published Monday, November 7th, 2011

Obama's executive orders skirt rule of law

Among the things that have long set the United States of America apart from many of the countries of the world is that we are "a nation of laws, not of men."

That is to say, any of us may hold whatever view we wish on a particular law, but so long as the law was duly enacted by our representative government, it is binding on everyone -- up to and including the president.

So it is disturbing that President Barack Obama, in his frustration that Congress will not enact some of the legislation he wants, intends to bypass lawmakers and use executive orders to impose those policies.

His administration is calling this troubling tactic the "We can't wait" campaign.

Throughout the rest of this year, the president intends to issue at least one such Congress-skirting "initiative" every week.

"The president will continue to pressure congressional Republicans to ... pass the American Jobs Act, but he believes we cannot wait, so he will act where they won't," Dan Pfeiffer, communications director for the president, said in The New York Times.

Among other things, the president is altering the terms of college graduates' repayment of federal education loans, and he is issuing new rules to reduce foreclosures among homeowners who have no equity in their homes.

These latest moves come on top of the administration's decision, in effect, to set free potentially hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who were already in our legal system, awaiting processing for deportation to their homelands. Not only that, but illegal aliens who have committed no additional crimes since coming to this country will be allowed to seek work permits here!

The administration also has simply waived portions of the federal No Child Left Behind education law for a number of states -- so long as those states meet different standards that the administration has devised on its own.

You may agree or disagree with the president's views. But in this situation, what he personally thinks about a particular issue is almost beside the point.

Congress has not enacted laws permitting him to impose the policies that he seeks. In fact, on the subject of illegal immigration, Congress has repeatedly declined to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Without appropriate congressional authorization, the president has no business putting those policies into effect.

His policies are not passing in Congress because they have been attempted previously and failed -- sometimes with extremely costly results.

The administration says it "can't wait" for Congress to act.

But the United States "can't afford" to have a president who imposes policies that have been rejected by our elected members of Congress. That is a dangerous seizing of power by the executive branch of the government.

And it is just one more reason why the American people should vote Obama out of office in the 2012 election.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
lumpy said...

What do you expect from a guy who is "ready to rule" from day one.

He doesn't like our Constitution because it's too much about what the government can't do to us. He doesn't like congress because it prevents him from shoving this country to the left faster than he can say Karl Marx.

It's amazing what you can get away with in the media if you're a half black, half white socialist.

November 7, 2011 at 3:04 a.m.
mymy said...
November 7, 2011 at 7:40 a.m.

He has to pass what's needed! The republicans are doing their best to keep everything in the crapper till they get their way and by way i mean keep the poor poor and rich richer. If this country has any hope it's Obama's efforts to take us to where we need to be. How about the unknown writer of this article make a remark about how the entire country was against the Bank bail-outs but guess what that douche Bush did? Oh he skirted the Rule Of Law right out the side door in DC when he bailed them out anyway. At least Obama is trying to help the people who hold this hypocritical nation on their shoulders!!! Love the constant reference to the illegal alien issue. Not one better than thou american would even consider doing 80% of the jobs aliens occupy at this moment. Republicans love to pretend its american jobs they're stealing but they're the only ones who will do it!! HYPOCRITS!

November 7, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
Freedom_Czar said...

Class warfare is STUPID. We shoot ourselves in the foot every time we fail to rid ourselves of so called leaders who set Americans against one another because of income, race or anything else we all loose. Any politician encouraging ENVY for any reason encourages HATE. Those doing that want to claim anything they disagree with is HATE speech. They redefine words to disguise their methods and heap up power for their own personal gain. Beware of anyone seeking to shift power to Washington. They cannot keep their own lives straight, they have no business dictating to the rest of us.

We need to STOP thinking in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Bush one and Bush two were both PROGRESSIVES. That means the only difference between them and the Democrat counter parts is the speed at which they wanted to get us to the same end game. That end game is a world where representative government gives way to top down WORLD government that we will no longer elect and will no longer be responsive to our local needs and aspirations. The hatred drummed up against GW Bush mostly a distraction to hide the similarities between the two parties.

For me... GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH is not just an historical quote. Until those in office hear and believe Patrick Henry's attitude is resonating with the majority of Americans, and we elect those to office who share that conviction we will soon surrendered our birthright for a mess of porridge (think bowl of oat meal). No nation, once having lost it's liberty has ever regained it in that generation's life time.

November 7, 2011 at 9:34 a.m.
charivara said...

I notice that Friedman has a difficulty maintaining a straight face when he is delivering this talk about how socialism undermines his “fundamental values”. How can he when he attacks socialism by describing the very tactics American capitalism, as promoted by current Republicans, uses to maintain its power at the expense of the dignity and individuality of their fellow men?

To paraphrase Friedman: Heaven preserve us from the sincere Republicans who know what is good for you--ie unregulated banks, for-profit health care, workers without bargaining rights--and by heaven, are going to make you accept their ideas wether you like it or not. They are so sure of the purity of their intentions that they have been making it difficult for those who are likely to disagree with them to vote. The Force, mymy = today’s Republicans.

Socialism is not as completely evil and capitalism is not as completely benevolent as Friedman wants us to believe they are.

November 7, 2011 at 10:01 a.m.
ibshame said...

It's always amazing to read your interpretation of what President Obama is doing and how he skirts the "rule of law." Presidents have been signing executive orders from the time of George Washington, some have been needed and some not. With one stroke of his pen in an executive order Harry S. Truman integrated the Armed Forces. It was the least he could do without waiting on Congress to act. Hundreds of Thousands of young black soldiers had gone off to fight in WWI and WWII only to return home to social conditions that were no better than what they left when they went off to war. In particular in the South. They couldn't vote, they couldn't sit at dime store lunch counters, they couldn't ride on the front of the bus, they couldn't attend the State Universities, live in certain neighborhoods, etc, etc, Yet they had been drafted by the U.S. government to fight in a war in segregated units.
Congress had not acted on this disgrace and it would not be until years after WWII had ended that the U.S. Supreme Court would hand down it's Brown vs. Board of Education Decision in 1954 which desegregated the schools these young Black soldiers had fought to protect from the tyranny of fascism and nazism. Even that decision had to be enforced by Executive Order from Dwight Eisenhower to send in the National Guard to escort nine young Black students into a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. Yet to read your commentary one would think Barack Obama was the first president to use executive orders.
When George W. Bush ended his 8 years as President, he had written 291 Executive Orders. In his first three years as President, he issued 126 Executive Orders - 13198-13323. In Barack Obama's first three years as President he has issued 95 Executive Orders. If you're going to criticize him for doing what other presidents have done at least have some substance to what your are saying, otherwise you appear hypocritical. But then what else is new for Republicans and Tea Partiers these days?

November 7, 2011 at 11:19 a.m.
acerigger said...

ibshame, thanks for pointing out what this "editorialist" fails to mention. These types of editorials are written by someone at the RNC and then passed around to the various right-leaning publishers,it's nothing more than propaganda being fed to the low information crowd.

November 7, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.
Freedom_Czar said...

acerigger, Typical tactic of the left, to accuse the opposition of doing exactly what it always does without proof and then act self righteous about it. In psychological circles it is called "PROJECTION". Because it is the way you know your side operates you can't imagine the other side doing anything differently.

We know about your seminar callers to talk shows who spout talking points without any understanding of the issues. We know the OWS was organized by "the organizer in chief" and his supporters because their talking points are identical. WE know you the techniques you have learned on the left come from a book "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky which is dedicated to his spiritual father: Satan "The first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer". I know you'll never admit to reading it, but your tactics are laid out one by one in that book.

I have no love for the Republican party either. It has been adept at co-opting true correct principles with their words and denying them with their votes and bills.

But here is your problem, many of us are waking up. We are ready to reclaim this country. We don't need anyone to write for us. We, unlike both Republicans and Dems follow our own values, do our own research and honestly hold fast to the truth even when it hurts. We are patriots first. We don't seek our own power and we are not afraid to sacrifice for what is right, honest and true. We will win because our cause is true justice where a man ( or woman's ) rights are not based on the color of their skin or from any group to whom they belong. Our rights are NOT given by government and cannot be taken by government, and any government that does not protect those rights is doomed to fail and fall under it's own weight as the citizenry rise up against it.

November 7, 2011 at 12:11 p.m.
conservative said...

Character precedes conduct. Socialists hate the rule of law because it hinders their objective of a Socialist state. Obamination when running for office told Joe the plumber that spreading the wealth around was good for everbody. This could be the motto of every thief. All socialists have this mindset to one degree or another and seek to implement the evil Marxist goal : "from each according to his abilitiy to each according to his needs."

November 7, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
Freedom_Czar said...

I would like to point out that one of the Left's favorite Presidents, Wilson is the one who segregated not only the armed forces (they were desegregated after the Civil War) but also the Federal Government as a whole. I am sure this is something you lefties try to hide from your Black supporters. After all you feel it is best for them if you dictate what they believe, learn and how to vote. After all you need to keep them on the Democrat plantation as long as you can. That is why you hate Herman Cane so much, he has escaped from the plantation and if you can't bring him back you want to lynch him.

November 7, 2011 at 12:45 p.m.
mymy said...

Anybody interested:

The home page discusses SS solution and what happends if Greece defaults.

Under the Free to Choose is a 10 part series. I am going to work my way through it over several days.

November 7, 2011 at 1:16 p.m.
ibshame said...

Freedom_Czar wrote: "I would like to point out that one of the Left's favorite Presidents, Wilson is the one who segregated not only the armed forces (they were desegregated after the Civil War) but also the Federal Government as a whole. ..."

The United States Supreme Court gave segregation it's blessing in 1896 with the court decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson. It ruled basically that as long as facilities provided for Blacks were equal to that of Whites then Separation was o.k. Thus the Separate-but-Equal doctrine was born in the United States. You might say it was our version of Apartheid. Ironically,the Republican party for years following the Civil War had the support of Blacks in this country because of Abraham Lincoln. However, many soon discovered, as Jim Crow laws took effect and Reconstrution ended in the South under a Republican President in 1876, those days were over. Woodrow Wilson would not be elected President until 1912. Segregation was in full swing in this country by that time with the passage by many state houses(especially those in the Deep South) of Jim Crow laws.

Dixie Democrats for many, many years fought to have those laws remain in place however, in 1960 this country elected a Democratic President, JFK. He listened to the voices of those in the South who were crying out for JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS. The same rights and privileges purported to be given to all born in this country. He was met with terrible opposition in the halls of Congress and in particular from members of his own party in the Deep South. Eventually, he was assassinated and a Texan, LBJ became the next President. LBJ had been a very persuasive and determined leader of the U.S. Senate before becoming VP then President. It took some strong arming on his part but in 1964 he got the Civil Rights Act passed and a year later in 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed. Those Dixie Democrats who fought so hard against him left the Democratic Party and moved their membership to the Republican Party. In 1968, Richard Nixon began using what came to be known as the "Southern Strategy" a whispering campaign against minorities in this country. It worked for him, it worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and for George W. Bush. For most Blacks old enough to remember segregation and life during the 1950's & 1960's, history cannot be revised to make the Republican Party the champion of Civil Rights. If Herman Cain wants to be a Republican that is his privilege there were many who marched, fought, went to jail and died for him to have that privilege.

November 7, 2011 at 2:34 p.m.
Freedom_Czar said...

IBShame, unlike you I DID LIVE THROUGH the Civil Rights era. You have rehearsed the Liberal rewritten history quite well. It does have a few myths in it and a few facts left out.

First of all LBJ Nor JFK were the originators of the Civil Rights Act. In actual fact LBJ voted against The Civil Rights Act of 1957, introduced in Eisenhower’s presidency (a Republican). It is also true that when it did pass in 1964 a higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than did Democrats, Dem's were in the majority at the time.

I would suggest you research this more thoroughly using texts not rewritten by the left who co-opted Black people of faith by delaying the Civil Rights Act until they could claim credit for it and since then have set up a system to create dependency to keep Black on the Democrat Plantation.

A great book, by an authentic Black thinker who also lived through Civil Rights era (he is now over 80 years old) is "the Thomas Sowell Reader" By Thomas Sowell.

Of course if you don't want to truth, spew out some awful obligatory racist epitaphs, and I will understand.

November 7, 2011 at 4:04 p.m.
mymy said...

Freedom...Thank you. I have been stewing ever since I read ibshame's comment.

November 7, 2011 at 6:46 p.m.
acerigger said...

ibshame said, ". It took some strong arming on his(Johnson's) part but in 1964 he got the Civil Rights Act passed "

Nothin' said about "originator" Try some other spin/obfuscation,that one don't reach Freedom_Czar.

November 7, 2011 at 9:46 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

i('d) b(e) (a)shame(d) as well, if my head were so full of revisionist nonsense.

November 7, 2011 at 9:48 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Neither LBJ nor Ike was exactly passionate about civil rights. To both of them it was more a matter of doing what was politically expedient at the time. LBJ did seem to change his tune about it by the time he became president (he did indeed vote against Ike's rather tepid version of a Civil Rights Act in 1957), but he was purported to be very racist and demeaning towards black people in his private life. To all of you who are making a big deal out of what side of human rights Republicans or Democrats stood on at the time, it's a ridiculous waste of time. Yes, there were many Democrats (Dixiecrats) who hated blacks, wanted nothing to do with desegragation, and wouldn't touch blacks or the Civil Rights Act with a ten-foot pole. They ended up becoming Republicans. Ike built the interstate highway system with federal funds and he strongly favored a moderate Republicanism, with high taxes on the rich and a strong social safety net. He would not be welcome at all in today's extreme right wing teaparty Republican party. The point is that both parties have morphed into something much different today and to take credit or lay blame for something either party did 50 or more years ago is a ridiculous waste of time.

November 7, 2011 at 11:58 p.m.
ibshame said...

Freedom_czar wrote: "IBShame, unlike you I DID LIVE THROUGH the Civil Rights era. You have rehearsed the Liberal rewritten history quite well. It does have a few myths in it and a few facts left out."

You have no idea about my age or what I lived through. For those of us who not only lived through it but also were affected by it, you can't rewrite history no matter how hard you try. I watched JFK the night in June he gave the speech to the American Public about the rights of Black Citizens in this country being trampled in the South. That was the same night Medgar Evers of Mississippi was shot down by a coward because Evers had the audacity to think he could register Blacks to vote in Mississippi. I watched the news the day they found the bodies of the Three Civil Rights Workers in Mississippi. I watched, from our living room, the day in August when Dr. King delivered his " I Have a Dream Speech". I can still remember the heat in the house on that hot August day because we didn't have an air conditioner but our mother was determined we would sit and listen to every word of Dr. King's speech. I watched the news accounts of the bombing of the Church in Birmingham, Alabama which took the lives of three little girls on a Sunday Morning in September. I watched in horror the attacks on the marchers in Selma, Alabama as they were beaten while they were trying to March to the State House in Montgomery for the right not only to register but to vote. So don't you dare tell me about how I've rehearsed the liberal history because you see I DID LIVE THROUGH IT ALL and I don't need you to tell me it was some kind of liberal version of history when I know all too well just exactly what was happening in this country.

November 9, 2011 at 1:05 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.