Recently, the EPA announced that it intends to implement and enforce “cap and trade” regulation of carbon emissions on the several states, after Congress failed to pass a law explicitly grant them that authority. This comes on the heels of the FCC deciding it had the authority to regulate the internet, again after Congress failed to pass a law explicitly grant them that authority.
Now, it must be remembered that the EPA and the FCC, like all other agencies of the federal bureaucracy, are part of the Executive Branch of the government. That means that they act as extensions of the president, acting in his name and carrying out his will and exercising his authority. So these moves are, in essence, President Obama simply deciding that he doesn’t need the assent of Congress to expand his authority, but can do so by simple proclamation and executive fiat.
That sounded familiar. I was certain that that sort of thing had happened before, but I couldn’t quite place it. And then it came to me:
]]>< ![CDATA[Oh, yes. Now it comes back to me.
The hardest to remember part of the Declaration of Independence was the “laundry list” of complaints against the King. Oh, everyone the least bit familiar with the Declaration remember that it’s there, but it’s so comprehensive and detailed that few can recall the particulars. I chose to refresh myself with the specific grievances, and it struck me how familiar some of those were.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. He seems to think that means he runs the state. But the EPA is telling him no, he doesn’t get to run his state. He has to abide by their laws — even their laws that aren’t laws, but regulations they passed when Congress wouldn’t pass a law.
Jan Brewer is Perry’s almost-neighbor in Arizona. She’s that state’s governor. She has what some would say is Perry’s opposite situation — she WANTS to enforce federal laws and regulations, specifically the ones about illegal aliens. But the Obama administration says no, only the feds have that right — and if they refuse to enforce the law, that’s just too damned bad.
And don’t even get me started on the Justice Department scandal regarding voting rights and voter intimidation. The Obama/Holder Justice Department has pretty much decided that it’s simply not possible for blacks to intimidate white voters, so they essentially dropped their case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia — even though they had already won the case in court.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
This one’s a little trickier. What Obama has “endeavoured” to do is to stop any attempt at toughening laws regarding illegal immigration — or even enforce existing laws. He holds that hostage for a nebulous concept called “comprehensive immigration reform,” meaning “you’ll get what you want once you give me everything I want — maybe.” Meanwhile, he’s tried to push his own immigration “reforms” — like the odious DREAM Act — through without so much as a by-your-leave nod to “comprehensive immigration reform.”
So, he’s essentially working to prevent the orderly, legal population of states, naturalization of foreigners, and obstructed their legal migrations hither, in favor of toadying to the illegal immigrant lobby.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
I’ve lost count of how many “Czars” — unelected, usually un-vetted, unapproved commissars in charge of whole swaths of federal policy — Obama has named. And he’s undercut his legally-structured Cabinet in some truly innovative ways. Secretary of State Clinton saw two of her key areas of responsibility — Iran/Afghanistan and the UN — taken away from her before her seat warm, as the former was put in the hands of a Special Envoy. In the latter case, the Ambassador to the UN — nominally Clinton’s underling — was elevated to her peer as a Cabinet-level officer. And Judd Gregg turned down Secretary of Commerce when Obama announced that the Census was being taken away from that department and instead overseen directly by the White House’s political wing.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
How many treaties that Congress refused to ratify has Obama announced he intends to follow anyway?
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
Through increased regulation and restrictions and whatnot. The new laws regarding lead content threatened to shut down yard sales, for god’s sake. The bans on offshore drilling (real and threatened) have made us even more dependent on foreign oil, and limited our ability to barter on the global energy markets.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
Here he gets credit for trying. Is the individual mandate for insurance that’s part of ObamaCare a tax or not? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, depending on what argument they need to make before the courts at the time. And I seem to recall certain Democrats in Congress threatening to bypass that whole tedious “voting” thing and simply declare that they “deem it passed.” That strikes me as “close enough for government work.”
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
I’m not too terribly upset about this one, because the “us” is “Guantanamo detainees,” but Obama made a key part of his campaign a pledge to shut it down and bring the prisoners here for civilian trial. I thought that was a bad idea, and still do, but he made that promise — and halfway through his first (and, I hope, only) term, he’s done absolutely nothing about it.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
Guantanamo again. As before, I’m not greatly troubled by it, but it’s pretty damned important to his base.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Strike “merciless Indian Savages,” and insert “Muslim extremist terrorists.” And he hasn’t so much as “excited” them, as tolerated them and turned a blind eye to their menace. Note how many of the recent attacks and scares came from American citizens (the Fort Hood shootings, the Times Square bombing, and whatnot) — that certainly qualifies as “domestic insurrections. And their “known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”
King George III had his excuses. He was the head of a global empire, he was distracted with a more immediate war with France, and he was… well, he was nuts. The guy had serious mental health issues, and very well might have been clinically insane for large portions of his reign.
What’s your excuse, Mr. President?