DESTROYING AMERICA WITH PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS

DESTROYING AMERICA WITH PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS

The following is an excerpt from World Net Daily

 “STROKE OF THE PEN. LAW OF THE LAND.”  
Barack Obama has used executive orders to seal presidential records; create a faith council, an economic council, and a domestic policy council, a council on women and girls and dozens more; study bioethics, change pay grades, set up a team of governors to synchronize state and federal military operations in the U.S.; improve regulatory review; create a jobs council; set up immunity for Bosnia, revoke some earlier orders and talk about finances. GASP!

And he’s used them to talk about fiscal responsibility, ensure abortions through Obamacare; review Guantanamo Bay operations; promote diversity; amend court-martial procedures; launch a national women action plan, talk about Syria, talk about North Korea, encourage efficient government, target transnational crime groups, promote efficient spending and many, many more. WHEW!

Now critics are saying that if it looks like he’s trying to run the country single-handedly, their perceptions aren’t far off.

“It is very disconcerting,” said Richard Thompson, chief of the Thomas More Law Center. The organization is fighting the Obama administration on a number of the subjects that also have been raised in executive orders.

A viral email circulating now, just as the volume in the 2012 presidential race crescendos, states that Obama has issued 923 executive orders in three and a half years, up from George W. Bush’s 62 in eight years.

But that’s easily debunked by a quick visit to the National Archives website, where Obama’s 39 executive orders from 2009 are listed, his 35 from 2010, his 34 from 2011 and 27 so far in 2012.
Experts told WND that while Obama’s pace is above some other presidents, the figure of more than 900 is unrealistic.

The numbers show that Obama is issuing similar numbers of orders to his predecessor, George W. Bush. In three and a half years, Obama has issued just under 140 orders, or about 40 per year. In eight years, Bush issued some 290, about 36 per year.

Obama’s have included startling issues, however, including an order last March giving administration officials the power to order the acceptance and performance of contracts for farm equipment, food, health resources, transportation resources, construction materials and even water – should the federal government want it.

Earlier presidents issued higher numbers of orders, but also were dealing with different circumstances, especially those who followed World War II.

Bill Clinton issued 364 in eight years (46 per year), George H.W. Bush had 166 in four years (41), Ronald Reagan 381 in eight years (48), Jimmy Carter 310 in four years (77), Gerald Ford 169 in three years (58), Richard Nixon 346 in five years (69), Lyndon Johnson 325 in about six years (54), John Kennedy 214 in about three years (70), Dwight Eisenhower 486 in eight years (60), Harry Truman 901 in eight years (112), and Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,734 in 12 years (311).

Some of those from Truman involved settling railroad labor disputes, ending the office of defense transportation, moving a land office from Carson City to Reno and exempting an individual from a compulsory retirement age.

Even the  far left-leaning FactCheck wrote, “It’s true that President Obama is increasingly using his executive powers in the face of staunch Republican opposition in Congress. He’s changed federal policies on immigration and welfare and appointed officials without congressional approval.”
The explanation continued, “Obama is employing his executive powers now more than ever before during his presidency. Obama has been sidestepping Congress through his ‘We Can’t Wait’ initiative, a series of executive actions that he claims benefit the middle class through infrastructure projects and economic policy changes. He also skirted Senate approval in January when he appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointments were unprecedented because he made them when the Senate was technically not in recess, prompting legal challenges from conservative groups.”

And the explanation said, “In June, the president halted deportations of illegal immigrants who entered the United States when they were children and met certain requirements, such as the lack of a criminal record. The change mirrored provisions of the DREAM Act — failed legislation that Obama supported and Senate Republicans blocked in 2010. And in July, Obama changed welfare policy to allow states to modify work requirements if they test new approaches to increasing employment. Obama did not submit the policy change to Congress for review, which the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done.”

It was a presidential aide to Clinton, Paul Begala, who put the controversy into perspective, back in July 1998.

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool,” he said, boasting how the Clinton machine was able to simply dictate what it wanted to have happen.

It came as Clinton glibly announced he would issue a barrage of executive orders to push his agenda forward without input from Congress.

Not new policy

Michael Boldin of the nation’s Tenth Amendment Center, explained to WND how the system is supposed to work.

“In Article I Section I of the Constitution we learn that all legislative powers reside in Congress.  The executive branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress.  An executive order is not legislation.  It is an order issued by the president to enforce laws passed by Congress.  This is backed by the declaration that the president ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress (which is only supposed to be passing laws in line with the Constitution), and not to issue new policy.”

Thompson agreed, but said that’s not the way reality has been playing out lately.
He said some of Obama’s orders appear to be flagrantly unconstitutional, but because it’s a presidential order, it is followed unless some individual or group challenges it – and wins.
“We’ve looked at the issue. Depending on the particular order, there may be material that is unconstitutional,” he said. “But the issue is what are you going to do about it?”

He said the first line of defense against an unconstitutional president should be Congress. They should say, ‘The president is enacting legislation without other branches of government,” he said.
He said, however, if Congress fails to act, then it is up to an individual who is willing to make a fight of it.

He said two recent Obama administration actions are examples of the problems that have been created. One is the White House determination that prosecutors simply are not going to follow the law regarding illegal aliens of certain ages and qualifications in the U.S. In effect, an implementation of amnesty that already was rejected in Congress.

Further is the recent announcement by the White House it would abandon the federal Defense of Marriage Act, not offering a defense should a lawsuit be filed over its requirements. The result here is that an existing federal law is left unenforced because of an administration’s decision that it doesn’t like it.

Thompson said such attitudes should be, in his opinion, grounds for impeachment.
With such a move, he said, the Department of Justice “now becomes an illegal entity – violating the law. Congress should have them up there, on an impeachable offense,” he said.
END OF EXCERPT.

The paragraph which I changed to BOLD RED pretty much sum’s it up.  Congress could have put a stop to this unconstitutional “rule by decree” long ago if they would just get off their butts and do the job we are paying them to do.

There is a reason Obama is doing this.  He is slowly one step at a time using executive orders to give himself more and more power.  He plans to use that power in his second term and what he plans to use it for is NOT for the good of the country.

This was explained in this article by Steve McCann which I posted a few days ago.
http://cyberpolyticks.blogspot.com/2012/10/obamas-second-term.html