. Obama's last press conference reinforced again the obvious intent of Obama to ignore his Presidential duty. The President's
job is specifically to EXECUTE the LAW; not make it. See Art. II, Sec 3,
"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and
Art. I, Sec 1. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives." (Emphasis added.)
How is it that
the entire country is not outraged by Mr. Obama's attack in response to a
citizen questioning his motives and purpose after creating an Executive Order
that legalizes illegal immigration? Mr. Obama lambasted a citizen—albeit a
reporter, saying he had no right to question his policy, and then said he
created the order for the good of the Country. Mr. Obama is either full-on
lying, or blatantly delusional. It is the Congress'
job to legislate this and all other issues effecting and affecting law. If
Mr. Obama doesn't like it, then he should have stayed a Senator.
Taking
legislation into his own hands (again) is a gross violation of his oath of
office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States." This should be an offense to every citizen. Violating the
Constitution is NEVER in the best interest of America!
NEVER.
Some have pointed out that the citizen, a reporter, who spoke out of turn was
“conservative.”Whatever the pont is to that statement,
he was rude. It does not follow that the
PRESIDENT of the UNTIED STATES should be rude back. If he wants respect, he
needs to be respectable. He could easily
have done what many a President before him has done on BOTH sides of the isle;
Ignore the man and get on with his speech.
To his speech then, which consequently included a response
to the reporter. My point stands above:
Policy or no policy—the President of the United States has NO authority
to legislate. Ends do NOT justify the
means—ever. This country was founded upon playing by the rules--unlike ANY
other country. Mr. Obama is not willing
to oblige and by his own admission is deliberately turning this country into
anything but the Constitutional America that was founded.
That leads to a comment referencing the Emancipation
Proclamation as further justification of Obama's misuse of Executive Orders, claiming that Lincoln did the same to free the slaves. I share a perspective base upon the history: The Proclamation stands as an
example of executing the law, not
making it. In that case, the Constitution itself, as the Supreme Law of the
Land (Art. VI) was the law Lincoln was obligated in good faith to execute. One
of the great divides between the states at the time of the creation of the
Constitution was slavery. A compromise
was designed where, by 1808, the slave trade would be abolished. The date was
intended to provide enough time—a full generation (from 1789 to 1808)—for Slave
States to adjust their lifestyle and economy to phase out the practice. Furtermore, Lincoln was obligated by his oath to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution.
In 1805 Congress began preparing for this phase out with
negotiations on an Act to eliminate the slave trade by the 1808 deadline. To be
clear, no actual legislation dictating the abolishment needed to be made. By admission
in the Constitution, it was law. But legislation spelling out how and what
penalties should incur would certainly be necessary and useful. The act abolishing slavery with the intent to
be enforced in 1808 was signed into law in 1807.
Unfortunately, abolishing the slave trade did not result in a willingness to phase out slavery as intended. Instead, the South ignored the injunction and intention of 1789 contract by taking advantage of the perpetuation of massive slave growth internally-through plantation slave families. It was not until Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation that something was done. More than three million slaves—some records claim upwards of five million—were freed immediately upon the declaration, despite that the Civil War had already begun nearly two years earlier. An important note: By the time Lincoln had to deal with this issue it had become not just a massive philosophical and cultural divide between quibbling sides of the country, but a logistical problem with laws of one state encroaching upon the laws of another. A black crossing from one state to another did so at peril. The nation was becoming increasingly confusing and travel restrictive. War was ongoing—indeed in full throttle, irrespective of Lincoln’s further catapult with the Emancipation or his earlier declaration of war.
Unfortunately, abolishing the slave trade did not result in a willingness to phase out slavery as intended. Instead, the South ignored the injunction and intention of 1789 contract by taking advantage of the perpetuation of massive slave growth internally-through plantation slave families. It was not until Abraham Lincoln declared the Emancipation that something was done. More than three million slaves—some records claim upwards of five million—were freed immediately upon the declaration, despite that the Civil War had already begun nearly two years earlier. An important note: By the time Lincoln had to deal with this issue it had become not just a massive philosophical and cultural divide between quibbling sides of the country, but a logistical problem with laws of one state encroaching upon the laws of another. A black crossing from one state to another did so at peril. The nation was becoming increasingly confusing and travel restrictive. War was ongoing—indeed in full throttle, irrespective of Lincoln’s further catapult with the Emancipation or his earlier declaration of war.
That fact is, in executing the Proclamation Lincoln was
merely administering what was supposed to have already happened, an end to
slavery. (Despite his own public indifference to either side’s position)*, by the time he made the
Proclamation it was as much about settling a deadly case of sibling squabbles
that were sure to end in a massive conflagration or the breakup of the most
powerful and supposedly FREE country the world had ever seen, as obliging the
Constitution. But a gentle balance between the intentions of the Founders in
the original bargain and the sovereignty of states caused a major quandary—the
largest of its kind of conflicting checks and balances to that date.
Consequently, more than 50 years past the date assigned in the Constitution to
settle the issue, the intentional procrastination created a festering canker because
the intent of the Constitution was being sidelined.
There is a popular attitude of late to villainize Lincoln as
the instigator of the Civil War. This is wholesale cherry-picking of history. The fact is, had the states with slavery
obliged their end of the bargain on principle, rather than claiming states’
rights (which could have been an issue, except the states agreed to the compromise, and it was then not a matter of state
sovereignty but honoring contracts), as a rouse to abuse human
beings and hold them captive for the sake of wealth and empire, there would have been no uproar, no
civil war, and no need for the Emancipation Proclamation. But that is not how governing goes. Mistakes and their subsequent adjustments
occur constantly in the affairs of the public. As soon as we have a perfect
citizenry, we might have a perfect policy.
That does not, however, justify deliberate breach of contract. Mr. Obama has breached his oath of office so many times, to such a blatant degree, and in such a method and manner as to smack the American public in the face.—It is a wonder we haven’t see him lifting his middle finger to us, like his liberal colleague, Harry Reid so famously has. His actions, none-the-less, indicate his attitude toward America. This latest Executive Order is just another offense to the Constitution that forbids the President from legislating.
*Records show that President Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but as a matter of public policy, he was neutral in hopes that the states would settle their differences rationally and peacefully. It was not until the matter was a crisis of stabilizing the nation that he declared a side publicly.
No comments:
Post a Comment