The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two part series on how the Constitution’s checks and balances are being ignored by leftist politicians and pundits.
The United States is in great danger from those who advocate, condone or simply ignore the trend towards defying Constitutional mandates and practices.
America is about to turn a corner in which a movement that has engaged in the practices of ignoring Constitutional provisions and applying a different standard of law for the powerful, while pursuing the supremacy of government by power and influence rather than by rule of law, seeks to retain the White House.
The spokespersons for that movement have not been shy. In an interview reported by MRCTV Secretary of State John Kerry hailed Obama “for his ability to ‘circumvent Congress’ in getting parts of his energy policy enacted.” Whether acting domestically in his assaults on the coal industry, or internationally in his acceptance of the Paris Climate “accord,” the White House ignored the legislative branch and the Constitutional provisions which require its assent. In essence, the President acted as a one-man government.
The reduction of the Constitution from its position as the controlling law of the land has been an ongoing and increasing threat. While many presidents have at times quietly exceeded their authority, the blatant and open institutionalization of this practice during the past eight years has been extreme and exceptional.
Whether in direct statements from Mr. Obama that he would “not wait for Congress to Act,” and that he had a “pen and a phone” and would not hesitate to use them if Congress did not acquiesce to his will, or in the use of the IRS to harass opposition political groups, or the overarching influence of major Democrat political donors such as Tom Steyer over the Environmental Protection Agency, or the transformation of the Department of Justice into a partisan agency, the exclusion of Constitutional practices in favor of “strong man” tactics has been dire and dangerous.
There are several uses for this drug other discover for more levitra sales than erectile dysfunction. When blood is not reached to those parts sufficiently then erection doesn t occurs and if some how you manage it tadalafil tablets 20mg does not lasts for more than 10 minutes. You can buy Kamagra from pfizer viagra australia the popular Himalaya Herbal Healthcare. Meet a doctor buy levitra and talk about this problem. The Justice Department example is one that should worry every citizen. J. Christian Adams, who served in the Voting section of the Justice Department, describes how the Obama Administration changed the organization’s hiring practices to ensure that only radical leftists would wield influence—and use that influence for partisan purposes. He described, in his book “Injustice” how the supposedly neutral government agency sided with political bosses.
While Adams concentrates on the Justice Department’s role in election law, the same problems exist in that agency’s misdeeds regarding Hillary Clinton’s email violations. The indictment of other figures for committing deeds similar to but far lesser in scope than the former Secretary of States’ email crimes, while refusing to indict Clinton, is a clear example of how political considerations rather than the objective enforcement of the law motivates government agencies in the Obama-Clinton era.
In many ways, the overwhelming influence of partisan political interests over federal agencies during the Obama Administration resembles the role of Communist Party commissars over the Soviet State or the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. (Before pundits go wild and claim we are comparing the Obama Administration to Communists or Nazis, which we are not, the point we are making is that the extraordinary influence of political interests over nonpartisan ones in government agencies does have historical antecedents in those prior and unsavory regimes.)
Historical examples provide clear warnings of what can happen when central governing documents containing strictly observed guarantees of rights do not exist. American slavery provides one such illustration. Africans transported to the colonies were at first considered indentured servants, similar to those from Europe. There was a reasonable expectation that after a stated period of time, they would be freed. But the elites of the time—wealthy property owners, and those claiming to have scientific expertise in the matter—found it more convenient to keep blacks in bondage. Absent a guarantee of rights, slavery was born. Even after the practice ended following the Civil War, a willingness to ignore the newly enacted Thirteenth Amendment (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”) deprived blacks of many of their rights.
It should be noted that the same political party that supported slavery and then, in defiance of the Constitution, segregation, now supports the President and other politicians that espouse defying Constitutional mandates.
The Report concludes tomorrow