Of Laws No More

America has long prided itself as being “A Nation Of Laws.” But, unless the American people and the followers of Obama wake up soon, that will swiftly and surely become a false pride based on a lie. If President Obama is allowed to finish as he has started the rule of law will have ended in America, to be replaced by a de facto autocratic rule by the Executive.

Yes, the Liberals could say President Bush was guilty of this as well – so? If it was wrong then, it should still be wrong now.

President Obama, in a bid either to fulfill some of his campaign promises or to just further his agenda, has apparently chosen to use his appointees in the Executive branch of our government to flout and / or circumvent the laws enacted by Congress.

Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano is enforcing Obama’s policy of not arresting illegal immigrants in direct contravention of standing US federal law.

US Attorney general Eric Holder is enforcing Obama’s policy of not raiding medical marijuana clubs in direct contravention of standing US federal law.

Two of the most important of President Obama’s appointed subordinates – neither position being an elected one – the Homeland Security Secretary and the US Attorney General, are directly contravening current US law at the order of President Obama. This selective enforcement of American law is essentially a tacit line-item veto of Congressional legislation and represents both a power grab by the Executive branch and a violation of US Constitution which guarantees a Separation of Powers.

One of the principal responsibilities of the President and his subordinate Officers as stated in the US Constitution is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” not to create laws, remove laws, or circumvent the enforcement of law duly enacted by Congress.

President Obama’s contempt for the law and his apparent desire to further consolidate power into the White House is made even more serious in the light of his unilateral decision to create White House offices on the US Census, Health Reform, Urban Affairs, and Energy & Climate Change.

Americans also need to fear what Obama will do when it comes time to appoint Supreme Court Justices. A President with Obama’s views may well create a SCOTUS worse than the Warren Court.

The American people and the followers of Obama need to open their eyes and truly see what is being done to them. We should not be supporting these actions; we should be denouncing them in the strongest terms and in the strongest means available to us.

If we’re not wiling to do so, then we need to never again claim that “America is a nation of laws” and accept the yoke of our new masters.

Tags: | | | |

9 Responses to “Of Laws No More”

  1. Ed Darrell Says:

    President Obamas contempt for the law and his apparent desire to further consolidate power into the White House is made even more serious in the light of his unilateral decision to create White House offices on the US Census, Health Reform, Urban Affairs, and Energy & Climate Change.

    Teapot tempest. What could a “czar” of the census do that is not authorized by Congress? The only thing that changes is that the president is informed. Defenders of the Bush White House may not understand why it’s important that the president know what’s going on, but it’s clear to the rest of us.

    On the other hand, Bush’s botching of the last census cost Utah a seat on Congress, and may have left at least one Democratic seat in California instead of moving it to Texas. So long as it hurts the Republicans, who cares, right?

    What other concerns are there?

  2. Mason Says:

    I find it troublesome that you use terms like “followers of Obama” as if he’s some cult leader. He is the American President. And that goes for all Americans, whether you agree with him or not. And unlike his predecessor, he’s been extremely welcoming of engaged discourse regarding policies.

    Regarding the two laws that he’s supposedly breaking by not enforcing, by not actively raiding illegal immigrants and medical marijuana clubs he’s not saying that the federal government condones it. There is a difference. He’s not legalizing either situation.

    I really don’t know how you can honestly say that President Obama has a contempt for the law. If you want to learn about a president taking unpredented power for the executive branch, take a look at the book “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy” by Charlie Savage.

    I’m not saying that President Obama is perfect or impervious to error. Far from it. I didn’t follow your blog before but, I worry that you’re attacking Obama right now simply because you personally don’t agree with medicinal marijuana and not the way he’s supposedly subverting the law. Did you attack President Bush during all of his ridiculous illegal activities, or were those okay because they were in line with your own viewpoints?

  3. jonolan Says:


    By having people who are in charge of such projects be officers of the Executive, Obama is dramatically expanding the powers of the White House at the expense of Congress and the US Constitution. Less dramatic attempts at that were loudly denounced by the Liberals during past administration.

    As for what Obama could do by bringing the 2010 Census under Rahm Emanual’s controls, I suggest to refresh your memory of the definition of “gerrymandering,” as well as considering how the Census would affect the distribution of the funds allocated in the Stimulus.

    So…teapot tempest?


    “I find it troublesome that you use terms like followers of Obama as if hes some cult leader.”

    Isn’t he? Take a long hard look at his followers. Many of them view him in a similar level adoration and devotion that Jim Jones of the People’s Temple received.

    All that has happened – IMHO – is that America elected a cult leader as POTUS. Strange though, I’d have expected it to be a Scientologist. 😉 But anyway…

    By not faithfully enforcing the laws as they written he is in fact saying that the federal government – at least he and his people – condones the actions in question. He is also saying that the laws do not matter.

    The proper procedure would be to attempt to change the laws, if he finds them objectionable as opposed to just choosing to selectively enforce them.

    You also made the wrong guess; I’m in favor of medical marijuana and think that marijuana should be removed from Schedule 1 and treated in a similar – though slightly less regulated – manner to the way we treat Oxycontin, Demerol, and many other drugs.

    My complaint is the circumventing of the law instead of trying to change it through constitutionally approved methods – and yes I complained about many of Bush’s excesses in this area as well.

    Tell me, Mason – how would you feel if it were different laws not being enforced, say Hate Crimes or ENDA? Or do the ends justify the means, and if so, do you complain about Gitmo?

  4. theNimrod Says:

    “He is the American President. And that goes for all Americans, whether you agree with him or not.”

    Me wonders if you were so generous with our 43rd? WAIT NOW…think about it again and answer honestly.

    “And unlike his predecessor, hes been extremely welcoming of engaged discourse regarding policies.”

    My favorite Obama myth. Needn’t look further than the stimulus package on this one. His idea of “engaged discourse regarding policies” and bi-partisanship is strong-arming Republicans in the media – painting political discourse as obstructionism. Once again, he’s a brilliant politician. If he allows Republicans to have a credible voice in the molding of that bill, much of the excess is sliced out. Rather than suffer that, he bullies them. ‘We won the election…we wrote the bill…swallow what we give you to swallow.’ Republican dissent is ‘the same old party politics in Washington.’

    It’s always been his go-to maneuver. We’re most accustom to seeing it during a campaign. Any swing taken at him – be it by Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Dodd, or eventually McCain – was inevitably reduced to ‘the same old partisan posturing.’ Any slight of him became an example of the same old ugly politics – even as he threw his own mud.

    It’s really quite an interesting phenomenon. People are so turned on by what he preaches (and the fact that he’s the first black POTUS) that they ignore the fact that he doesn’t practice it.

  5. Mason Says:

    Jonolan – Sorry I shouldn’t have assumed about where you leaned on certain topics. I still don’t agree with you whatsoever about these so-called “followers” of Obama. He has a 67 percent approval rating, including some 42% of GOP voters approving of him (up from in the 20%s a couple weeks ago). It’s not like this is some sort of fringe cult at all. I was not a fan of Bush but I didn’t call those who liked him his “followers” and he had some extremely fervent fans (many of whom have since completely separated themselves from him now). It’s a good question about what he’s doing because, yes, I do agree with him but what if he were choosing to not follow laws that I felt strongly about? The difference is that it’s not like he’s telling the courts to not try anyone arrested on certain charges, just telling the enforcement not to make specific raids. It’s not entirely dismissing the law at all. You get caught crossing the border illegally, the patrol will still arrest you. Gitmo is entirely different. That was a blatant trashing of the Geneva Convention. Bush used the fear of terrorism as his excuse for just about everything he did – wiretapping, torture, invading Iraq…

    theNimrod – yes, I still considered Bush my president even though I didn’t vote for him either time nor did I agree with hardly any of his policies. I don’t think that’s being generous; it’s just being rational. It’s ridiculous to say that because you didn’t vote for him that he’s not your president. Also, welcoming discourse doesn’t mean just rolling over and letting the GOP get everything they want just because they argued for it. The citizens elected a Democratic President and Congress for a reason. I don’t remember the GOP letting the Dems get all of their ideas passed during the past 8 years. It’s unrealistic to think that would happen from either party and wouldn’t really be the way our government works. And considering the stimulus included one of the largest tax cuts ever passed by a president of either party, and the final bill did have billions taken out of it from the original version, I’d say that he’s being much more accepting of different viewpoints than his predecessor ever was.

  6. jonolan Says:


    We have a fundamental disconnect in our perspectives and views on the matter.

    You say, “[sic]…its not like hes telling the courts to not try anyone arrested on certain charges, just telling the enforcement not to make specific raids. Its not entirely dismissing the law at all.”

    I see no real difference between choosing to tell law enforcement not to arrest criminals per the law and telling the courts not to try them after the arrest. In either case the law is being made void for the sake of the POTUS’ policies.

    …And actually, Gitmo wasn’t a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention wasn’t written to deal with the situation of terrorism and insurgency; it doesn’t adequately address the matter at all.

  7. Mason Says:

    Again, he’s not saying do not arrest criminals at all. 1) He’s leaving it to the states to enforce, which they are doing (which is a relatively conservative view, actually), and 2) again, he’s not saying don’t arrest illegals: he’s just not conducting raids. No law is being made void.

    Torture doesn’t need to be defined within the realm of terrorism. Torture is torture. The reason for the Geneva Convention was so that it wouldn’t come up again.

  8. jonolan Says:

    Selective enforcement of the law is a voiding of the law, Mason, and not conducting raids when the FBI and DEA is made aware of a violation is a form of selective enforcement.

    This is a tactic that has, in the past, been used for great harm and I don’t see where it will be used any better now or in the future. You and / or I may actually like what is being accomplished by not fully enforcing the laws of the US in the current matters at hand, but what about the next time in a different situation?

  9. chiefopiner Says:

    Another view of the whole issue is the simple fact that Obama is saying – by his order to desist – that the federal government shouldn’t be interfering in the decisions of the state (and the people of the state).

    Yet Obama has made it clear that when, not if, a Planned Parenthood supported Freedom of Choice Act is passed he’ll sign it into law. A law that is predicted to OVERRIDE all the different laws of the states on abortion.

    How is it that on the one hand the state is capable of legislating and on the other it is not?

    I also agree that by restricting the enforcement of federal laws Obama is voiding the law. Bush ignored the laws and people screamed. Make up your mind which you want. If the law is “wrong” work to change it – don’t ignore it.

Leave a Reply