-
Looking Back — And Forward
May 15, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Lies About Libya
May 14, 2013 | 80 comments
-
Bouncing Ball Politics
May 8, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Words That Replace Thought
May 7, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Is Thinking Obsolete?
May 1, 2013 | 36 comments
The Public Policy
‘Issues’ or America?
Seeing the forest for the trees in this year’s election.
There are some very serious issues at stake in this year’s election — so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.
The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.
For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama’s recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.
The separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States — and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.
No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained — not just the ones he happens to agree with.
If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.
When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have “a government of laws, and not of men” but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.
When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution — and ourselves.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is the law until Congress either repeals it or amends it. But for Barack Obama to unilaterally waive whatever provisions he doesn’t like in that law undermines the fundamental nature of American government.
President Obama has likewise unilaterally repealed the legal requirement that welfare recipients must work, by simply redefining “work” to include other things like going to classes on weight control. If we think the bipartisan welfare reform legislation from the Clinton administration should be repealed or amended, that is something for the legislative branch of government to consider.
There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.
Obamacare imposes huge costs on some institutions, while the President’s arbitrary waivers exempt other institutions from having to pay those same costs. That is hardly the “equal protection of the laws,” promised by the 14th Amendment.
John Stuart Mill explained the dangers in that kind of government long ago: “A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement.”
If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/21/issues-or-america
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Nuts to Nutter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 6:57AM
It really is as simple as this: "They have made their Rulings, now let's see them Enforce them."
I believe that was a statement made by Andrew Johnson, made in reference to a Supreme Court Decision ordering him to Do something that escapes me at the moment.
He REFUSES to Enforce the Laws on the books, that he disagrees with. He put in place an Illegal Drilling Moratorium encompassing all Federal Land, and is in Contempt of a Federal Judge's Ruling, as we speak. (Please refer to the first line of this comment)
You point out the Immigration "End Around" via Executive Order, and his "Waivers for his Friends" while his Enemies get Audited.
"We Reward our Friends, and Punish our Enemies."
Indeed.
If you look at all of his Soviet Health Care Waivers, they were given to all of his Friends who were screaming the LOUDEST for Government Health Care. I always believed that this was a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, and made the whole thing Unconstitutional, on its face. Yet, despite many calls to many people, no-one wanted to listen.
Outsourcing is a Sin, unless you're Jeffery Immelt, and you happen to run GE, or you're a Big Donour, and you happen to have a Car Company called Fisker.
Jamie Dimon is put under a Microscope by The Muslim's Justice Department, while the outright Criminality of MFing Global John Corzine, is forgiven, and he is given a Seat at the Table, in The Muslim's Tent, bundling money.
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 7:21AM
He has decided that HE will, forever more, be the one who decides when the Senate is in Session, and when it is not. HE will disburse Taxpayer Funds to wherever he needs propping up - Politically - and not Congress, who USED TO control the Purse Strings.
This is not the Country I was Born in. This is not the Country I was Raised in. This is not the Country that my Father fought in the Phillipenes for, in World War II. Nor is it the Country that I signed up to Defend, back in the 70's.
This is NOT the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, anymore. It has become a Kleptocracy. It resembles Putin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, and Chavez' Venezuela, more than it does America.
Everything you've written here, is true, Thomas. And nothing is as true as the insidious Drip of the Left's Dogma.
Like the Radical Muslim, they are Patient. The whittle away at our Freedoms, and our Libeties, consuming them in small nibbles, as opposed to Big Bites.
That has changed, with The coming of THE ONE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR. And, by WE, he meant THEM.
Go back and look at his face, when he made that pronouncement to his adoring flock. It is chilling, in its depiction of Pure Evil.
The next 4 Years will be a replica of Germany's descent in to Hell, under Their Feurher.
One Bullet could have prevented WWII, and put a stop to a Human Holocaust, before it even began.
To be honest?
I'm Stunned, that this MFer is still around.
Stunned.
c. j. acworth| 8.21.12 @ 8:02AM
It was Andrew Jackson, not Johnson who said something to the effect: "Mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it". The case was Worcester v. Georgia, and had to do with Jackson's policy of Indian removal.
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 9:07AM
Thanks c.j. I couldn't remember which one it was. I knew it was Andrew J???son. I just forgot if it was ack or ohn.
Trust me. You do not want me deciding which wire to cut, to defuse the bomb. You just don't.
TinaB| 8.21.12 @ 10:42AM
I watched that movie, Timmie, and you cut the right one. You always do. Very succinctly, I might add.
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 5:39PM
Thank You, Tina.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm wasting my time.
nathan| 8.21.12 @ 3:02PM
Andrew Jackson regarding the ruling on the Cherokees I believe sir. They had won in court and he ignored the ruling and proceeded to ethnically cleanse them which would lead later to their functional genocide. The "reservations" they were put on could not sustain the lives of the people put there. We speak of places like Wounded Knee but Sand Creek was worse. That help?
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 5:37PM
It didn't hurt.
Thanks, buddy.
Von Mises Jr| 8.21.12 @ 9:21AM
This is why I own and have read two-dozen of Dr. Sowell's fine tomes. This dismantling of the Constitution was popped into high gear with TARP.
People moaned about the cost of the bailout, but the most egregious factor was that the Congress gave up their "Power of the Purse" and abandoned "Separation of Powers."
If banks needed to be bailed out in the short-term, it should have been done through the Congress. But once the precedent was set, Obama passed the Porkulus that was a slush fund for his friends such as Solyndra and Ener1. Refusing to shut down the government that had no budget and raising the debt ceiling and CR's has rendered us subjects already.
If we don't get your country back in November, I fear we shall not survive as a country with liberty and freedom.
John Navratil| 8.21.12 @ 10:02AM
Von Mises Jr,
Spot on, sir! The responsibility for this fiasco lies squarely at the feet of Congress. It has written the enabling legislation and allowed departments (under the Executive) to write the regulations. It has allowed the Leviation state to rise and now stands powerless to stop it. As you say Harry Reid, in direct violation of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, refuses to consider a budget and Congress goes along with continuing resolutions - "We can't let the government shut down", they say. Of course, with this executive the first responders, air traffic controllers and meat inspectors would be given pink slips while the teachers, and governments would remain funded so as to starve the people out.
If this despot is allowed another four years, we'll have more of the same, in spades. But ridding ourselves of him is not sufficient. Departments must go and the number of government employees must be greatly reduced. Congress must, once again, write the rules. No more may the EPA decide what, and how much of what, it shall regulate.
Von Mises Jr| 8.21.12 @ 10:40AM
This is also another reason why Ryan is the man for the moment. He is one of the few along with Ron and Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and other free market advocates to stand tall.
Romney just announced that he will audit the Fed. This may actually be much more destructive to our nation than the MIA Congress. At least we have some idea of the damage Obama regime has done, but we have no idea what awaits under the covers with the Fed.
Cobalt| 8.21.12 @ 11:03AM
Well done, Von Mises Jr.
A representative government is anathema to a tyrant like Obama.
"Philip Klein of The American Spectator counted 700 references in Obamacare to the secretary “shall,”" 200 to the secretary “may,” and 139 to the secretary “determines.”
From "The Rule of Sebelius" by Rich Lowery / National Review Online / December 28, 2010
TLP| 8.21.12 @ 5:57PM
"A Representative Government is anathema to a Tyrant like Obama."
I fear, my friend, that the Demographic Changes, started with The Immigration Act of 1965, have changed the narrative.
We began this Country with a European sense of Hard Work, and Personal Responsibility, and a belief they we could do anything, if we put our minds to it.
Now, we have a society filled with a Third World Mentality that is willing to forfeit their liberty, for the sake of a Free Lunch.
There's no comparison between a European Backround and a Third World one.
Carthage fell. Rome fell. The British Empire fell, and they all fell for the same reason.
Because they all lost sight of their Founding Principles, and their sense of Honour, Duty, and Country.
If the Domestic Enemy gets 4 More Years?
This Country will become a Final Jeopardy Answer, on a Muslim, China, or Russian Show, of the same style.
Of this, I have no doubt.
TinaB| 8.21.12 @ 10:46AM
Mr. Sowell, you put it so richly, so clearly, that I am going to forward this to a former colleague, science teacher and liberal friend for whom I pray regularly. God help John to see the truth and vote accordingly, amen. Thank you, Sir.
Purp| 8.21.12 @ 11:49AM
"No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with." - Once again, you apply standards to Barack Obama that history reveals is not a standard all presidents abide by, nor do we really want them to.
Check Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, GW Bush ...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....ignore-law
JD| 8.21.12 @ 12:55PM
That it was done before doesn't make it right, and comparing Obama's "whenever I want to" approach to past circumstances that invoked national security is apples to oranges.
John Navratil| 8.21.12 @ 1:24PM
Purp,
That link refers to a debate on the limits of the FISA courts and the legal memoranda staking out the President's position. If Bush were "ignoring" the law, he would not be issuing memoranda claiming authority within the law, would he? You are free to disagree with the claims, as the writer does, and ultimately the courts could test the proposition but your reference is your typical caca.
Even if it were apropos, illegality in one Presidency doesn't give a free pass to successive Presidents.
Mike G| 8.21.12 @ 12:47PM
"No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with."
So where is the Republican contolled House of Representatives? Aren't they responsible for impeachment proceedings when a president violates his oath of office? Or are they simply missing the cajones required to do what they're supposed to do?
Houdini| 8.21.12 @ 1:32PM
Looks like a clear case of testicular absence during an election year. If, God forbid, the village idiot is returned for another four years and we take the Senate maybe members of congress will regrow the appendages.
Purp| 8.21.12 @ 3:02PM
You won't be winning the Senate this year - and may lose the House - check "legitimate rape" or "forcible rape" and you'll see why.
ebonystone| 8.21.12 @ 8:21PM
"So where is the Republican contolled House of Representatives? Aren't they responsible for impeachment proceedings ...?"
Yes, the House brings the bill of impeachment, but the matter is tried in the Senate, and it requires a 2/3 majority to convict. We saw how far the Republicans got with that in the case of Slick Willie -- not a single Democrat voted to impeach.
nathan| 8.21.12 @ 3:13PM
Bush invaded two count them two countries without formal declarations of war. We note that Iraq posed no direct threat to us and had not attacked us and showed not evidence of planning to attack us. So Bush's actions lacked constitutional authority. He signed bills and then issued signing statements, hundreds of them saying yes I signed this bill, but for this or that provision I will not obey execute it. That is unconstitutional too. In essence no different than much of what BHO does today and argubly was the foundation upon which BHO built his actions on. When Padilla was detained for three years, no charges, no lawyer, no judge, that was unconstitutional too. Where was your outrage then?
MR gave an interview where he makes it clear he will continue non judicial executions of Americans and supports indefinite detentions of Americans in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He's telling all of us now that his oath of office is meaningless since on those two issues alone he cannot honestly be said to be "upholding" the Constitution. So while BHO's actions are ghastly, his predecessor and sucessor are no better.
JD| 8.21.12 @ 5:16PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
There was plenty of conservative outrage during the Bush years, but liberals, desperate to equate all conservatism to Bushism, ignore it.
Dai Alanye | 8.22.12 @ 11:27PM
nathan needs to read the Constitution again... or for the first time, perhaps.
Nowhere does it say armed action must be always preceded by a declaration of war. The President may act as he sees fit in the case of an emergency, or in cases requiring less than a full declaration of war. For an early precedent, see the actions against the Barbary Pirates.
Furthermore, Dubya cleared his major military actions with Congress before invading either Afghanistan or Iraq.