Someone needs to challenge abuse of power

Advertisement

Lots of discussion recently about a certain red line. We thought we knew who drew it originally, but now we find it was not President Obama’s red line but belongs to the entire nation and/or to the entire international community. It has been hard to follow.

Let me suggest another line that needs to be drawn by someone with legislative credentials. The president, with more than 950 executive orders has done such things as establish certain aspects of the “Dream Act” when Congress turned it down, and he has been making new law in terms of who needs to follow the rules set down in the Affordable Care Act.

Not to be outdone, his attorney general has been proactive in his own little domain of making new laws. Recently he decided, by himself, that federal laws concerning pot will not be enforced in Colorado and Washington. He has challenged legislation regarding voter identification in certain states, and he has taken on the educational innovations in Louisiana in regards to accessibility to private education vouchers.

The tacit danger of challenging either of these politicians on this abuse of constitutional power boundaries is that you will automatically be termed a racist, and that’s a steep hill to climb.

It’s a tough job, but someone needs to have the courage to do it.

Tom Baker

Waitsburg

Comments

Igor 7 months ago

Your letter is spot on. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official should be permitted to act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. Since he took Office, Obama has been bypassing Congress and legislating by unconstitutional executive fiat. Any nation that does not observe the Rule of Law eventually winds up with tyrannical government, which is exactly where Obama is taking us.

The function of the executive branch is to enforce the law, not make it. Failure to enforce the law is tantamount to repeal, a legislative function. In addition to ordering our U.S. Attorneys to stand down on the enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substance Act, he has also ordered ICE to stand down in the enforcement of many of our immigration laws.

I, like you, keep asking myself, why are all of these shenanigans going unchallenged in our courts? Where are the Republicans?

0

MyFamNews 7 months ago

The Republicans are busy with repealing the Healthcare law, limiting women's access to healthcare and attempting to disenfranchise voters. Those are the top priority. If you really are worried, maybe you should call them and explain that obstructing the President and the People might not be the best path to walk.

2

PearlY 7 months ago

"The People" are saying in poll after poll that they don't like Obamacare and think it will make their lives and future health care in this country worse. Why are the President and the Democrats in Congress obstructing its repeal?

0

MyFamNews 7 months ago

Show me the polls, please

0

PearlY 7 months ago

You can find a list of polls at RealClearPolitics.com.

Polls reported in the last week:

USA Today/Pew Research: Opposed 53%, Favor 42%

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl: Opposed 44%, Favor 31%

Rasmussen Reports: Opposed 53%, Favor 43%

Fox News: Opposed 54%, Favor 35%

CNN/Opinion Research: Opposed 57%, Favor 39%

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

You can go to that site and click on each poll to go to the organizations' report.

0

VinoTinto 7 months ago

Pearl, your people might be saying that, but mine are not.

0

PearlY 7 months ago

Well, Vino, we're making progress if you at least acknowledge that "my" people are people too! Most of the time, I get the impression you think we have horns on our heads, an arrow-pointed tail and a decided reddish cast to our epidermis.

0

tpeacock 7 months ago

No, the Republicans are telling us poll after poll shows the majority, blah, blah, blah. I am still trying to find these polls and their overwhelming non-support for the Healthcare Act. If anyone of you can also tell me, honestly, that the GOP Presidents we've had didn't run their own agendas then the absolute point of my never ending theme of non-party affiliation/politics still holds true. Blind faith in ANY party is an absolute waste of votes and politically slanted ideas/rhetoric.

0

PearlY 7 months ago

For where to find the polls, see my answer above.

0

NewInWW 7 months ago

I'm curious why the will of the "people" seems so compelling to those on the right opposed to Obamacare; while those on the right are willing to ignore the will of the people who overwhelmingly favor tighter gun control laws and immigration reform?

Moreover, those opposed to Obamacare have yet to propose anything to replace it that will address our inefficient, under serving, yet terribly expensive current health care system. Do the opponents of Obamacare have anything to offer other than their opposition to it?

Most of the political analyses I've read have indicated that Republicans are using the issue to keep their base fired up, while having no real desire to repeal it, as they see it as a good wedge issue in 2014 and 2016, and repeal might actually force them to come up with their own plan. We all know that Congressional Republicans have no interest in actually governing if that might result in doing anything that will upset the Tea Party.

0

PearlY 7 months ago

My take on democracy is like Winston Churchill's: It's the worst possible system except for all the others. So the "will of the people" does not, in my book, equate to good policy. I do have enormous respect for the writers of the Constitution, though, so the right to bear arms carries more weight with me, being recognized in the Bill of Rights, than the "right" to government-dictated health care, being totally absent from it.

I'd be happy to propose an alternative to Obamacare that would fairly quickly eliminate many of the inefficiencies and wasteful elements of our current health care system, and would also serve the 'underserved" about as well as Obamacare. However, it has no chance of being enacted into law and would also make your head explode, plus you find my posts too long-winded already, so I'll pass.

0

NewInWW 7 months ago

We have a nine other amendments in the Bill of Rights, all of which are subject to some limitations; yet for some reason there can be no restraints on guns? That's simply incorrect.

Moreover, you must not have seen my immigration example, because you ignored it.

No, the conservative right values the will of the people only in the less and less frequent cases when the majority of people agree with them. The rest of the time ideology comes well ahead of the will of the people.

Let's watch the upcoming CR and debt limit fights and see how many people want the government shut down or the US to default on its debts as compared to what the Tea Party does in the House and Senate.

0

NewInWW 6 months, 3 weeks ago

As predicted the Congressional (House) Republicans couldn't care less about what the public wants - they seem bent on a government shut down even though all polling indicates that the public doesn't want the government shut down over defunding Obamacare.

They - like their supporters - are hypocrites.

In fact, most of the polling indicates that the public like the idea of universal healthcare - they just want Obamacare fixed, not defunded.

Sorry Tea Party, as in 2012, you lose again.

0

kurtfr 7 months ago

I question the "more than 950 executive orders". Seems like it is 163. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html Which is 128 less than GW Bush and 218 less than Ronald Reagan.

2

namvet60 7 months ago

kurtfr - I'd venture to guess that your family does not send you to the store for a bag of apples because they are tired of eating oranges.

First your comparing GW Bush and R Reagan with 8 years of service compared to 4.5 years of Obama. Nice try.

Next check out the comparison to B Clinton (364 - that's 73 more than GW) and J Carter (320 - that's 29 more than GW). R Reagan did have 381 which was high but he was a RINO so being a conservative I really don't think that was high following J Carter devastating term.

This list is incomplete but more complete than most.

0

MyFamNews 7 months ago

George HW Bush, 4 years, 166 executive orders. I find your analysis quite funny, since you continually compare Democratic Presidents and absolutely disallow any comparisons of Republican Presidents. The fact remains, Mr. Baker is wrong, there have not been 950 executive orders from the current President. As a matter of FACT, he has fewer to date than any of his predecessors, over the past 40 years. Facts are so inconvenient, to those who will continue to find fault, at every turn.

1

namvet60 7 months ago

Probably because there are a few that only compare GW Bush to the current President. I put that comparison in for that reason but I don't worry about hindsight because we are living in 2013 and 4 1/2 years into this Presidency. So obviously I'm concerned with the now and not the hereafter.

0

tpeacock 7 months ago

An excellent retort, sir!

1

kurtfr 7 months ago

I'm curious to hear from other Republicans: How many of your agree with NamVet that Reagan was a closet Democrat?

0

namvet60 7 months ago

If you hadn't noticed I don't have to get my talking points from anyone - I can think for myself unlike some Liberals.

0

downhillracer 7 months ago

No, you actually make up information as you go along, and modify it to fit your narrative. The sign of a sociopath, actually.

0

PearlY 7 months ago

I disagree. I'd say he was a "Scoop" Jackson-style Democrat (anti-Communist foreign policy hawk but domestically Rooseveltian) through most of his first term as governor of CA, but shifted decidedly right on domestic policy during his second term, and I would not characterize him as a RINO but as a domestic policy pragmatist as President. In other words, as President, his priority was defeating the Soviet Union, and he was willing to compromise his principles on the domestic front to achieve that goal. Of course, to some, a RINO is anyone who compromises some principles in the service of others. I don't share that puritanical perspective, being more of a "The perfect is the enemy of the good" kind of person.

But this opinion is not based on any serious research, just my recollections.

0

tpeacock 7 months ago

And once again, facts mean little to those of the GOP slant, when the facts disprove their ranting's, and of course with the never too subtle insult to someone's intelligence! Is it really that difficult to debate without throwing stones?

1

PearlY 7 months ago

Apparently so, since you yourself threw two stones in this post.

0

PearlY 7 months ago

What? You can't recognize them?

0

PearlY 7 months ago

Here's a curious thing:

Remember in January of this year. when Obama implemented 23 executive orders on gun control? Rolling Stone even has a picture of the signing ceremony on January 15th, with Obama surrounded by school children as props. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/president-obamas-missing-executive-order-on-gun-control-20130116

Strangely, none of those 23 executive orders show up on the archives you cited, nor do any show up on the Wikipedia listing namvet60 gave us. If those 23 really exist, then obviously the official count of how many executive orders he's issued is way off, and who knows how many others aren't counted either.

0

downhillracer 7 months ago

If you're asking 'namvet' to utilize actual facts in support of his arguments, you're going to be waiting a long, long time. The TeaParty crowd has moved to the absolute fringes of reality.

0

namvet60 7 months ago

downhillracer - why don't you get some fresh air and resurface? Your posts are just showing your true ignorance to stating any info on the current subject.

If you know so much about the Tea Party maybe you should go to there meetings and try and change the agenda.

0

VinoTinto 7 months ago

Angry ... party of one!

0

namvet60 7 months ago

You haven't seen anyone angry yet, just concerned. But when the anger comes up you will know it.

0

downhillracer 7 months ago

That should put you on a watch list, for sure. Mr. "namvet", my concern exists only with the misuse of data and representing it as "fact". Normally, this is known as "a lie". If you wish to refute this "misinformation", please feel free to do so. Otherwise, when "a lie" is told, you can expect those interested in the truth to speak up.

1

PearlY 7 months ago

downhillracer, I use actual facts in support of my arguments all the time and you're not noticeably gentler in your criticisms of me than of namvet60. I don't think it's really his style of argumentation you object to.

0

Jo99362 7 months ago

Pretty sure GW decided that we don't have the right to privacy and enacted the Patriot Act . . . now we all have him to thank for the numerous TSA stories and decipher if jello is more dangerous than a granola bar.

0

PearlY 7 months ago

All Acts, including the Patriot Act, are enacted by Congress, not the President. He proposed it, but Congress enacted it in 2001 with only one negative vote in the Senate and with more than two-thirds of Democrats voting for it in the House. Blame Congress - both parties - for it being enacted. As to how TSA is run, that is the fault of whatever President is in charge of running it. That would be Obama right now.

0

VinoTinto 7 months ago

So what, who cares! More whining and complaining ... you conservatives are such a drag!

0

PearlY 7 months ago

Come on, Vino, admit it: You don't even KNOW any conservatives! Find one, invite him or her out for a glass of wine, and see how much fun we can be!

0

VinoTinto 7 months ago

I do know conservatives, but I suppose there's always room for one more.

Do you want to have a glass of wine or cup of coffee next time I'm in town? I'll be in town mid October.

0

fatherof5 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Amazing, indeed. You seem to think that Ben Bernanke, who was appointed by George W. Bush, and the rest of the Fed is part of the Obama administration. It is not.

Just out of curiosity, when you stub your toe on a chair, do you yell, "Obama!"? I'm just wondering how many bad things you think are Obama's fault.

0

namvet60 6 months, 3 weeks ago

fatherof5 - you never cease to amaze me. Do you really think that anybody outside of the Liberal Democrat party is stupid (back to your red-neck theory) for not believing your rehtoric?

Ben Bernanke was appointed by GW but was re-appointed in 2010 by your President Obama. The Fed under the blessing of the President is using Quantative Easing to the tune of $85 billion (almost another trillion dollars added to the $90 Trillion to unsecured debt that falls on the children, grand-children and future generations) a month injected into the economy. Obviously this has not had a positive effect as how the President needs another debt limit increase.

Remember in 2008 when Barack Obama was campaigning on "any President that has to raise the debt limit is very incompetent and should not hold the office"? Well after 6 years of the Democrats holding Seniority (at least 2 of the Administrative houses) you have three of the top officials (President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense) as the weakest in foreign and domestic policies. We used to call that being weak-kneed.

I used to think that you expounding on your positions were on the thin border of Socialism but I'm now thinking that your just a defeatist.

0

NewInWW 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Odd that after a week in which it appears Syria's chemical weapons will be surrendered and destroyed, and Iran is signalling that it's prepared for serious talks on its nuclear program - all without the loss of s single American life or even firing a single shot - you deem Obama and Kerry as "weakest in foreign" policy.

As things stand right now, what don't you like about that outcome?

1

downhillracer 6 months, 3 weeks ago

Careful, you're going to confuse them by using all these facts, it distorts their shared reality as tought at Glenn Beck University, Donald Trump University, and all other sorts of "higher" education deemed proper by the GOTP.

0

namvet60 6 months, 3 weeks ago

NewinWW - As it appears you are correct but when you consider that Kerry opened mouth, inserted foot, causing the White House to denounce his statement until Russia picked up on it and got the ball rolling. Then all of a sudden Obama and Kerry try to take all the credit but all of the foreign countries laughed that off. This in turn makes Putin the real negotiator for any final outcomes. There is also a window in your "appears Syria will surrender there chemical weapons" which is that there is no deadline. Also, how many times has Iran signalled anything before going on with what they were doing in the first place? Iran talks and keeps right on building.

To this point in time I have no problem with the progress but the US is a far cry from having a final outcome.

0

NewInWW 6 months, 3 weeks ago

The reporting I saw indicated that the surrender and destroy concept had been discussed by both Obama and Kerry with their Russian counterparts many months before Kerry's comments.

I suspect that the entire matter was stage managed by the US and Russia in an effort to get Assad's chemicals away from him, without the Russians appearing to have abandoned him. The way things went down, the Russians appear to have seized on an "unintended" opening to "save" Assad. If that's the case, more power to Obama and Kerry for being willing to look outflanked, if it results in a better potential outcome without loss of American lives. I'm tired of youngsters dying to show how tough our various presidents think they are.

As between Russia and the US, I think Russia is much more threatened by extremists getting their hands on Assad's chemical weapons, yet absent the threat of a US attack, none of this comes to pass and Russia has no opportunity to broker a deal. This result is good for Russia and certainly good for us.

As for no "final outcome" on Iran, or Syria for that matter, of course many things can go wrong, but for my part - and I would think yours as well given your screen name - talking that has promise of achieving the 100% goal, is always better than our young men and women fighting and dying for a suboptimal result.

1

namvet60 6 months, 2 weeks ago

It is rather obvious that we could read the same reports and come back with a different conclusion. But the reports that I've read definitely did not leave me with that impression at all.

I will agree that no boots on the ground is good but to leave negotiations in the hands of our enemies (maybe some would consider them frenemies) instead of utilizing our Allies leaves me bewildered to say the least. One of our best Allies is Israel which condemned Iran with a fury during the UN speech. Which leaves Israel in a tight spot when the US won't commit as a true Ally or not. When this Administration leaves our Allies hanging without a solid foundation the US is in trouble and they might not be there when needed.

0

Sign in to comment

4 free views left!