Skip to content

The President is Not The Chief of the Nation.

03/16/2013

cmblake6:

Dan has written an extremely good article about the separation of powers in the Constitution. Man sounds like a Constitutional Lawyer, unlike some who claim that but don’t actually have the first fucking clue.

Originally posted on danmillerinpanama:

He is the chief Only of the U.S. military.

Our nation has no “Chief” or “Commander.”

As shown below, the President often behaves as though he considers himself the Commander in Chief, not only of the U.S. Military but of the nation. Others seem to respond to him as though he were. He isn’t and the differences are great. Yet Hail to the Chief, played at official and many unofficial presidential appearances, says that he is our Chief and our commander.

The lyrics are not usually sung. Here they are:

Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation,
Hail to the Chief! We salute him, one and all.
Hail to the Chief, as we pledge cooperation
In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.
Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,
This you will do, that’s our strong, firm belief.
Hail to…

View original 2,742 more words

6 Comments
  1. 03/16/2013 10:19

    Thanks for the re-blog and kind words.

    Dan

  2. 03/16/2013 10:32

    Damn good post!

  3. poetopoet permalink
    03/16/2013 13:52

    Fantastic post, I am going file it for reference.

  4. 03/16/2013 14:19

    Thank you, Kind Sir!

    Dan

  5. 03/16/2013 16:21

    Too true CM

    Good stuff Dan

    Indulge me in some passing thoughts.

    From the article

    According to Chris Rock, a popular actor and comedian,

    The President of the United States is, you know, our boss. But also, you know, the president and the first lady are kind of like the mom and the dad of the country. And when your dad says something, you listen. [And] when you don’t, it usually bites you in the [expletive] later on. So I’m here to support the president.

    No Chris you foul mouthed illiterate guttersnipe. He is my employee. He is supposed to follow the rule of law set down centuries ago without fail. Not impose his obviously inferior and ill reasoned ideology but formulate policy congruent with the organic law. Mom and Dad can get away with the reasoning “I told you so” because they are dealing with fucking children. In our situation just the reverse is in evidence. Ee are adults dealing with a party of perpetually petulant and willful six year olds. Their edicts hold no authority because what they impose has NEVER WORKED no matter how long they hold their breath, kick their feet and wish to make it so.

    Retired Supreme Court Justice Souter recently commented,

    I don’t believe there is any problem of American politics and American life, which is more significant today, than the pervasive civic ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and the structure of government. (This response earned Souter a round of applause)

    This from the grand wizard of moderates(chosen by shrub senior) who routinely sided with the forces of big government against Rehnquist,Scalia,Thomas and various combinations of O’Connor and Kennedy(see Kelo V NewLondon)

    We know, with pretty reliable evidence, that two-thirds of the people of the United States do not know that we have three separate branches of government. I remember…a survey back four or five years ago in which a substantial percentage of Americans believed that the Supreme Court … was a committee of the Congress. It didn’t used to be this bad.

    They may not know that but they do know that it is not a legal taking for a municipality to steal their property to give to a corporate crony because they submit to the gredy city council a slick advertising brochure purporting to be a plan in pursuit of more funds(read: taxes) to redistribute to fund their re-election campaigns.

    I don’t worry about our losing a republican government in the United States because I’m afraid of a foreign invasion. I don’t worry about it because of a coup by the military, as has happened in some other places. What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed people will not know who is responsible, and when the problems get bad enough – as they might do for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown – some one person will come forward and say: “Give me total power and I will solve this problem.” (Emphasis added.)

    Funny. Justice Souter spent his entire career aggrandizing and signing off on the expansion of federal power and when that wasn’t available state or city power. That is untilhis own little slice of heaven was threatened. At this point it ought be well known where the fault lies as his buddies in the permanent government and the ruling class have advanced and perpetuated unauthorized federal power almost unabated for the last 80 years. Yes the fed has been able to camouflage their involvement through unfunded mandates and discreet funding(think the state exchanges in Obamacare) but any due diligence will find DC’s grubby finger prints all over these programs. Only disingenuous statist simpletons like Justice Souter(the only less qualified Justices in recent times may have been Sandra O’Connor and Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotamayor) can incredulously claim that they don’t know the provenance of what has befallen us. Federalism has been eroding since the 14th amendment and has only accelerated since the 17th amendment. The first sentence of Souter is pure inanity as we are seeing an executive right before our very eyes. Now it may be part of a foreign intrigue(think Trojan Horse) but Obama, his party and their assorted goons, thugs, co-conspirators and dependents are doing much to destroy prosperity and liberty here at home on their own.

    I share Justice Souter’s concern. Neither President Obama nor anyone else is “our boss,” the “chief we have chosen for the nation,” or “the one we selected as commander.” Many did not “pledge cooperation in proud fulfillment of a great, noble call” beyond that set forth in the Constitution and laws enacted pursuant to it. We did not, for example, pledge to cooperate in his unilateral evisceration of existing Federal laws of which he disapproves or in his unilateral promulgation of such new laws as he may desire. Neither we, nor the Constitution, granted him substitute legislative authority — despite his attempted and too often successful assertions of legislative powers. We did not approve what seems of late to have been his motto, “Look, if Congress won’t act, then I will.” Even if we had approved his usurpation of the legislative authority of the Congress, the Constitution would prohibit (but not necessarily prevent) him from doing it.

    So what does this show? That Adams was right. That the constitution is for a moral and religious people it is wholly inadequate for any other. Obama and his cabal are neither moral nor honest to the point where they openly question the legitimacy of the constitution through their PC prism and materialist hypocrisy. The same document that lends them the authority to claim to be able to govern they denigrate as the spewings of greedy racists that hasn’t kept up with the times even though the precepts in such a document that allows the citizen all that is not forbidden and allow the government just what is expressly allowed was and is the most radical document in human history.The majority of human history has been exactly the opposite of that concept . If the constitution is illegitimate then where do they derive their authority to govern? The answer is it doesn’t then exist.(Thanks professor Reynolds) The only way to rule is through force and deceit. The short form is, just like with the current fight over gun CONTROL and historically with prohibition, the law is only as good if people are willing to obey it and that there are those who are willing to enforce it. Obey and Obama only have one thing in common the begin with O.

    However, as far as we know — and we unfortunately know very little about his early years — he never wore a military uniform, never commanded troops or even served as one. His knowledge of military tactics and strategy appears to be less than that of this famous major general, who could legitimately (at least in a Gilbert and Sullivan operata) wear a major general’s uniform.

    He can’t wear a military uniform as that would make him look way to much like banana republic door stop Hugo Chavez. The parallels may be even so obvious even his hatchet men in the media might roll over and yawn after they give Obama his daily journalistic fellatio. As for his lack of knowledge military matters that just stacks up with his ignorance with any number of other subjects a President ought to be fluent in like economics, history and his purported specialty the constitution. Instead he is an expert in travel, golfing, class warfare, shit stirring, self love and racial McCarthyism.

    No legislation can abrogate the President’s authority under Article II and no Executive action can abrogate that of the Congress under Article I.

    Again this is true if those involved guard their prerogatives jealously. This does not work if there is one whole party when they gain control of the political branches, as in 2009-10, conspire to subvert those prerogatives by writing laws that unconstitutionally delegate the law writing function and try and make it un-repealable or un-reviewable by future congresses. Congress can legally make things un-reviewable by limiting federal court jurisdiction but nowhere in the constitution can they keep future congresses from addressing. Even in the case where they place super majority provisions on repeal these are of dubious provenance as only certain actions constitutionally require it.

    Presidents have long promulgated Executive Orders but President Obama seems to have gone further than his predecessors. Some have directed Federal agencies to act in specified ways when enforcing Federal legislation. Some have directed Federal agencies to disregard Federal legislation, and I consider those at best problematical. For example, President Obama’s Dream Act order appears to be unconstitutional to the extent that it directs Federal agencies to enforce “selectively” — i.e., only in the ways it specifies — immigration laws enacted by the Congress and signed into law by former Presidents.

    Executive orders are fine if they are confined to how the executive branch comports itself with the execution of duly enacted laws. It is when under either the color of an executive order that de facto changes what congress meant and thus the law in relation to the citizenor regulation(a species of executive order) that acts instead of law where these orders are constitutionally dubious. If Obama openly flaunts enforcing a duly enacted constitutional statute he is derelict in his duty and in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws and, if we actually had an opposition party as opposed to a junior partner of the ruling class, he would be facing multiple impeachment and removal proceedings. Please read the link(Publius Huldah) as it is the best summation I have seen on the legitimacy of executive orders.

    From one of Dan’s cite’s
    NPR whines

    …All of which goes to prove that Obama has reached the stage in his presidency, like so many of his predecessors, where his frustration with congressional inaction has led him to act unilaterally. (Emphasis added.)

    So because the persistently petulant and perturbed boy king is upset that his agenda of destruction and destitution is being blocked by people who don’t agree with him he is going to break the law. This shows the intellectual and emotional immaturity of a six year old stamping his feet and rationalizing how every one is out to get him and he is being tied down by old dead white men.RAAAACIST!!!! This is also the entitled mindset of every criminal that has ever committed a crime. He wants what he wants the law be damned.

    Another quote from Dan’s NPR(William Howell) cite:

    So the idea that presidential power is fixed and static is a deep misnomer. It mischaracterizes[sic] both the long trajectory of presidential power over time and it also mischaracterizes[sic] what the founders themselves had in mind. They fully expected various branches of government to be pushing and pulling. (Emphasis added.)

    As Dan so rightfully and perceptively pointed out earlier in his article; power and authority are two different things. The power may be in flux but the authorities inherent in the office are fixed and immutable in that they can only be legitimately contracted or expanded through amendment. Presidential power has grown commensurate with government expansion as a whole and the competing interest fight to divide the spoils.

    Then Howell commits this howler

    He really got beaten up over that[the debt ceiling fiasco of 2011]. Because he was perceived as not providing the kind of leadership and initiative and drive that we expect of a president. And since then he has said repeatedly “Look, if Congress won’t act, then I will.”

    Except that he didn’t act where he was obligated to act. He threatened to let America default on interest payments due when there was plenty of money coming in to pay those payments. The 14th amendment makes debt and debt service the only constitutionally mandated spending. What he threatened was a dereliction of duty and another impeachable offense

    More rationalization from Howell.

    Immigration is another one of these policies where Congress is effectively stuck. We saw that with [George W.] Bush where he tried to engage Congress and introduce comprehensive immigration legislation and he was beaten up over it. I think in this sort of policy area, this is going to be the wave of the future. [Presidents are] going to say, these are small incremental moves but they’re going to do it on their own. (Emphasis added.)

    So this genius thinks that because congress doesn’t agree the president has authority to act? Does he really think congressional inaction justifies presidential lawlessness?No wonder academia(or wherever this wizrd is from) is seen as sclerotic and ignorant. Gridlock and stasis was a feature to the founders in that you had to get real wide consensus to get anything done and until the age of the progressive demagogues starting with TR and ending with his half wit duplicitous cousin this worked pretty well in keeping government in its prescribed box.

    Dan makes the same point a little more eloquently

    Sometimes there is insufficient political support in the Congress for what the President wants. Political motivation is not necessarily bad and, to the extent that our CongressCritters represent the voters in their districts and States, that is a good thing.

    However, there are also quite valid non-political reasons why the Congress does not always act as the President desires. The Congress, like the Executive and Judiciary, is and must remain a co-equal branch of Government. Each has its own functions and authorities not duplicated by those of the other branches. Neither the Legislative nor the Judicial Branch is either subject to presidential command or subordinate to him in fulfilling its own duties and responsibilities under the Constitution. It is not the constitutional prerogative of the President to legislate “if Congress won’t act” or otherwise to function,

    This is good stuff. Co-Equal governance not Emperor and servants. Liberals have an unending reservoir of justification for their lawless arrogance as they try to make personal preferences the law of the land.

    This obama_dictator is not an authorized presidential uniform; there is no authorized presidential uniform. President Obama could probably wear one if he chose and doing so might enhance his somewhat wobbly status in some foreign lands. Many dictators have worn similar costumes and many have affected the sorts of power and authority such uniforms suggest without bothering to don them.

    The picture that accompanies this blurb is priceless. Earlier(waaaay earlier) I said a uniform would make him look too much like Chavez. That uni looks like it is straight out of Qadaffi’s closet and he has a remarkable resemblance to the erstwhile Libyan dictator cum soccer ball. Put a red nose on him, grow out his natural and hire him out to Ringling Brothers. Besides his uniform of the day is generally a LaCoste cotton pique shirt and mom jeans to chase that little white ball(I think there are some deep seeded racial issues perhaps) around those eighteen bases(B. Bunny)

    This was very good Dan. I enjoyed it immensely

  6. 03/16/2013 17:04

    FX Phillips — many thanks for your extended comments. I appreciate them.

    Dan

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,263 other followers

%d bloggers like this: