Obama’s perverse view of the presidency

During His State of the Union address, Obama clearly stated His view of the purpose of His presidency.

to follow the Constitution. It’s too old and too slow.

Here it is: “to do what I believe is best for America.” He presumably means an America as she would be after His radical transformation has been completed. He constantly tries to transform her in His own image.

Following the Constitution — not trying to evade Article II limitations on the Executive Branch and not trying to diminish the Article I role of Congress — is best for America. A dictator would feel otherwise. The Constitution was designed to prevent the rise of dictatorships in America. Obama’s efforts to diminish the constitutional framework of governance are indicative of His dictatorial aspirations.

Power Line‘s Steven Hayward, in an article titled The tyrant and the statesman, made the point quite well:

Remember when Obama remarked that “it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.” It turns out? He just figured that out when he got to the White House? What closet did Valerie Jarrett stuff the hapless fellow who broke the news? [Emphasis added.]

Obama’s impatience with the Constitution—a document that went unmentioned in last night’s State of the Union address—was on full display. Ken Masugi notes over at the LibertyLawSite:

Evidently no one heard Obama declare,  “My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I’ve had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol — to do what I believe is best for America.” No, he swore an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” What he feels “is best for America” may well differ from faithful execution of his office and guardianship of the Constitution. So Obama admits he is a law unto himself. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

By contrast, take in these two paragraphs from the 1987 SOTU of Ronaldus Magnus:

Over the years—I won’t count if you don’t—nothing has been so heartwarming to me as speaking to America’s young, and the little ones especially, so fresh-faced and so eager to know. Well, from time to time I’ve been with them—they will ask about our Constitution. And I hope you Members of Congress will not deem this a breach of protocol if you’ll permit me to share these thoughts again with the young people who might be listening or watching this evening. I’ve read the constitutions of a number of countries, including the Soviet Union’s. Now, some people are surprised to hear that they have a constitution, and it even supposedly grants a number of freedoms to its people. Many countries have written into their constitution provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Well, if this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional? [Emphasis added.]

Well, the difference is so small that it almost escapes you, but it’s so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: We the people. In those other constitutions, the Government tells the people of those countries what they’re allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the Government what it can do, and it can do only those things listed in that document and no others. Virtually every other revolution in history has just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters and government is their servant. And you young people out there, don’t ever forget that. Someday you could be in this room, but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best—because here in America, we the people are in charge. [Emphasis added.]

Notice several striking wholesale differences from Obama, starting with the polite deference to Congress before he offers his instruction on the Constitution. But above all there is the reminder that the “We” in constitutional government should always be followed by “the people,” whereas when Obama says “we” (or “I”), he means our betters in Washington, who are our masters rather than our servants as Reagan made them out. [Emphasis added.]

Another substantial, albeit diminishing, difference between the U.S. Constitution and those of many other nations — Venezuela, for example — is that while their constitutions have fine phrases about multiple freedoms and constitutional governance, they ignore them in practice. How far will we follow their paths to dictatorship?

Some of the blame lies with the Congress, and Obama has gone well beyond taking full advantage. Legislation such as ObamaScare tends to be lengthy, with numerous  opportunities granted to multiple Federal agencies, commissions and departments to expand upon it, without regard to congressional intent, or even clear statutory language, when following it would foil their own inconsistent objectives. Phrases such as “and such other *** as the Administrator shall decide” are common. The judiciary then compounds the problem by giving undue deference to agency interpretations, findings of fact and alleged expertise.

Congress could do much to avoid future executive branch interference by writing clearer legislation with fewer opportunities for executive branch revisions. It is doubtful that it will, because that would require substantially more work, thereby interfering with what many Congress critters appear to consider their most important functions, fund raising and getting reelected to continue to suck on golden teats.

Ted Cruz got many points right in the following video of a recent extemporaneous speech to a bunch of “tea party terrorists.” We need a constitutional conservative as President, not a “Progressive” in Republican clothing.

Can we do it? Will we do it?