(The real story here is not that Obama is amassing executive power, but that Congress appears to be onboard with it.)
In The Federalist #47, James Madison penned the following: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self[-]appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Can anything be done to thwart the efforts by Barack Obama and his minions to concentrate all power in his Administration?
Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins thusly: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Granted, before a bill can become a law the president must approve -- the Constitution provides more than one way to do that -- although both houses of Congress can over-turn a president's veto by two-thirds majorities. The Constitution also permits the Vice President, as President of the Senate, to vote on a bill in the event of a tied vote in the upper chamber.
This just about exhausts the Executive Branch's constitutionally sanctioned involvement in the legislative process.
The Constitution does not permit a president single-handedly to alter laws, but we have witnessed more than one instance in which the Obama Administration has unilaterally changed provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Last year Obama unilaterally altered provisions of America's immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to the deportation of youthful illegal immigrants.
Obama hasn't gotten around to imposing his own version of "cap and trade," but he has announced that if Congress does not act on such a bill, he will do so himself.
Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins as follows: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The Constitution does not permit the president or anyone in the Executive Branch, such as the Attorney General, unilaterally to nullify the Supreme Court's or other federal courts' decisions.
Nullification of at least one Supreme Court ruling, however, seems to be precisely what Obama's Attorney General aims to do. On July 25th, Eric Holder, addressing the National Urban League in Philadelphia, announced that he would seek to reinstate "preclearance" for changes to voting laws in Texas. Holder seeks to nullify the Supreme Court's ruling, in Shelby County v. Holder, which over-turned that portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring the federal government to pre-approve of any changes to the voting laws of states with a history of discriminating against blacks trying to vote. The Department of Justice filed that suit on August 22nd.
(If anyone thinks Holder took this action without Obama's approval, lots of bridges are for sale.)
One could add other instances since January 20, 2009 in which Obama or someone in the Executive Branch intruded on powers the Constitution allocates to the Legislative or Judicial branches of government. Moreover, as noted in the context of "cap-and-trade," Obama has threatened to act unilaterally if Congress fails to act. There are similar worries about Obama's likely behavior if Congress fails to pass "comprehensive immigration 'reform.'"
Obama seeks to concentrate all government powers in his hands and/or those of his Administration. If he is successful, he will have "fundamentally transformed" the United States of America. According to the definition Madison proffered in The Federalist #47, Obama will be a tyrant.
RIGHT'S RIGHT 
Print view
Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:11 am
reply
