Issues or America????

[tonyz]

Sowell, yet again, providing a not so subtle reminder - of just what is at stake - to some who seem to love to get lost...in that forest, or the spell check, or the grammar police, or PC police, or blaming Bush, or demanding tax returns, or spending our way out of debt, or contraception, or growing government...or...or...


"Issues" or America?

TownHall.com
Thomas Sowell
8/21/12

Excerpts:

There are some very serious issues at stake in this year's election -- so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.

The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.

For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama's recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.

The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States -- and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.

No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with.

If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.

When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws, and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.

When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution -- and ourselves.

If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma...ues_or_america

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by tonyz

If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma...ues_or_america

A death knell for the Country as it was founded.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Dusty

A death knell for the Country as it was founded.

Agreed.

Another excerpt from the article.

"There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper."

Originally Posted by tonyz

Sowell, yet again, providing a not so subtle reminder - of just what is at stake - to some who seem to love to get lost...in that forest, or the spell check, or the grammar police, or PC police, or blaming Bush, or demanding tax returns, or spending our way out of debt, or contraception, or growing government...or...or...


"Issues" or America?

TownHall.com
Thomas Sowell
8/21/12

Excerpts:

There are some very serious issues at stake in this year's election -- so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.

The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.

For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama's recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.

The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States -- and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.

No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with.

If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.

When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws, and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.

When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution -- and ourselves.

If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma...ues_or_america

How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by WCH

How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?

For one, they are not the president of the United States - setting the overall tone for the nation. There will always be discretion in our free society. There will always be those who abuse that discretion. For now, let's get rid of (fire - in the upcoming election) the most obvious and highest ranking abuser. One who has the power to appoint folks who will shape the very nature of the entire nation.

Or, you can start at the local level and address your local Sheiff, DA, et al, situation - I submit you can do both.

[Richard]

Critics of one political party or another have been sounding the imminent 'death knell' of America since Thomas Jefferson became POTUS against Alexander Hamilton's wishes and machinations to prevent it.

Personally, I look at the immigration directive as an effort to stir Congress to act upon something which falls under their purview...and a matter they've been shilly-shallying around with for decades. I hope it works.

Because Congress does retain the authority to 'counter' such directives from a POTUS or to 'pink slip' the POTUS if necessary, I look upon my vote for my Congress-critters as being more important to America than my vote for POTUS.

I'll wait and see.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Because Congress does retain the authority to 'counter' such directives from a POTUS or to 'pink slip' the POTUS if necessary, I look upon my vote for my Congress-critters as being more important to America than my vote for POTUS.

I'll wait and see.

And so it goes...

Richard

'Bout 75 days.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by WCH

How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?

Good point, but the difference is obvious, which is the size of the jurisdiction and the ability of the people to move in/out of the same.

Originally Posted by MR2

Good point, but the difference is obvious, which is the size of the jurisdiction and the ability of the people to move in/out of the same.

I've never lived anywhere, where every on the books are enforced. Can you name one? What prevents a person from moving out of the USA?

[MR2]

Originally Posted by WCH

I've never lived anywhere, where every ?law? on the books are enforced. Can you name one? What prevents a person from moving out of the USA?

1. None that I know of - so no. What was your point in asking that?

2. Nothing. My point was that it is far easier to move from (or effect change in) one jurisdiction than it is to do said to the entire country. IMO.

[Badger52]

I'd also suggest that local jurisdictions make those choices, quite often, based on what they have the resources to address, based upon how much of their blood, sweat & tears gets expended to justify the result - said result stemming from the authority of their Legislature.

My problem with a proclamation-happy Chief Executive is that they think they just get to "say" and it will be so, resources (and the Legislative authority from the Constitution) be damned. Laws are passed by a legislature, local or national, and that's what's being decided upon in a local situation when someone exercises prosecutorial discretion. A proclamation by a Chief Executive, circumventing that process - local or national - is just that. Local legislatures seem to get more up in arms over Gubernatorial wielding of edicts these days than this Congress has over the current POTUS. In my mind, that's their shame. On that specific issue I agree with Richard; the denizens of Congress should be the recipients of a more discerning eye. This particular sitting body seems to be of the Semper Jello variety.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by WCH

How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?

Then why do we even bother to pass laws? Why do we even bother to vote other members of our society into office to even bother to create them when they are going to be ignored anyway? This is just a microcosim of the Nation. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.
This President swore to uphold and defend the same Constitution you and I did. The difference between the two is that I know by choosing to ignore certain laws (for example speeding) I will be held accountable for it. The current POTUS knows no one is holding him accountable so he can do whatever he damn well pleases. Hopefully that changes in a couple of months.