Ron Paul writes, “Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders.”
President Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority. Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.
Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and policies without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively aiding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.
Executive orders are perfectly legitimate and even necessary if, in the words of leading Constitutional Scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, they “…. guide the executive branch on how to enforce a law or…complement and supplement what Congress has already done.” The problem is that most modern presidents have abused this power to issue orders that, as Judge Napolitano puts it, “restates federal law, or contradicts federal law, or does the opposite of what the federal law is supposed to do.”
Why is there no opposition to King Obama’s unconstitutional acts? Simply put, because for once… many Republicans aren’t acting as total hypocrites.
Political opponents of the president rightly condemned Obama for disregarding the Constitution. However, it was not that long ago that many of the same politicians were labeling as “unpatriotic” or worse anyone who dared question President Bush’s assertions that he had the “inherent” authority to launch wars, spy on Americans, and even indefinitely detain American citizens.
My fellow Americans, we have to decide whether or not we are comfortable being ruled with dictatorial powers. It may feel “right” when it’s “our man” in the Oval Office, but the key measuring stick is that you pick the worst possible politician, and ask yourself:
Would I be OK with him (or her) having this same kind of executive power?
If the answer is “no,” then you have to passionately oppose allowing *anyone* to wield that level of power. Division of powers is a blessing with benefits beyond measure. We need to return to it, starting now.