Obama grabs more kingly power

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Considering the Marxists, Islamists, Progressives, leftists and Communists that Obama has appointed during his first term of usurping the Presidency, would it not seem prudent for the House of Representatives, in control of the Republicans, to work harder at preventing more of that?

If you answered yes, you would be wrong. In fact, the Republican House has once again shown why the Tea Party is the only entity in this country that cares about the Constitution.

Obama gets dangerous appointment tool

The “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act“, passed by the Senate and the House is not only unconstitutional, but in the hands of Obama, it’s very dangerous.

The last we looked, it took an amendment to change the US Constitution.  But alas, not so, according to just about every Democrat and 95 Republicans. For 200 years the President of the United States needed consent from the Senate for key government appointees.  Thanks to Republicans, not anymore.

Aside: New Jersey GOP members split

Before we go further TPATH wants to thank both Scott Garret and Leonard Lance for going against the Speaker and voting for America.  Both of these NJ Representatives voted no.

It might be noted that it is becoming more and more clear why Runyon was rejected by Tea Party groups in South Jersey and it has also become abundantly clear why Chris Smith has also had the same effect on Central Jersey organizations. Both of these men voted with the Democrats to allow Obama to appoint anyone he wants, to many very key government positions without the approval of the Senate as required by the Constitution.

Why streamline for Obama?

The Constitution of the United States. Congress just handed Obama an end-run tool around it.

The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States

Two questions on this:

  1. Why would the Congress give away more of their shared power without even a little battle, to a Marxist who has proven just what he will do with that new power?
  2. Do the Republicans who voted for this think Obama has not sufficiently destroyed our economy before they gave him free rein to appoint even more radicals?

Dozens of key management positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security (including the treasurer of the United States, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the assistant administrator of FEMA) will now be filled by presidential edict, without the need of the “advice and consent” of the Senate.

The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

The bottom line here is, people, we are in trouble.  We have a  man who is not a Natural Born Citizen, unconstitutionally sitting in the position of President of the United States,  a tax bill, Obama Care produced in the Senate, unconstitutionally, and now that unconstitutional President has just been given unconstitutional power.

Our freedoms and rights are not just being slowly chipped away, they are being assaulted with 4-foot chain saws.  This time, our own side has provided the saws.

Read the full text of this Bill here and see how your Representative voted.

6 Responses to Obama grabs more kingly power

  1. This Obama grab for power with the “appointment tool,” is really no surprise. After all, Obama is all about control without regard to Constitutional government.

    And, it is no surprise why the Republicans have not kicked up a fuss about this power grab. They’ve already sold their patriotic and Constitutional souls when they allowed Obama to run for the office of US Executive. Since then they have whored around with Obama, being complacent in the greatest power grab – that being Obama’s unconstitutional ascendancy to the US presidency.

    I won’t even provide links to substantiate what I just commented [on] because Obama’s White House occupancy is widely and publicly known to be a usurped reality. There has been no legal controlling authority which has certified his right to run for the highest office in the land. An investigation led by a well known sheriff has found Obama guilty of forgery and identity fraud; yet the useless politicians fail to act. Instead, they grant Obama more influence and power that he does not legitimately have a right to possess.

    Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel

    http://www.thechristianmessage.org
    http://www.moralmatters.org

  2. […] Obama Grabs More Kingly Power – conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/19/ […]

  3. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    “Dozens of key management positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security (including the treasurer of the United States, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the assistant administrator of FEMA) will now be filled by presidential edict, without the need of the “advice and consent” of the Senate.” That’s not true. Few key management or policy positions are addressed. Show me where I’m wrong, but I think you’re grossly overstating things. Have a closer look at the statute with an eye toward looking at the statutes that get amended. Most positions look like administrative or the functional equivalent of career appointments. There’s really no need for oversight of those. Others get downsized. Yet others are created subject to advice and consent, or converted to merit positions, which are not political. Many of those you might claim have had advice and consent removed really didn’t when you look closer. See my list below and please correct me where I’m wrong or feel free to point out positions that you think are more significant than I gave them credit for.

    One would think the right would at least give Congress some honest credit for reducing the “size” of government by obviating the need for Congress to waste time reviewing essentially career appointments, appointments which in many cases Congress has traditionally permitted without any substantial (or indeed any) actual advice on both sides. Statutes removing the Senate’s responsibility to consent to these administrative and quasi-career appointments have been widely used for a long time.

    The real horror to me is that Congress began an unconstitutional trend of abdicating its war power authority during the Vietnam War under President Nixon. I view that as a much more significant issue that’s had dangerous and profound effects on so many aspects of our lives.

    I’ll go through what I take to be the amendments you might find objectionable with the expectation that you’ll point out which meet the description you give. Kingly Power? That’s just not true. Where advice and consent is removed, it uniformly seems pretty trivial.

    Assistant Secretaries of Defense
    10 USC 138(a)(1)
    Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration; and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; — trivial

    Homeland Security Director of Office for Domestic Preparedness
    6 U.S.C. 238(b)
    Removes advice and consent

    Homeland Security Assitant Administator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Grant Programs
    6 U.S.C. 238(b)
    Removes advice and consent from GRANT PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATOR

    Homeland Security Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement
    6 USC 458(a)
    Looks like you’re correct here

    Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, who shall be the Secretary’s first assistant for purposes of subchapter III of chapter 33 of Title 5.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland Security Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland Security Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland Security Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland Security A Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland Security An Under Secretary for Management.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland A Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland Security An Under Secretary responsible for overseeing critical infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, and other related programs of the Department.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent

    Homeland Security Not more than 12 Assistant Secretaries.
    6 USC 113(a)
    Removes advice and consent — big whoop

    Homeland Security A General Counsel, who shall be the chief legal officer of the Department.
    6 USC 113(a)

    HUD Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
    42 USC 3533(a)
    Does not remove advice and consent as far as I can tell

    DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
    42 USC 3732(b)
    Removes advice and consent – doesn’t look like a position that’s key to any central security or economic interest

    DOJ National Institute of Justice
    42 USC 3741(b)
    Removes advice and consent – doesn’t look like a position that’s key to any central security or economic interest

    DOJ Administator of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
    42 USC 3722(b)
    Removes advice and consent – doesn’t look like a position that’s key to any central security or economic interest

    DOJ Director of Office for Victims of Crimes
    42 USC 10605(b)
    Removes advice and consent – doesn’t look like a position that’s key to any central security or economic interest

    Transportation Assistant Secretary for Aviation and Intl Affairs
    49 USC 102(e)
    Creates position with advice and consent
    Transportation Assistant Secretary for Administration

    49 USC 102(e)
    Creates position with advice and consent
    Aviation Deputy Administrator

    49 USC 106
    Merit position that wasn’t subject to advice and consent.
    Treasury Assistant Secretaries

    31 USC 301(e)
    Reduces number of Assistant Secretries from 10 to 2 and removes advice and consent
    Treasurer of the United States

    31 USC 301(e)
    Doesn’t affect advice and consent at all, just reorganizes structure of section and removes 2 positions
    VA – various assistants

    38 USC 301(a)
    Appointment requires advice and consent
    VA – Assistant Secretaries for Management, Human Resources and Administration, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Operations, Security and Preparedness

    38 USC 301(a)
    Removes advice and consent
    Members of Council of Economic Advisers

    15 USC 1023
    Creations a number of positions subject to advice and consent
    Office of National Drug Control Policy Deputy Directors,

    21 USC 1703(a)(1)
    Removes advice and consent
    Office of National Drug Control Policy Director

    21 USC 1703(a)(1)
    Still requires advice and consent
    Director of the Census

    13 USC 21
    Still requires advice and consent merit based appointment, adds terms and term limits, describes duties, etc.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The positions you call “trivial” are in fact highly sensitive. The Census Director, for example, is responsible for determining the proportion of representation in the House of Representatives for all States. I should think that the Senate should never give up its say-so over that appointment. The others indirectly affect government policy.

      Today, a liberal would dispute the sum of two plus two, if he thought that would redound to the advantage of himself or his cause. Therefore, finders of fact ought still appear before the Senate for advice and consent to their appointments. Nothing is trivial in government today.

      You want a streamlined government? Then eliminate all but its core functions of police, military, and courts of law.

      • Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

        Sorry about that – I accidentally split sections incorrectly.

        The Director of the Census remains a merit based position that is subject to advice and consent.

        What else?

  4. Nathaniel Roubideaux says:

    In fact, I would greatly appreciate if you’d let me correct my pervasive formatting error. The format should be – Name of position – statute amended – notes.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.