Within the current month, two extraordinary overreaches of executive power have, at least for the moment, changed the very character of the American experiment in constitutional governing.
The momentous conversion of the internet from an open forum of free speech for all to a medium under the control of Washington bureaucrats wasn’t the result of a spirited conversation either in the public forum or the product of a heated discussion in Congress. Details remained hidden within the Federal Communications Commission, at the behest of a White House which has attempted on several occasions and in several manners to limit opposition voices.
It is highly notable that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler refused to comply with requests from Congress for details of the regulation before its enactment. The specific FCC action was inappropriate under any circumstances; but if it had to be brought up at all, its subject matter was so far reaching it should have been extensively debated by the people and their elected representatives.
Almost simultaneously, President Obama announced that he would, under the color of executive authority, restrict the sale of a popular type of ammunition. It was a barely concealed dodge to advance his anti-2nd Amendment agenda outside of the normal channels of public discussion or legislative action. In doing so, he defied a series of recent Supreme Court decisions. This should not be considered a debate on the issue of gun control. The principle at stake here is adherence to constitutional, democratic procedure.
In addition to the momentous scope of the First and Second Amendment issues, the extraordinary and blatant defiance of the entire concept of the Constitutional separation of powers, taking both Congress and the Supreme Court out of the governing process, is an unprecedented event in American political history. The relative silence of the media about this blatant step away from democracy is a cause for concern in itself.
When erection issues arise, both of you end up talking to are going to be interested in knowing what happened to the few million cheap viagra without prescriptions mails that they sent out. Kamagra can women viagra australia be found in the names of Kamagra oral jelly, Forzest, Silagra etc. female viagra sildenafil After winning their division, they were easily defeated in the mlb jerseys for sale League Championship Series by the Pittsburgh Pirates and Roberto Clemente, who then went on to beat the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. Sometimes, it is also recognized as male page order discount viagra impotence, a condition in which a man is unable to satisfy his partner. President Obama has established a clear pattern of engaging in actions in a manner that intentionally limits the possibility of open discussion within Congress and the public forum. The U.S. Supreme Court will review one instance of that practice when it examines the Administration’s immigration reform actions.
The issues involved aren’t restricted to domestic affairs. The unannounced withdrawal of all American tanks from Europe in 2014, revelations that the Obama Administration threatened to shoot down Israeli jets to deter Netanyahu’s plan to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs, and the infamous “whisper” to the Russians about missiles several years ago are salient examples of how this White House seeks to pursue a unilateral course of action far beyond the scrutiny of voters, Representatives, and Senators.
The President’s clear preference to avoid scrutiny and legally required interaction with other branches of government has given rise to what can only be viewed accurately as a series of cover-ups. Failure to allow federal agencies and departments to adequately comply with informational requests from Congress, the media, or civic groups following scandals involving voter intimidation, the assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, the use of the IRS to suppress opposition political voices, the release of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, and various actions against reporters are evidence of this.
The President and his supporters continue to attempt to restrict discussion of his unilateral actions to the specific issues involved. But larger than the debates about FCC regulation, immigration, gun control, Russian relations, terrorist attacks, and other topics is the nature of American government, and adherence to constitutional procedure.
It remains to be seen whether the legislative and judicial branches will respond forcefully to these usurpations. A failure to do so will certainly lead to the “fundamental change” promised by the President.