Obama’s imperial presidency

President Obama was not the first.

You weren't the first, Barry. Do you care?

You weren’t the first, Barry. Do you care?

He is, however, the worst.

Obama on throne

Jonathan Turley, a liberal in the old fashioned sense and not a librul, opines in an article titled A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency that although He did not start the trend to an imperial presidency, President Obama has expanded it, in spades. Worse, few seem to care — including even our “honorable’ members of the Congress and our equally “honorable” members of the Federal judiciary. Even worse, few members of the general public seem concerned.

Here are a few of Mr. Turley’s observations:

[M]any Americans misunderstand the separation of powers as simply a division of authority between three branches of government. In fact, it was intended as a protection not of institutional but of individual rights, by preventing any branch from assuming enough power to become tyrannical. No branch is supposed to have enough power to govern alone. Once power becomes concentrated in the hands of a president, citizens are left only with the assurance that such unchecked power will be used wisely – a Faustian bargain the framers repeatedly warned us never to accept. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he warned that “they who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an imperial presidency with unilateral powers and privileges. But in 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Nixon was known for his attacks on whistleblowers, using the Espionage Act of 1917 to bring a rare criminal case against Ellsberg. He was vilified for this abuse of the law, but Obama has brought twice as many such prosecutions as all prior presidents combined. Nixon was accused of putting a few reporters under surveillance. The Obama administration has admitted to putting Associated Press reporters, as well as a Fox reporter, under surveillance. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Nixon was cited for various efforts to obstruct or mislead congressional investigators. The Obama administration has repeatedly refused to give evidence sought by oversight committees in a variety of scandals. In one case, Congress voted to move forward with criminal contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder, which Holder’s own Justice Department blocked. In another case, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied before Congress on the surveillance programs, and later said that he offered the least untruthful statement he could think of. The Obama administration, however, refuses to investigate Clapper for perjury, let alone fire him. Recently, the administration was accused of searching Senate computers in an investigation of the CIA and trying to intimidate congressional investigators. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

While Congress clearly retains powers, its members are increasingly finding that discretionary funds and powers blunt efforts to change government programs. Even Congress’ power of the purse has become discretionary with the president. When Congress resisted demands of the president on health care, Obama simply shifted $454 million in funds from the purpose mandated by Congress to his own purpose. When he decided not to consult with Congress on the Libyan war, he simply spent roughly a billion dollars on a war neither declared nor funded by Congress. [Emphasis added.]

Such circumvention – and the new presidential powers – create a perfect storm within the Madisonian system. It raises the very prospect the framers thought they blocked through the separation of powers: a president who can effectively rule alone. [Emphasis added.]

Have we simply become desensitized?

Boiled Frogs New

Are there other reasons for our general apathy? Here are some possibilities, in no particular order:

TV programming that merges fantasy with reality? Do we prefer to fantasize about attractive women in scanty clothing, such as Beyonce, rather than deal with substance and reality?

Beyonce

Information overload? Boredom? “I’ve got mine, screw you?” Do we want “our” benign Government to care for us from birth until death? Too busy? Everything that seems bad is a right-wing conspiracy hoax so we need to place our trust in Government? Hell. It’s the only thing we all belong to!

Obama has a “people pleasing personality” and Nixon didn’t? Is political correctness winning to the point that a Black President is immune to policy-based criticism? Has the word “integrity” become obsolete? Have lies become easier to accept than truth?

I don’t know why most are apathetic, just that they seem to be. In consequence, “our” unelected and usually unaccountable bureaucracies continue to breed, expand and fester, rather like those of the European Union. “Our” elected representatives continue to encourage them to do just that, by passing amorphous bills that give them virtually unlimited power.

What’s a conservative blogger to do?

Writing at my blog is a form of preaching to the choir. The same is likely the case with other conservative bloggers. Would posting otherwise irrelevant photos of scantily clad attractive women help? It sells shampoo, cars and probably refrigerators. Why not?

pretty girl in car ad

I think it’s fair to say that we have failed thus far. However, just as success can breed failure, so can failure breed success. Perhaps we need to continue trying until we begin to get it right, begin to succeed, not get all excited about it and continue to grind it out and to explore what made us fail and then to begin to succeed. And then increase and accelerate that which works. Tip of the hat to NEO for the YouTube video.

Trying is well worth the effort and there is little if anything to lose, except perhaps a guilty conscience.

Advertisements

About danmillerinpanama

I was graduated from Yale University in 1963 with a B.A. in economics and from the University of Virginia School of law, where I was the notes editor of the Virginia Law Review in 1966. Following four years of active duty with the Army JAG Corps, with two tours in Korea, I entered private practice in Washington, D.C. specializing in communications law. I retired in 1996 to sail with my wife, Jeanie, on our sailboat Namaste to and in the Caribbean. In 2002, we settled in the Republic of Panama and live in a very rural area up in the mountains. I have contributed to Pajamas Media and Pajamas Tatler. In addition to my own blog, Dan Miller in Panama, I an an editor of Warsclerotic and contribute to China Daily Mail when I have something to write about North Korea.
This entry was posted in 2014, Advertising, Apathy, Beyonce, Bill of Rights, Bill Whittle, Boredom, Brain washing, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Cult of personality, Democrats, Dep't of Information, Elections, Emasculation, Executive Decree, Fantasy, Federal Agencies, Federal budget, Free Press, free speech, Freedom, Frog in hot water, GOP rebrands, Government reliance, Gun control, Health Control, Holder, Ideology, Illegal immigration, Integrity, Internet, Jonathan Turley, Legislation, Liberals, Libruls, Lies, Media, Nanny state, Obama, Political class, Political Correctness, Principles, Propaganda, Republicans, Right wing conspiracy, RINOs, TEA Groups, the Basics, Trust and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Obama’s imperial presidency

  1. Tom Carter says:

    The problem with the concept of separation of powers is that each of the three branches must do its job and defend its powers. Congress isn’t doing that very well because they’re so busy biting each other’s ankles that they can’t — or don’t — stand up to the president. The Court would probably support continued rational challenges to presidential overreach, but who’s going to bring the cases?

    I don’t really see a solution. If the Republicans control the Senate and the House starting next year, maybe something will happen. And if there’s a Republican president in 2017, maybe something will happen.

    The only real answer is to change the rampant partisanship and political hatreds that pervade our system these days. But I doubt that will happen.

  2. NEO says:

    Turley’s article hit home with me as well. One of the bloggers at the Volokh Conspiracy has done a fair number of articles on the rational apathy of voters. He has a point, and I think a valid one than many people think their voice is to small to have any effect and therefore ignore political problems. I don’t know for sure but, it makes sense to me, although it may seem rational now, given where it looks like our country is going, it is not rational in even the medium term.

    • There is a little, but not much, that we — including unantipathetic conservative bloggers — can do individually. However, a small snowball rolling down a snow covered hill tends to get bigger. Many similar snowballs, following slightly different paths down the hill, also tend to get bigger.

      • NEO says:

        That is also my opinion, obviously. And as more of our citizens wake up, which seems to finally be happening, perhaps things will begin. And if so, it’s going to be quite the avalanche.

  3. Pingback: Obama’s imperial presidency | theThumpHouse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s