How Congress Sat on It's Hands as Obama Declared He Would Rule by Executive Order
During his State of the Union address, President Obama stated that he would rule by executive order to advance his agenda. He didn't say it exactly that way, but that's what he meant. He's not going to wait for Congress to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities when it comes to items he, Mr. Obama, considers important. The latest example is his unilateral decision to raise the minimum wage for federal workers.
Make no mistake, he will act as he says he will. He has already initiated Executive orders that leave George Bush in the dust. Bush was criticized by Democrats for his use of Executive orders. I haven't heard the same criticism from the Dems regarding Obama.
All this is not news. What Obama has been up to is common knowledge.
But what was particularly disturbing during the State of the Union address was the silence that greeted Obama's statement that he was going to continue on this path. If you watch the spectacle of the State of the Union, you know that there's a staged feel-good introduction before the speech begins. Then, during the speech, there are moments of ridiculous applause for certain phrases the President pronounces, usually by his party. Occasionally there's a negative reaction by the other side - but it's rare.
Yet you have to wonder how much of our Constitutional system remains when the Executive says right to the faces of the Legislators that he's going to rule without them - without following the Constitution. Wouldn't you expect at least some sort of reaction to this kind of comment? Yes, negative reaction is rare, but what could possibly call for a negative reaction more than the Executive telling the Congress he's going to ignore them. What's with these people?
I suspect what's with them is that they've given up on the Constitution in preference to their privileges. They prefer to hold onto the power and privileges they've garnered and built up over recent decades, to the point where to be a mere representative the House means you'll be rich. So why upset the apple cart? For you and me? After all, they know you and I are hardly aware of what's going on and frankly don't care all that much, as long as we get to hold our Super Bowl parties this Sunday.
Still, there had to be one or two in attendance who must have been appalled at a President defying the Constitution and telling the assembled legislators that they were powerless to oppose his grab for power. It would have been by no means unreasonable for one or more of our "representatives" to stand up and say, "Hey, wait a minute. You can't do that!" But none did - not one. In fact, I've read hardly a word about this. (Of course, I don't spend a lot of time scrutinizing the media for their stories about this or most other things. It's just not worth my time.)
What good are these people if they can't stand up to this sort of direct disrespect for our system of Constitutional government? They certainly don't seem much good to you or me. Then again, it doesn't seem to matter to them at all, does it?
Make no mistake, he will act as he says he will. He has already initiated Executive orders that leave George Bush in the dust. Bush was criticized by Democrats for his use of Executive orders. I haven't heard the same criticism from the Dems regarding Obama.
All this is not news. What Obama has been up to is common knowledge.
But what was particularly disturbing during the State of the Union address was the silence that greeted Obama's statement that he was going to continue on this path. If you watch the spectacle of the State of the Union, you know that there's a staged feel-good introduction before the speech begins. Then, during the speech, there are moments of ridiculous applause for certain phrases the President pronounces, usually by his party. Occasionally there's a negative reaction by the other side - but it's rare.
Yet you have to wonder how much of our Constitutional system remains when the Executive says right to the faces of the Legislators that he's going to rule without them - without following the Constitution. Wouldn't you expect at least some sort of reaction to this kind of comment? Yes, negative reaction is rare, but what could possibly call for a negative reaction more than the Executive telling the Congress he's going to ignore them. What's with these people?
I suspect what's with them is that they've given up on the Constitution in preference to their privileges. They prefer to hold onto the power and privileges they've garnered and built up over recent decades, to the point where to be a mere representative the House means you'll be rich. So why upset the apple cart? For you and me? After all, they know you and I are hardly aware of what's going on and frankly don't care all that much, as long as we get to hold our Super Bowl parties this Sunday.
Still, there had to be one or two in attendance who must have been appalled at a President defying the Constitution and telling the assembled legislators that they were powerless to oppose his grab for power. It would have been by no means unreasonable for one or more of our "representatives" to stand up and say, "Hey, wait a minute. You can't do that!" But none did - not one. In fact, I've read hardly a word about this. (Of course, I don't spend a lot of time scrutinizing the media for their stories about this or most other things. It's just not worth my time.)
What good are these people if they can't stand up to this sort of direct disrespect for our system of Constitutional government? They certainly don't seem much good to you or me. Then again, it doesn't seem to matter to them at all, does it?
Comments