TRIPARTITE OVERSIGHT F.D.R. wasn't the first to try to unbalance the our government but he's the first within my (born 1936) memory. Neither was F.D.R. the first to say 'if congress won't do it's job, I will'. Under somewhat different circumstances, Obama said the same thing almost as soon as he was elected. What both of these Presidents were really saying is that Americas tripartite system of checks and balances is nonsense. In my opinion the idea that a president must change the delicate relationship between the executive branch, the congress and the judicial branch of our government in order to gain efficiency is contrary to the Constitution. In day's past the reason for change usually given was that the evermore rapid advance of science and increasingly urgent threats to our national security requires more immediate responses. There is no longer time for serious deliberations and debate of the Congress or Judicial Branch. I think this idea is absolutely false.
OBAMA'S ASSERTIONS. The separation of powers is the main protection of individual citizens rights. For a President to force an increase in the powers of the executive branch requires the other two branches to be diminished, and by granting the executive branch additional powers, unchecked by the other two branches, that presidential power is no longer Constitutional - and the President becomes no more than an authoritarian monarch.
Review if you will, a few of President Obama's assertions since taking office:
Review if you will, a few of President Obama's assertions since taking office:
- He has modified provisions of the Affordable Care Act without authority.
- He ordered the attack on Libya without approval of congress.
- He has appointed "czars" in order to avoid the Constitutional requirement that the Senate is to confirm the appointment of high level officials.
- He has asserted the right to kill American citizens without due process of law.
- He stated that "Middle class families can 't wait for Congress to do stuff. So sue me".
- He has been substituting "executive ACTIONS for EXECUTIVE ORDERS making it legally cumbersome to challenge the his decisions.
- He has instructed the executive branch to offer temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants without consulting congress.
- Note: This executive fiat was cancelled by a three judge panel of the Fifth Court of Appeals.
- To critics of the immigration policy change he has said; "What you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law'.
- Note: Under the Constitution Congress is to write laws and the president is to enforce them.
The President's power to direct the executive branch to take legislative action is extremely dangerous. Obama's slight of hand by substituting executive actions instead of executive orders sounds innocent enough. It is not. Executive Actions have historically been informal directions from the President to his staff and others in the executive branch. Executive Orders are issued as an official cataloged transcript and have been considered legal. By replacing them with Executive actions and not legal under our Constitution, President Obama has made it very difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the President's decisions.
Reference example: During 2014 President Obama issued an executive action on immigration policy. He instructed the executive branch to offer temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. It was considered an action to change the law, and was cancelled by a Court of Appeals.
Reference example: During 2014 President Obama issued an executive action on immigration policy. He instructed the executive branch to offer temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. It was considered an action to change the law, and was cancelled by a Court of Appeals.
FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT The numerical differences between branches during 2014:
a. Federal Employees In The Legislative Branch 30,000
b. Staff members in the Judicial Branch 32,000
c. Non-military workers in the Executive Branch 2,600,000
In the executive branch alone there are about 16 Departments, 70 Agencies, and 383 non-military sub-committees. America's tripartite government of checks and balances is already unbalanced in both numbers and authority. This is what has enabled the Obama administration to micromanage our citizens lives to a level unprecedented in American history. These unconstitutional scandals have rendered the Congress and Judicial Branches almost useless.
PRINCIPLES AND TRADITIONS A majority of American citizens have made it quite clear that the liberal/progressive trend toward socialism must be tempered with consideration for the founding documents of our government. The original principles are not out dated and most, if not all, of our traditions continue to have merit. The Founding Fathers relied heavily on Judeo-Christian history and values when they established the nation. Most Americans prefer that they continue to be guidelines for us to follow.
LIBERAL to PROGRESSIVE to SOCIALIST to COMMUNIST The ultra liberal progressives of the Democratic Party have been pushing America towards forms of socialism and communism. This year, 2016, America's two party politics system is in a state of confusion.
DIVISIONS WITHIN OUR TWO PARTY SYSTEM
The Republican Party has been fractured onto two major constituencies:
1. Conservatives & Libertarians who tend to favor small government, less controls, free
market Capitalism, and private property ownership.
2. Old Guard Republican Establishment who favor status quo, seniority over ability,
and protection of special interest groups.
The Democratic Party is more difficult to characterize.
1. Their Old Guard Establishment favors big government, more controls, and more social
programs.
2. Their radical members favor a more aggressive approach by government, discarding
free-market Capitalism, ending the private property ownership, and adopting a more
authoritarian government.
DISCOURAGED AMERICANS Citizens are voicing their concerns about the decline of American power and the decline of American influence throughout the world. They are concerned about the continuation of failed political policies, poor government decisions, the badly explained reasoning that has led America into several wars, and the lack of will to win wars in our favor. They are also disturbed by the growing number of un-needed federal laws, the terrible number of incarcerated felons, and the huge variation of punishments being pronounced by the judiciary. There is also the overwhelming general complaints that America's elected and appointed politicians spend and spend and spend our taxed dollars on special interests and trivia - while things like our nation's infrastructure is decomposing. etc. etc. etc. There is no end to the complaints. I've only listed a few. The question is: What needs to be done to address them?
2016 ELECTIONS. We have a choice of two flawed candidates for the office of President.
1. Hillary Clinton, a seasoned liberal Democrat veteran, a polished politician, and a very intelligent person - who is presented with a very poor record of accomplishment, a clear record of erroneous decisions, and a definite taint of corruption.
2. Donald Trump, a fresh Republican known to favor Democrats and liberal positions regularly, a extremely unpolished politician, with a noted record of accomplishment in the private sector, and who is obviously an intelligent person - but who is presented with no record of governmental service, and who has outlined popular (but often impossible) promises should he be elected.
There is a corollary to Donald Trump's description that needs to be added. He is a personable and powerful executive. Little is known about his ability to delegate authority, his advisory staff, or his complete plan or political agenda for the nation. Thus far he has offered only a snap shot. True, it looks and sounds good. But?
MR. TRUMP. His main themes during the candidate debates have included:
1.Completion of the wall between America and Mexico, apparently before legal immigration reforms can be overhauled.
2. Refusing to admit all Muslim immigrants until some sort of vetting can be devised.
3. Rapid deportation of illegal immigrants now in America - after a (yet to be determined) grace period for each immigrant to attain legal status.
4. Withdrawing American troops defending other countries and discharging or reassigning them.
5. Selling the military installations deemed no longer necessary.
6. Gradually reducing foreign aid to those that abuse the system, and to the United Nations - that America has disproportionally supported from it's beginning, reducing to levels more equitable to all U.N. Nations.
With a few exceptions, the majority of Americans are attracted by these themes, but It is still to be seen if they can be developed into a practical agenda.
dw
Comments