Welcome To Post-Constitutional America

GBFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
1,455
Despite his low approval ratings, President Barack Obama has not been challenged by Congress to the degree that many conservatives believe that he should be.

Claremont Institute president Brian T. Kennedy explained that the unwillingness to act by Congress enabled Obama to far exceed the limits of his power told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview.

“The majority of Republicans want to find ways to win elections here in Washington, and that’s very satisfying to be in the majority,” he said. “But they are not recovering constitutional government, and every year that goes by, we are living less and less under a Constitution and more and more under a bureaucracy.

“Under what authority in the Constitution can he suspend Obamacare for a year or now two?” Kennedy continued. “It can apply to some people but not other people? Under what authority in the Constitution? If you are a Republican congressman, what is your remedy? You can impeach him, but of course they know that if they bring articles of impeachment against the president, they will fail in the U.S. Senate… If the president wants to do what ever he wants to do what is the constitutional remedy? It’s only impeachment, but a Congress that won’t challenge him on so many things is unlikely to impeach him.”

Because of this, Kennedy said, the framework for government established by the Constitution is no longer relevant.

“We are almost living in a post-Constitutional age,” he said. “Where the actual respect for the Constitution and the constitutional forms, they exist but they don’t quite operate any more. These Republican Congressmen, as well intentioned as they are, don’t really have a method by which they can enforce the principles that they hold dear and so we are muddling along.”

Kennedy also explained how the mindset and mentality in Washington amongst Obama opponents works.

“It’s almost today in Washington as if people are waiting the eight years for Obama to be gone,” he said. “They’d like to get that behind them and they are doing their best just to hold on, make sure things don’t get that bad. But they don’t really feel like challenging Obama because they think he is a very popular president — at least in the mainstream media, he’s popular — and he did get re-elected. So they don’t know quite how to challenge that.”
 
Werbung:
The inaction in the face of constitutional crisis is inexcusable. Yeah that means congress ans scotus.

If by the inaction of congress you mean the House, what would you have them do? There is no way the Democrats are going to oppose the destruction of the Constitution. That's their goal and has been since the '60's.
 
If by the inaction of congress you mean the House, what would you have them do? There is no way the Democrats are going to oppose the destruction of the Constitution. That's their goal and has been since the '60's.
Well there were supposed to checks and balances, that should empower either branch. But lets start with placing those in the adminustration actually committing the overreach (sebellius for ocare for example) in contemot if congress ? But even dems have been whining about some if these since its their role being neutered.
 
Well there were supposed to checks and balances, that should empower either branch. But lets start with placing those in the adminustration actually committing the overreach (sebellius for ocare for example) in contemot if congress ? But even dems have been whining about some if these since its their role being neutered.

The House is only one half of congress. There isn't a lot they can do without the Senate, and with Reid in charge, they aren't doing anything.
 
Reid or no Reid they arent so much as trying.

The House has had two hearings on Executive Overreach and there are bills in the works to limit what the President has been doing. But again, they would have to go to the Senate, only to get deep sixed by Reid.
 
The House is only one half of congress. There isn't a lot they can do without the Senate, and with Reid in charge, they aren't doing anything.
"The House is only one half of congress." The same can and is being said by the Dems about the Senate. This is what happens when extremism is the norm. Are the Republicans more honest and ethical than the Democrats? No, they are pretty equal. The party you favor tells you what to say and what to think. Keep following them, you may deserve it.
 
[QUOTE="g4racer, post: 226311, member: 4719] Are the Republicans more honest and ethical than the Democrats?[/quote]

As a body, yes.

No, they are pretty equal.

That's your opinion.

The party you favor tells you what to say and what to think.

No one tells me what to say or think.

Keepfollowing them, you may deserve it.

I don't follow any party. I do vote Republican most of the time now. I left the Democrat party when they went over to the dark side.
 
You believe what you want to hear, that doesn't make them more honest. I've left both the Republican and Democratic Parties but become a member of one or the other for Primaries. I firmly believe the "We the People" was never intended to be the truth, if it was it was to apply to just one segment of the existing society. A degree of wealth was a requirement to vote in the new young nation.
They are both on the dark side, you selected the one that you believe would give you the most or allow you to have the most.
 
You believe what you want to hear.

Oh really? And you know what I believe?

They are both on the dark side, you selected the one....

Well being there are only two parties to choose from, that have any chance of winning anything, I vote for the lesser of the two evils.

that you believe would give you the most or allow you to have the most

You couldn't be more wrong on that one. I have never voted for stuff for myself, quite the opposite. I happen to believe that everyone needs to be responsible for themselves and not to expect nanny government to take care of them.
 
You believe what you want to hear, that doesn't make them more honest. I've left both the Republican and Democratic Parties but become a member of one or the other for Primaries. I firmly believe the "We the People" was never intended to be the truth, if it was it was to apply to just one segment of the existing society. A degree of wealth was a requirement to vote in the new young nation.
They are both on the dark side, you selected the one that you believe would give you the most or allow you to have the most.
Back when the country was young landholders were the only ones who followed politics. Big reason the senate was appointed. Anyone below that bar was busy enough just being fed.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top