Discussion:
Obama Frees America From the Tyranny of Law (see sarcasm)
(too old to reply)
AlleyCat
2018-07-11 23:48:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback says...
Please explain the tyranny...and remember, show your work.
facetious
[fuh-see-shuhs]

adjective

1) not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
amusing; humorous.

2) lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential,
amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

*****

sarcasm
[sahr-kaz-uhm]

noun

1) harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2) a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full
of sarcasms.

=====

Obama Frees America From the Tyranny of Law (see above)
By Charles C. W. Cooke

February 11, 2014 10:00 PM

Executive orders aim to prevent 'Constitution-lock.'

'That's the good thing as president," President Obama joked yesterday at
Thomas Jefferson's home in Monticello, Virginia. "I can do what I want."

And, as if signaling that he had finally transcended all of those
antediluvian "I'm not a king/emperor/dictator" reassurances, a few hours
later the news broke that he had, once again, done what he wanted - this
time delaying part of Obamacare's employer mandate until 2016.

"Now," ventured the Volokh Conspiracy's Eugene Kontorovich, "Obama really
is bypassing Congress"

Manipulating large-scale legislative policies, duly enacted, around
election schedules goes beyond the parameters of executive discretion. Nor
can this be justified by the dubious claim of "transition relief" from tax
obligations. The employers are not being relieved just from taxes, but
from direct primary legal obligations to provide insurance. Every year the
administration delays large portions of ObamaCare, it says it is no big
deal, because it is "temporary." But a few temporary fixes in a row
becomes a new permanent form of executive lawmaking.

"Executive lawmaking" sounds so harsh, don't you think? Perhaps conceive
of it instead as the executive branch's "liberating" itself from that
pesky "Constitution-lock" we've heard so much about. After all, the
alternative is just too depressing: "Whatever the stated reason for the
new delay," Kontorovich's colleague at Volokh, Jonathan H. Adler, adjudged
candidly, "it is illegal," and "the increasing brazenness with which the
Administration is disregarding inconvenient or ill-conceived portions of
its signature legislative achievement lowers the bar to a disturbing
degree." Fair enough. But how rich and how various have been those
reasons! "Why do you care: you like the outcome?" the president's critics
have been asked, just one among a host of unconvincing defenses that have
included, "well, I don't like Congress," "think of it more as that the
White House is improving the law," "this is too important for the rules,"
"look, Obama won," and, perhaps my all-time favorite, "what are you going
to do about it anyway?"

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/02/obama-frees-america-tyranny-law-
charles-c-w-cooke/
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Mexicans.
Mexicans are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, mainly
because they're mostly Catholic... oh, and they HATE you. Am I leaving
anything else out that you just LOVE about them?

Riiiiight... they're potential Democrap voters.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
AlleyCat
2018-07-11 23:48:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback says...
Please explain the tyranny...and remember, show your work.
As the Revolutionary War came to a close, King George III asked American-
born painter Benjamin West about George Washington's plans after winning
independence. West replied, "They say he will return to his farm."

"If he does that," said the king, "he will be the greatest man in the
world."

He did. And he was - through the influence of example without a standing
army.

Jump forward 240 years.

President Barack Obama currently exercises more unchecked, tyrannical
power than King George III, whose tyrannies provoked the Declaration of
Independence and Revolutionary War won by General Washington.

Mr. Obama has exterminated American citizens not accused of crime without
due process of law on his secret say-so alone.

He has initiated wars against Libya, Syria, and the Islamic State without
congressional authorization.

He has imprisoned persons indefinitely without accusation or trial at
Guantanamo Bay - even detainees whom the military has found to be innocent
of international terrorism.

He has used military tribunals in lieu of independent courts for the
prosecution of civilian offenses.

He has substituted executive agreements for treaties to extend United
States troop and combat commitments in Afghanistan and to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions.

He has issued presidential signing statements to unilaterally de facto
void provisions of duly enacted laws.

He has refused to enforce deportation laws and prohibitions on torture and
warrantless surveillance of American citizens in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

He has expended money contrary to the limits set by Congress in
appropriation measures.

He has placed the entire United States population under dragnet
surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment's right to be let alone
- the most cherished right among civilized peoples.

He has frustrated legislative or judicial oversight by improper
invocations of state secrets or executive privilege.

He has issued executive orders regulating government contractors which
usurp the legislative powers of Congress.

He has brandished the Espionage Act to impair freedom of the press.

He has failed to superintend the conduct of his subordinates in the
Internal Revenue Service, Central Intelligence Agency, and Office of
National Intelligence so as to check their lawlessness or excesses.

Even more harrowing than Mr. Obama's lawless actions are the
constitutional principles he has asserted. He claims a limitless power to
murder any citizen whom he unilaterally concludes based on secret evidence
may be a national security threat. He further insists that neither
Congress nor the judiciary are authorized to second guess presidential
murders. That is the most awesome power ever possessed by any tyrant since
the beginning of time.

Equally frightening is Mr. Obama's claimed right to initiate and to
continue global warfare for any reason or no reason in perpetuity without
congressional authorization. War is the death knell for liberty,
transparency, the rule of law, and the Constitution's separation of power.
Alexis de Tocqueville lectured in Democracy in America: "All those who
seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that
war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it."

Those who won our independence did not idle in the face of tyrannical
principles such as these. James Madison, father of the Constitution and
Bill of Rights, taught: "The free men of America did not wait till usurped
power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in
precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they
avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson
too much soon to forget it."

I have been warning against congressional surrenders and presidential
usurpations of power that are crushing liberty and crippling the rule of
law for almost a decade, including Constitutional Peril: The Life and
Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire
Before The Fall. Time has more than vindicated my warnings.

It takes willful blindness not to see we will be living under one branch
tyranny in a few decades if we do not find the courage to protest the
president's vandalizing of the Constitution with the acquiescence of
Congress and the Supreme Court. If we shy from our duty, we will be
execrated by posterity for readily surrendering liberty won at such high
cost by men who risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/23/bruce-fein-king-obama-
betters-tyranny-king-george/
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Mexicans.
Mexicans are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, mainly
because they're mostly Catholic... oh, and they HATE you. Am I leaving
anything else out that you just LOVE about them?

Riiiiight... they're potential Democrap voters.

http://i.imgur.com/VsWANkz.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5oeqnDw.jpg
Byker
2018-07-12 16:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
As the Revolutionary War came to a close, King George III asked
American-born painter Benjamin West about George Washington's plans after
winning independence. West replied, "They say he will return to his farm."
If only Obozo was equally loony:
Loading Image...

AlleyCat
2018-07-11 23:49:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback says...
Please explain the tyranny...and remember, show your work.
NY Times Blasts Obama's Executive Tyranny

I'm sure the New York Times didn't think it was doing what I claim in the
headline here with its remarkable story yesterday on Obama's use of
executive power, but what else would you conclude from taking in the
direct and cleared-eyed prose of Binyamin Appelbaum and Michael D. Shear:

WASHINGTON - In nearly eight years in office, President Obama has
sought to reshape the nation with a sweeping assertion of executive
authority and a canon of regulations that have inserted the United States
government more deeply into American life. . .

Blocked for most of his presidency by Congress, Mr. Obama has sought
to act however he could. In the process he created the kind of government
neither he nor the Republicans wanted - one that depended on bureaucratic
bulldozing rather than legislative transparency.

Let's stop the tape for a moment here though, and break down this second
paragraph a little bit. "Blocked for most of his presidency by Congress. .
." Oh, you mean Congress exercising its constitutional powers? Yeah, I
think that's what that means. And "bureaucratic bulldozing rather than
legislative transparency"? Translation: unconstitutional usurpation of
power.

Anyway, let's continue with the Times's unwitting bill of impeachment:

The Obama administration in its first seven years finalized 560 major
regulations - those classified by the Congressional Budget Office as
having particularly significant economic or social impacts. That was
nearly 50 percent more than the George W. Bush administration during the
comparable period, according to data kept by the regulatory studies center
at George Washington University. . . And it has imposed billions of
dollars in new costs on businesses and consumers.

I'm sure all those costs are worth it. Who needs 3 percent growth anyway?
It's not like Acela riders are paying those costs.

Amazingly, the Times almost stumbles across the way the Obama
Administration has gamed cost-benefit analysis to claim yuuuge benefits
from its new regulations: it double- and triple-counts the health benefits
from reducing particulates, which are falling fast anyway and already
regulated by several Clean Air Act programs, meaning the new regulations
are redundant. (And never mind that the epidemiology of the particulate
health effects is obsolete and dubious to begin with. Some other day.)

The government does not try to quantify all the benefits of proposed
regulations. When it came to environmental regulations, the calculation
was particularly limited. Analysts often assigned a dollar figure to just
one kind of damage - emissions of "small particles" - and then stacked up
the costs of the proposal against the benefits of fewer particles.

Neat trick if you can get away with it. It's like claiming a reduction in
obesity as a "benefit" from raising food prices and mandating gym
membership. In fact, the story comes close to offering an example of just
this kind of logic:

[A]fter Mr. Obama's re-election, they found a way: White House lawyers
concluded that the president could impose requirements on contractors in
the interest of taxpayers.

Betsey Stevenson, a member of the president's Council of Economic
Advisers, took the lead in building a case that contractors who paid
higher wages would attract and retain better workers, increasing their
productivity.

The theory holds, for example, that if the lunch lines at a federal
office building moved a little more quickly because of more competent,
motivated cafeteria workers, every employee in those lines would save a
few minutes a day and have more time to work, thus increasing
productivity.

Ah ha! The higher minimum wage is just another plot to increase government
"efficiency." Brings to mind Milton Friedman's old quip that it's a good
thing we don't get all the government we pay for.

Finally, this:

"We live in an era of presidential administration," Elena Kagan, a
Harvard law professor since appointed by Mr. Obama to the Supreme Court,
wrote in a 2001 paper that reviewed the expansion of the regulatory state.
Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump would most likely face significant
congressional opposition to their major campaign promises. To sidestep
Congress, they now have the legacy of Mr. Obama.

Here's one of the best arguments for Trump. Maybe liberals will rediscover
the importance of limiting executive power and the reach of the
administrative state.
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Mexicans.
Mexicans are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, mainly
because they're mostly Catholic... oh, and they HATE you. Am I leaving
anything else out that you just LOVE about them?

Riiiiight... they're potential Democrap voters.

http://i.imgur.com/VsWANkz.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5oeqnDw.jpg
AlleyCat
2018-07-11 23:49:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:56 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback says...
Please explain the tyranny...and remember, show your work.
Once Skeptical of Tyranny, Obama Has Come to Embrace It

Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most
prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history.

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
AUG. 13, 2016

Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most
prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history.

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
AUG. 13, 2016

WASHINGTON - In nearly eight years in office, President Obama has sought
to reshape the nation with a sweeping assertion of executive authority and
a canon of regulations that have inserted the United States government
more deeply into American life.

Once a presidential candidate with deep misgivings about executive power,
Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors
of major regulations in presidential history.

Tyranny!

Blocked for most of his presidency by Congress, Mr. Obama has sought to
act however he could. In the process he created the kind of government
neither he nor the Republicans wanted - one that depended on bureaucratic
bulldozing rather than legislative transparency. But once Mr. Obama got
the taste for it, he pursued his executive power without apology, and in
ways that will shape the presidency for decades to come.

(Though Trump doesn't seem to have the same penchant for making laws
unilaterally)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/obama-era-legacy-
regulation.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-
heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Mexicans.
Mexicans are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, mainly
because they're mostly Catholic... oh, and they HATE you. Am I leaving
anything else out that you just LOVE about them?

Riiiiight... they're potential Democrap voters.

http://i.imgur.com/VsWANkz.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5oeqnDw.jpg
Loading...