His Question: Doug, I stumbled on to this site that apparently creates new federal regulations under Executive Orders by the President. Can you look at it. If I'm reading this correctly, Unconstitutional executive orders are given to an agency to unconstitutionally create unconstitutional federal regulations. Let me know. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
My Response: Okay, so the question I have is does the regulations regulate existing laws made pursuant to the Constitution? Executive Orders can create agencies, and create regulations of existing laws, but if the rule-making is not related to existing laws made pursuant to the Constitution, the Executive Orders are unconstitutional. The Executive Branch was created to execute the laws of the nation, so creating regulations is not a problem, unless those regulations are creating new rules for laws that don't exist, or if those regulations are for laws that do not fall within the authorities of the federal government as per the Constitution. If the Executive's actions are creating law, then that is unconstitutional. This President, unfortunately, has been doing exactly that. He has been creating new laws via his regulatory agencies and Executive Orders (such as Energy Department's Cap and Trade regulations after the law failed in Congress), and he has been modifying laws which is also not within his constitutional authorities, or the authorities granted to his regulatory agencies. This is where We the People, through our States, need to step in and work to stop the madness. This can be accomplished by communicating to our representatives, voting out those representatives that refuse to abide by the Constitution, and ultimately for the States to nullify unconstitutional laws.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
4 comments:
Douglas,
Over the course of some months, I have read a lot of what you have written (I liken it to a train wreck or even a televangelist—I just can’t stop watching) and I can assert, quite safely, that this is where pot meets kettle, my friend. Within your blustering essays I have noted innumerable instances of either grammatical errors or colloquial prose, so it seems that right-wing conservative talk show hosts must be stupid, as well. Perhaps this is an understatement on my part. Here’s the rub: your initial two sentences do not appear to have any syntactic relation to one anther, yet the second sentence reads as a dependent clause. This means, of course, that it begs for introductory material, yet you have the audacity to assert that Obama cannot write well…? Goodness me, these are big words from a guy who couldn’t even be bothered to complete his Bachelor’s degree. Were we, your humble readers, to understand that the latter sentence was somehow connected to the former?
With that being said, your incessant malicious remarks and caricatures of our President are not only racist but inane. However, your personal attacks against the President do reveal your boorish and largely provincial nature. Just a quick note: when one uses the word “then” in a sentence it implies preceding material; for instance, in logic statements the word “if” precedes the word “then” and are referred to as if-then statements. For example, if you understood that the word “then” requires introductory material then you wouldn’t have structured your sentence the way you did. Another word to the wise: be careful of playing the grammar game because one inevitably makes similar errors—we all do. It doesn’t have anything to do with ignorance, but rather it is a political opportunity for the likes of you. Say, here’s a fun idea: I challenge you to an open online debate—one old classmate to another; what do you say? We could discuss topics such as: history, economics, Marxism, free markets, communism, language, the US Constitution, science, etc. The only rule is that there isn’t any editing. Perhaps the first topic we could discuss might be fascism. Come one, it should be fun…
Number one, this is a quick response to a question on Facebook and was not designed to be an essay. Second, my criticisms of Obama's writing skills have little to do with comparisons and everything to do with the fact that he's presented as the smartest guy in the room, and one with an Ivy League education. I don't present myself as a great one as he does. I have flaws, and that is fine. I am putting out my opinion, and if you like it, fine; if you don't, leave. As for moderation, I moderate comments because of the incredible amount of spam, and inane, profanity laced comments I get daily. I am not interested in people like "Yellow Flag" who leaves me comments daily with phrases like (and I quote) "you are a f***ing sh**bag mother f***er with no f***ing G**damn clue over f***ing anything" I think garbage like that is a good enough reason to moderate. As for debates? I have a radio show, feel free to call in. Oh, and I am not racist. My problems with Obama is not because he is half-black, but because his policies are in complete opposition of what I believe is good for this country, and in complete opposition of constitutional principles. The race card is a last-resort attack. I am saddened you are willing to stoop to such ridiculous levels.
Douglas,
I wasn’t referring to just this essay, but that’s another matter. Your response doesn’t seem to add up. Obama really doesn’t present himself as anything; perhaps you watch too much television and are too influenced by the media. You claim that he presents himself as being smart. If so then perhaps you know something that I don’t. The media has portrayed him as being smart, but I am presently unaware of any instances where Obama claims to be so smart. Perhaps you could direct us to this information.
My greater point is this: focus on important things. A grammatical error hardly makes a person stupid. If you’d like some advice then perhaps you’d consider that it makes you seem petty and predatory—politically speaking. Now as for your points about opinions, well, that’s another story. Your response to me was indeed a typical right-wing response: love it or leave it. If you are going to be so bold as to publicly spout off and tell the rest of us how our once-great country should be managed then you should be man enough to take on a little criticism, yes? Perhaps you should consider little things called facts and evidence. Your comments about the picture of the foetus should actually tell you something about yourself. It took me all of about thirty seconds to uncover that the picture was faked; why couldn’t you do the same? Does influencing people mean more than truth?
It is another typical right-wing tactic to attempt to reverse the argument, and this, I believe, is why you said “the race card is a last-resort attack. I am saddened you are willing to stoop to such ridiculous levels.” Gosh, how dare I stoop to such ridiculous levels? Well, are they ridiculous? As I recall, just the other day you had this to say about our President: “Mr. Obama, you are not in a hut in Kenya, or public housing in Chicago.” Really, you’re not being racist? Moreover, the simple fact that you mentioned that he is half black rather than simply referring to him as our President is also somewhat revealing.
You say that his policies are in complete opposition to how you believe this country should be run? Really, I’d love to hear you elucidate these points. Perhaps we might have some interesting conversation, but I’d never do it on the air. I am not so foolish as to enter into a public conversation where my interlocutor has one hand on the receiver and the other on the disconnect button. No, I am afraid that we wouldn’t have enough time on a talk show, and, besides, we both know that conversations such as this cannot be elucidated in sound bites. Hence, I propose that you list the items with which you disagree so that we can examine them here and now. As the late, great Thomas Paine once noted “it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”
As my time is short, I will not respond to every point, but let's list just a couple things about my opposition to Obama's policies, and actions. He uses executive orders to legislate, but Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution gives all legislation powers to the Congress. Obama's health care plan is unconstitutional. There is no authority in the Constitution for it. If you want to use the Commerce Clause, if you go by the original intent based on the debates at the convention as penned by James Madison, you realize that the Commerce Clause was meant to allow the federal government to act as a mediator in disputes over commerce between the states, not the manner the Commerce Clause is being used today. Besides, if insurance companies, or a third party payer, is the problem, making the government in essence that insurance company does not solve the problem, it worsens it. Also, by enabling government to pay for health care it opens up the opportunity for government to mandate our every action. In the interest of saving the taxpayer's money they will be able to dictate to us our eating habits, our activities, etc., because they are paying for it. And don't tell me it won't get to that point. Remember when the seat belt law was passed? We were told we couldn't be pulled over for it. We would only be ticketed for it if pulled over for something else, and we weren't wearing a seat belt. Now, as government always does, the amount of control and intrusion has increased, and now it's "Click it or ticket." By the way, that also is a State authority. There is no authority for the federal government to go around mandating seat belts, either. The federal government wasn't created to manage our lives as democrats like Obama seems to think. It was created for the sole purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. Nothing more.
Post a Comment