I have been coming across some headlines that reveals the type of country that America is rapidly becoming: "Obama fires GM CEO", "Obama Lowers Mortgage Fees for 3 Million Homeowners", "Obama: Health insurers, not churches, must provide birth control coverage(poll)". When did the president gain this authority? The amount of power that the president and the government in general have/will have makes you step back and look at how far America has moved away from the country as it was founded, and makes you look at America's future through a different prism. History has shown that when any one man or any single entity has this level of power-- whether it is led by people on your side of the political spectrum or not, freedom rapidly gives way to its opposite.
It is easy to dismiss this threat with the notion that it is being created with the best of intentions; but as Hayek pointed out his book The Road To Serfdom, the good intentions of well-meaning socialist end up creating a system that paves the way for a totalitarian political system.
"When did the president gain this authority?"
ReplyDeleteSept. 11 2001 is the precise date and the President(s) have had and continue to have that power ever since that date. Because on that date America was put into a State of Emergency and every year since that the President has signed us into a State of Emergency.
With the State of Emergency in effect, the COG (Continuity of Government) has given the President and Shadow Government ultimate power.
The President has had the power for the past 10+ years to sign into law permissions/powers that not even the Congress knows about. (Highly Classified). That is why we can't just pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and go home we have to move into Libya/Syria/Iran so that the U.S. runs under a State of Emergency and the Constitution is no longer in effect.
In one of the previous posts I posted a link to the COG and what it means/how its been implemented. If you are curious about the question you asked starting with research/oversight on COG would be a good starting place.
I would agree that Sep 11 has given our presidents/government a lot of unprecedented power. I don't think it is the only contributing factor though.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major steps in American History that greatly enlarged the scope of our government was the enactment of the Commerce Clause. You could also include the New Deal.
There are many gradual and systematic steps the government has made to come to this point. I do not think we have reached the tipping point either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzxcjg7YZSs&feature=related
ReplyDeleteCheck this video out. This guy is hilarious.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta appeared at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing, where he said “legal basis” was needed to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.infowars.com/panettainternational-permission-trumps-congressional-permission-for-military-actions/
Watch this video... UN/NATO can control our Army but not the Congress. Amazing the things they say/come up with all day.
The question is more the spinelessness of Congress, or who controls Congress.
ReplyDeleteThis goes back to the New Deal as ToeJamm says, and also Vietnam. War was never declared in Vietnam. It went on for ten years, until, rightly or wrongly, Congress did use the power of the purse to defund it.
Congress could do the same to Afghanistan (which will probably end soon) or any other foreign adventure.
Congress can only control our military through the power of the purse, and that is actually a good thing.
Look up "Imperial Presidency" in Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteFrom that Wikipedia:
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson sent 22,000 troops to the Dominican Republic without Congressional approval. The same year he sent combat troops for the first time into Vietnam. This war lasted the longest in US history and resulted in the fourth largest number of US deaths after the Civil War and the two World Wars. The Tonkin Gulf resolution authorized the President to use the military, as he required. This was transfer of war powers from the Congress to the President.[25] Lincoln believed that if the President could bring the country to war then he held the power of a king.[citation needed] In 1970, President Richard Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia, without Congressional approval. By 1971, the Tonkin Gulf resolution was revoked by Congress. However the Vietnam War continued solely due to Nixon’s authority.[26] Nixon claimed war powers as Commander-in-Chief of the military. Before Lincoln that title only indicated the topmost officer of the armed forces. Lincoln used it for greater authority and so could future Presidents in the event of a civil war. Nixon justified his authority to order the invasion of Cambodia with his Commander-in-Chief title.[27]
So, I guess it goes back to Lincoln.
ReplyDelete"Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWhereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:
The start of bill by a congressman yesterday that could ultimately lead to the impeachment of Obama/Panetta. I'll be watching this event unfold.
Note that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq II (not sure about Iraq I), Congress in fact did grant the President the authority to use military force, and never revoked it. Obama clearly pulled a Johnson (Dominican Republic) & Nixon (Cambodia), when he went after Kaddafi, though he didn't go in as big as Johnson and Nixon did.
ReplyDeleteI thought the video http://www.infowars.com/panettainternational-permission-trumps-congressional-permission-for-military-actions/ was interesting. This is transnational law which Obama supports. National sovreignty is giving way to international governing bodies.
ReplyDeleteI have read some libertarian stuff on the Civil War and Lincoln's role in stregthening the federal government at the expense of state rights. The Civil War was originally started over state right issues and not over slavery.
I think this trend towards an imperial federal government started immediately after the founding of this country and had periods of growth under Lincoln, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and all presidents after. This is just the natural cycle of human civilization.
This trend towards bigger government and erosion of freedom is cumulative. The nation might take 2 steps forward and one backward to the effect that the long term trend is that of the growth of government and lost of invidiual freedom. The same trend is present in the economic sphere. The down turns/ recessions are getting more severe and closer together. The point of no return has been reached a long time ago and these trends will come to a head in the next few decades, or less. All one can do is to be aware of the fact and educate yourself so that you can be sucessful in the new environment that is coming our way.
I don't see Obama being impeached. Congress is too weak and is being made irrevelant.
A country that fights wars for its enemys, like America's involvement in Libya, and supports uprisings that result in new governments that are not friendly to America or the West is a nation that has some serious problems coming its way.
ReplyDeleteLast week, H.R. 347, otherwise known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3, and on Thursday it was signed into law by President Obama.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the ACLU, there is indeed something disturbing about H.R. 347—but it had already been part of federal law long before last week.
The new bill modifies a 1971 law that restricted entering or blocking public areas cordoned off by the Secret Service while a protected individual is passing through, or during major public events like the Super Bowl or party nominating conventions. Violators can face up to a year in jail; if they’re carrying a dangerous weapon, it’s ten.
To read more - http://inthesetimes.com/ittlist/entry/12874/obama_signs_the_anti-occupy_law/