America On the Brink of Losing Constitutional Form of Government Forever

The rule of law is in grave danger, as federal regulators use ever thinner legal pretexts to enable vast public policy changes without votes by our elected representatives. In a span of just seven days, the FCC declared the Internet a public utility, Congress acceded to DHS implementing executive amnesty, the president used a veto threat to protect the NLRB’s ambush elections rule, and the Supreme Court’s four liberals showed they are not just willing but enthusiastic to allow the IRS to ignore the plain language of Obamacare.

cnsnews.com... merica-brink-losing-constitutional-form-government-forever

I apologize if this is a duplicate post; I searched and didn't see it

My father-in-law, a self-proclaimed 89 year old "historian" told me last weekend that he has not seen us so close to civil unrest in the US in his lifetime. Perhaps this article points to the reason this is true?

Your thoughts?

Its up and down and down and up there has never been true stability only a false sense of one.. a reply to: Ultralight

a reply to: Ultralight

I am pretty sure this is not the right forum for this. You might want to ask a mod to move it. But I like the thread OP......Good one.

Did your 89 year old Historian somehow black out during the entire civil rights movement?

America isn't descending into some dystopian nightmare. Relax.

Your link doesn't work. It's just as well. cnsnews is a craphole "source". I don't believe anything they say, anyway.

The FCC did make the internet a public utility. I don't see a problem. There is no executive amnesty. Everything listed in your quote is completely Constitutional.

a reply to: Ultralight

America On the Brink of Losing Constitutional Form of Government Forever

www.cnsnews.com...

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Did your 89 year old Historian somehow black out during the entire civil rights movement?

America isn't descending into some dystopian nightmare. Relax.

I disagree, during the civil rights movement there were laws that were voted into place by the elected legislature.

Entire swaths of the law were not written by fiat through "regulations".

Regulations are not laws, they are stipulations to laws.

To change a law, for instance immigration, you can not make regulations that effectively nullify the law.

Which is what was done.

Same for obamacare.

Yes the executive branch necessarily has a lot of leway in implementing laws, because some laws like the ACA are cumbersome and quite involved.

This doesn't mean he gets to fully ignore parts he doesn't like or thinks are politically troublesome.

He should have demanded they were better thought out before signing it.

Not make it a law with tens of thousands of thousands of regulations, and ignore all but the ones you want.

If this is the precedent that he wants to set, imagine when a later president doesn't like to enforce child pirn laws, or kidnapping laws, or environmental laws...etc.

There is no difference at all.

If one can do it to these laws, one can do it to any and all.

Regulations are not laws, or meant to change them, they are used to properly implement laws, nothing more.

So in short, yes our constitutional republic is at risk as it is being applied at present, because there is nothing constitutional about.

You have to love people who deride a source because it doesn't jive with their perspective. People like this used to burn books. No doubt we'll see that happening again one day soon.

So, one wonders what certain people will say if Obama does attempt to raise taxes through EO.

a reply to: johnwick

On July 26, 1948 President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which stated, "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin."

On Sept. 24, 1965, asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.

You were saying?

originally posted by: Bilk22
You have to love people who deride a source because it doesn't jive with their perspective. People like this used to burn books. No doubt we'll see that happening again one day soon.

I agree, it is the whole "ends justify the means at any cost" mindset.

Just like Obamas amnesty.

He wants it, can't get it, so violates the law and the constitution, by ignoring the law, and failing to uphold the constitution and faithfully execute his duties as the POTUS.

But that doesn't matter, amnesty was the right thing to do, so screw the law and the constitution.

I had to be done.....

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: johnwick

On July 26, 1948 President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which stated, "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin."

On Sept. 24, 1965, asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.

You were saying?

That is for government employees.

Obama can sign an EO tommorow demanding all gov employees have to eat a hsm sandwich for lunch, which is fine, because they don't have to work there, it isn't their right to work there.

Not laws that effect the entire populous.

But you knew that already didn't you?

What were you saying?

a reply to: Bilk22

Ti the Na-Sayer can't see this happening even without reading or trusting the source, he has his head in the sand.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Bilk22
You have to love people who deride a source because it doesn't jive with their perspective. People like this used to burn books. No doubt we'll see that happening again one day soon.

I agree, it is the whole "ends justify the means at any cost" mindset.

Just like Obamas amnesty.

He wants it, can't get it, so violates the law and the constitution, by ignoring the law, and failing to uphold the constitution and faithfully execute his duties as the POTUS.

But that doesn't matter, amnesty was the right thing to do, so screw the law and the constitution.

I had to be done.....

I have been of the same mind that the law was violated. However during times of war, the president holds certain powers. I think this is the hidden linchpin to how he and GWB circumvented laws. Somewhere out there is an official state of emergency/war that we have been operating under for quite some time. Congress knows this and probably allows this, so it's why they don't move against Obama to impeach. IMO they're all part of this together and any attempt to take this to court will result in failure.

a reply to: johnwick

You asserted that the civil rights movement was done via voting and congress. And while you're mostly correct, there WERE executive orders handed down during the civil rights era to help push things along.

So I simply gave some examples of those executive orders. I'm not saying I disagree that you assert Obama is overreaching with his executive authority, he certainly is to a degree. However, I personally agree with his amnesty order. Why spend countless millions deporting illegals when you can give them avenues to LEGAL residency, and turn what otherwise may have been someone getting paid under the table to avoid deportation into a legal taxpayer, and contributing member of the United States?

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Bilk22
You have to love people who deride a source because it doesn't jive with their perspective. People like this used to burn books. No doubt we'll see that happening again one day soon.

I agree, it is the whole "ends justify the means at any cost" mindset.

Just like Obamas amnesty.

He wants it, can't get it, so violates the law and the constitution, by ignoring the law, and failing to uphold the constitution and faithfully execute his duties as the POTUS.

But that doesn't matter, amnesty was the right thing to do, so screw the law and the constitution.

I had to be done.....

I have been of the same mind that the law was violated. However during times of war, the president holds certain powers. I think this is the hidden linchpin to how he and GWB circumvented laws. Somewhere out there is an official state of emergency/war that we have been operating under for quite some time. Congress knows this and probably allows this, so it's why they don't move against Obama to impeach. IMO they're all part of this together and any attempt to take this to court will result in failure.

God...bush...I won't go there.

You are right though, because the NDAA in 13 I believe it was, continued a resolution that existed under bush that the entire country is a battleground.

Which means we are on a war footing.

Which does kick in special presidential powers.

But this also violates the spirit of the law, because it isn't being used for the common defense, it is being used for political and domestic issues, which was not the intended use for these powers.

I say we just start all over, have a new constitutional convention, and wipe all this clean.

Millions of laws thousands secret is just too much for a society to function properly under the weight of.

Edit to add...the congress even if 100% controlled by the right would not impeach obama, even the left fear what that idiot biden would do as POTUS.

Given the choice I choose 2 more bush and 3 more obama overv1/2 a biden.

That was the ultimate move making him VP, nobody wants that creepy old coot in charge of refilling the tp not to mention a country.

a reply to: Ultralight

Yes, the Constitution is dead.
White House Press Sec. video.

WH Won’t Rule Out Raising Taxes By Executive Order

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Bilk22

The way to quickly deal with the apologists that normally instantly demand a source for the soul purpose of instantly discrediting ANY source you use is to always add "IMO" to your comment.

IMO-Another straight up childish liberal tactic-remember that the majority of them were the "tattle tails" from elementary school that no one could stand.I remember one that pretended (and still does) to be a "Highlander".

The type that would be like-"I can say whatever I want-but if you do then I'm telling". IMO

a reply to: johnwick

It is the behavior of a dictator.

a reply to: FalcoFan

Asking for a verifiable source is now just a "childish liberal tactic"? Weird, I thought that was part of the learning process. You know, verifying facts instead of taking the speaker at face value.