The pen that is mightier than Congress must be destroyed

[paulbot24]

Is there any way whatsoever for Congress to nullify Executive Orders? If they can, why haven't they? This is the main reason why I fear another four years of Czar Obama. Well, I fear both him and R$ to be sure, but Obama seems to have a fetish with his Executive Order pen the way Clinton had with his cigars. Can Congress do ANYTHING? These orders are nullifying that beautiful checks and balances order of things I remember from my eighth-grade civics class and mocking Congress as well. If the Republicans keep control of the House and regain control of the Senate that should be able to keep him in check......until the Executive Orders. I think Romney winning this election could very likely push the Liberty movement back farther, but Obama might just leave us with such a sinking trash heap by 2016, who knows what will apply then. Note: I am not stuck in the Left vs. Right paradigm and I'm not promoting the right branch of Goldman Sachs over the Left branch. The two wings in our politics are stuck on a predator drone with a mechanical brain with no soul dropping bombs on our liberty. I have no allegiance to either party, in fact, come to to think of it, the last time I pledged allegiance to anything was to uphold the Constitution when I joined the armed forces several years ago. It appears we are in a strange damage control situation right now with this upcoming election. I am just as confused as everybody else, but I do know this. These Executive Orders must be abolished. If the only way to abolish them is to wait for a President to abolish them then we might as well just call this place by its correct name: The People's Republic of America.

[TheTexan]

"Can Congress do anything" -

the more relevant question might be:
"Does Congress want to do anything?"

[WhistlinDave]

Actually I think a more expedient path than Congress would be for someone to sue to nullify them on the grounds they're unconstitutional, and then get the SCOTUS to rule they are unconstitutional... Because if Congress passes a law to repeal or nullify one, then what is to stop him (or whoever is president) from picking up the pen again and just signing a new one again? But if you get a ruling from SCOTUS, not only do you need to convince far fewer people to get it done (5 out of 9), but it would also have a lasting, binding effect.

[TheTexan]

and then get the SCOTUS to rule they are unconstitutional

Like how they helped us with Obamacare? :/

They really fucked us a new one with that. Should have been an open and shut case.

More likely than not if we were to bring these exec orders to SCOTUS, they'd legitimize them, and at the same time fuck us over some other way just for kicks

[WhistlinDave]

Like how they helped us with Obamacare? :/

They really fucked us a new one with that. Should have been an open and shut case.

More likely than not if we were to bring these exec orders to SCOTUS, they'd legitimize them, and at the same time fuck us over some other way just for kicks

Well maybe, maybe not... I think on Obamacare Roberts ruled that way because he wants to see Obama voted out of office. By voting that way, he made Obama a liar ("No new taxes for the middle class.") Which is not to say it wasn't disappointing, but I think there was definitely something more to it than normal logic.

Still, if they didn't rule favorably, then nothing is different really. Congress could still pass a law to nullify. And the president could sign a new executive order to put it back in place. And so on... I really think the SCOTUS is the best avenue. Just my opinion.

[TheTexan]

Congress could still pass a law to nullify.

Except, they are bought and paid for.


And the president could sign a new executive order to put it back in place.

Also, bought and paid for.


And so on... I really think the SCOTUS is the best avenue. Just my opinion.

May be the best option of the three, but does not make it a good option... they, too, are bought and paid for.

[paulbot24]

We could get lucky and get the SCOTUS to rule a particular executive order unconstitutional, but it doesn't take away the authority. We need to cut the head off this beast and remove the authority, not just hope to overturn one occasionally. Let's just pretend that Congress was inclined to act, could they? What are our real options?

[ClydeCoulter]

Well, although I would hate to have to use the option, the founders gave one last option to ensure a free state. But, like I said, it really is a last resort type option.

[WhistlinDave]

Well, although I would hate to have to use the option, the founders gave one last option to ensure a free state. But, like I said, it really is a last resort type option.

Are you talking impeachment or something more... physical?

[ClydeCoulter]

Are you talking impeachment or something more... physical?

I'll stand on the 5th on that one, for now.

[michaelwise]

Do it in only four words on a T-Shirt;

Got Guns & Ammo? Good!

See; http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?389203-Got-Guns-amp-Ammo-Good!-T-Shirts

[ClydeCoulter]

@paulbot24,

I know your frustration. What did the RNC fiasco teach us? Romney is not above doing anything. I don't see him being any better, and maybe worse, than Obama.

edit: But in either case, they are setting up a dictatorship with the compliance of the congress and judiciary.

[paulbot24]

I'll stand on the 5th on that one, for now.

You always have the right to remain silent. Remaining silent is not just for "protection of the guilty", I like to remind people of that. You're a smart fellow. We both know how the tree of liberty is "watered." Is there no "civilized" way to remove this "privilege"? I would like to hear Napolitano posed this question and hear what he has to say, but then again, I'd ask him about the weather in Zaire just to hear him speak. There's a liberty torch waiting for him and I'm aching for him to accept it. Any Constitutional gurus have any idea?

[Southron]

Congress absolutely can and should stop the executive orders. I think that leaves only the possibility that they don't want to do it. Likely they want to reserve those powers for the next Republican administration.

They could have also defunded Obamacare, but have not done so. They like to talk as if only a President Romney could undo it but Congress has the power of the purse.

[ClydeCoulter]

This is something I wrote and tried to get published some time back (never happened on Lewrockwell, or any other site I contacted)



Truth or Trolls
by Clyde F. Coulter, Jr.

There are so many opinions on the world stage that it is hard to decipher truth from propaganda. But there are types of propaganda that are hard to tell from the truth. We see the outright lies and agenda promoting of the mainstream media and, for those that are "awake", it is a sickening experience to even have such running in the background while surfing the net for truth.

The more difficult propaganda to sift out as such is that which agrees mostly with our point of view. Take the NDAA and it's controversial indefinite detention amendments. We agree that laws that strip American citizens of their rights are wrong. But to state that "the NDAA strips American Citizens of their Constitutional rights" is incorrect.

Congress does not have the authority to make laws that strip our rights. How are things passed by government any more binding than the authority to do so? I can say that I give myself the right to do some thing, but if I do not have the authority to do so, how is it binding upon others?

The government of the United States of America is bound by the Constitution of the United States of America. The following are just 2 of our "Bill of Rights" amendments to the constitution:

"Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now I ask you, is our government bound by these? Yes, it is, otherwise the subversive actors within it do not have even the authority that our government is given, but are criminals.

Yes, our government has a bigger gun and there are people within and without that could attempt a coup to subvert our form of government, which seems to be what is being attempted. A bigger gun pointed at "We the People" does not imply legality but excessive and illegal force.

So, when we hear scare tactics like "they have just stripped the citizens of their rights", it is a subtle twisting of the truth to instill more fear. The truth, as I see it, would be more like "they are attempting to convince you that they have authority that they do not have" or "they want us to believe they are not bound by the constitution even though any authority they do have is only given by that same constitution".

There are only two ways to "strip the citizens of their rights". Modify the Constitution of the United States as provided for in the Constitution, or, overthrow the United States of America and subdue "We the People" to an alternate form of government. Is the latter being attempted?

[paulbot24]

Romney would not undo Obamacare, especially the mandate since it was originally his idea, and we all know he is a liberal. Could it be a typical House bill....If the House were to draft the bill, Obama promptly vetos it with his mighty pen, and then the House overrules it with a 2/3 vote? Would this work?

[paulbot24]

So, when we hear scare tactics like "they have just stripped the citizens of their rights", it is a subtle twisting of the truth to instill more fear. The truth, as I see it, would be more like "they are attempting to convince you that they have authority that they do not have" or "they want us to believe they are not bound by the constitution even though any authority they do have is only given by that same constitution".

That is a powerfully truthful statement.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I feel that it's time to send a message OFFICIALLY to Washington D.C., that any executive order which is illegal, will not be complied with, and that their authority won't be recognized until these E.O.'s are abolished.

[paulbot24]

I feel that it's time to send a message OFFICIALLY to Washington D.C., that any executive order which is illegal, will not be complied with, and that their authority won't be recognized until these E.O.'s are abolished.

How do we "send" such a message.....?

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

How do we "send" such a message.....?

That's what I've been trying to figure out.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually I think a more expedient path than Congress would be for someone to sue to nullify them on the grounds they're unconstitutional, and then get the SCOTUS to rule they are unconstitutional... Because if Congress passes a law to repeal or nullify one, then what is to stop him (or whoever is president) from picking up the pen again and just signing a new one again? But if you get a ruling from SCOTUS, not only do you need to convince far fewer people to get it done (5 out of 9), but it would also have a lasting, binding effect.
I'm not a fan of the modern SCOTUS and don't like this use of it. Perhaps if they heard cases the old fashioned way (before a jury who could nullify decisions), maybe.

[Feeding the Abscess]

SCOTUS nominees have to be picked by the president, and then approved by both houses of Congress.

Let that simmer in your stew before concluding that the SCOTUS is anything but a rubber stamp for the "other" two branches of government.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Well maybe, maybe not... I think on Obamacare Roberts ruled that way because he wants to see Obama voted out of office. By voting that way, he made Obama a liar ("No new taxes for the middle class.") Which is not to say it wasn't disappointing, but I think there was definitely something more to it than normal logic.

Still, if they didn't rule favorably, then nothing is different really. Congress could still pass a law to nullify. And the president could sign a new executive order to put it back in place. And so on... I really think the SCOTUS is the best avenue. Just my opinion.

I don't think it was very likely that Robert's made some 'art of war' type decision against Obamacare. I think it's much more likely that someone(s) 'influenced' him to go the way he did at the last minute. Either with money or some type of deal/threat. If it makes you feel better to believe he made some deeply tactical decision we don't understand, that's fine. Usually the simple answers are the correct ones, and there are too many people who stand to make way too much money off the taxpayers teat with Obamacare for them to just let it go away in one ruling.

[libertyjam]

Actually I think a more expedient path than Congress would be for someone to sue to nullify them on the grounds they're unconstitutional, and then get the SCOTUS to rule they are unconstitutional... Because if Congress passes a law to repeal or nullify one, then what is to stop him (or whoever is president) from picking up the pen again and just signing a new one again? But if you get a ruling from SCOTUS, not only do you need to convince far fewer people to get it done (5 out of 9), but it would also have a lasting, binding effect.

Always the resort for good and evil, always back to the tyranny of the Five Men in Black Robes. A Jesuit conspiracy could not have worked any better or be as proud.

[Root]

"Can Congress do anything" -

the more relevant question might be:
"Does Congress want to do anything?"
I think congress should do it to re-establish their power, and for that reason alone. I realize it won't happen because it's easier for them to play dumb, since they also typically benefit from the EO's anyway. However, considering how much the 112th congress happens to dislike this president, it be nice of them to show some balls and not look like a bunch of sissys during an election year. But that's just me :cool:

[paulbot24]

Always the resort for good and evil, always back to the tyranny of the Five Men in Black Robes. A Jesuit conspiracy could not have worked any better or be as proud.

You never know about those damn Jesuits. They probably could do it better since the descriptions would all be the same (Caucasian, old, balding man with beady eyes wearing a huge twelve pointed star sparkling cross thing around their neck, dressed in a robe....) What are they going to do? Arrest all of them? Hey, wait a minute. I kind of like the sound of that. Trouble is they would just seek asylum in well, you know where....never to be seen or heard from again.

Back to the point....If the red shirts get control of the Senate as well as keeping the House, could this actually happen? We could contact our reps and Senators and run this idea by them......

[heavenlyboy34]

SCOTUS nominees have to be picked by the president, and then approved by both houses of Congress.

Let that simmer in your stew before concluding that the SCOTUS is anything but a rubber stamp for the "other" two branches of government.
That^^ SCOTUS justices (as well as inferior court justices) are very political, and tend to side consistently with one partisan position or another.

[paulbot24]

Then there are the federal judges that just rubber stamp whatever sentences are on the books. Why even call federal judges by that name when they are not judging anything? They are too afraid to stand out and actually....uh, judge it themselves based on what they think. Many federal judges have complained about this over the years but nothing is done. Wouldn't want to incorporate new case law into a system which will require people to have to THINK before stamping. Well, I am still curious about whether a red shirt house and maybe also senate can/will do anything to stop Executive Orders. This idea is weighing heavily on my mind as it is impacting my vote and my hopes for the "winner." Funny we will call the victor the winner when we all know we're all losing.

[Deborah K]

@paulbot24,

I know your frustration. What did the RNC fiasco teach us? Romney is not above doing anything. I don't see him being any better, and maybe worse, than Obama.

edit: But in either case, they are setting up a dictatorship with the compliance of the congress and judiciary.

I agree with this. And it seems to me the only way to deal with it is through nullification. The people need to rise up in each state and demand their governors and legislatures to nullify the federal government.

[Deborah K]

http://nullificationmovie.com/

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree with this. And it seems to me the only way to deal with it is through nullification. The people need to rise up in each state and demand their governors and legislatures to nullify the federal government.

And, the states need to promote non-GMO and non-hybrid vegetable planting. Imagine the states nullify and piss off the feds, next thing you know and seeds won't be supplied to farmers (just one simple example). Where's the national guard? etc... control, control, control.
I hope we have lots of smart involved people in the right place at the right time.
But, you are right, nullification seems to be the best option, right now.

[WhistlinDave]

Great essay Clyde, you're right. They don't have that authority to begin with. And yet they take it, they usurp it.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think it was very likely that Robert's made some 'art of war' type decision against Obamacare. I think it's much more likely that someone(s) 'influenced' him to go the way he did at the last minute. Either with money or some type of deal/threat. If it makes you feel better to believe he made some deeply tactical decision we don't understand, that's fine. Usually the simple answers are the correct ones, and there are too many people who stand to make way too much money off the taxpayers teat with Obamacare for them to just let it go away in one ruling.

It's not even necessary to go that far. Nominations to SCOTUS (and appointments to other federal judicial seats) are based on the nominee's record of "rubber stamping" whatever the government wants. You don't stand a chance of being nominated to the SCOTUS (and of having your nomination approved) unless you have a record proving that you will consistently take the government's side.

Thus, it's not necessary to posit any bribes or threats or other avenues of "influence" in order to understand SCOTUS approval for Obamacare. Roberts let it pass because he wanted it to pass. He would not have been nominated or approved to SCOTUS if he wasn't the kind of person who did that sort of thing.

Occasionally, SCOTUS will rule against the government on some minor or relatively insignificant matter - just as a way of propping up the illusion that they are being objective.

[VBRonPaulFan]

It's not even necessary to go that far. Nominations to SCOTUS (and appointments to other federal judicial seats) are based on the nominee's record of "rubber stamping" whatever the government wants. You don't stand a chance of being nominated to the SCOTUS (and of having your nomination approved) unless you have a record proving that you will consistently take the government's side.

Thus, it's not necessary to posit any bribes or threats or other avenues of "influence" in order to understand SCOTUS approval for Obamacare. Roberts let it pass because he wanted it to pass. He would not have been nominated or approved to SCOTUS if he wasn't the kind of person who did that sort of thing.

Occasionally, SCOTUS will rule against the government on some minor or relatively insignificant matter - just as a way of propping up the illusion that they are being objective.

The reason I think he was influenced, is because I believe it was Justice Kennedy, was on a FBN show being interviewed, and he very strongly suggested that Roberts changed his mind at the last minute. You have to wonder why he sided with his conservative pals for so long, before suddenly switching to side with the liberal decision. If he was rubber stamping everything that was for government, he would've probably sided early on with the liberal decision.

[RonRules]

Actually I think a more expedient path than Congress would be for someone to sue to nullify them on the grounds they're unconstitutional, and then get the SCOTUS to rule they are unconstitutional... Because if Congress passes a law to repeal or nullify one, then what is to stop him (or whoever is president) from picking up the pen again and just signing a new one again? But if you get a ruling from SCOTUS, not only do you need to convince far fewer people to get it done (5 out of 9), but it would also have a lasting, binding effect.

I hope this would work and we don't have much time to try this out. Obama if reelected will likely nominate three new judges.

[libertygrl]

Is there any way whatsoever for Congress to nullify Executive Orders? If they can, why haven't they? This is the main reason why I fear another four years of Czar Obama. Well, I fear both him and R$ to be sure, but Obama seems to have a fetish with his Executive Order pen the way Clinton had with his cigars. Can Congress do ANYTHING? These orders are nullifying that beautiful checks and balances order of things I remember from my eighth-grade civics class and mocking Congress as well. If the Republicans keep control of the House and regain control of the Senate that should be able to keep him in check......until the Executive Orders. I think Romney winning this election could very likely push the Liberty movement back farther, but Obama might just leave us with such a sinking trash heap by 2016, who knows what will apply then. Note: I am not stuck in the Left vs. Right paradigm and I'm not promoting the right branch of Goldman Sachs over the Left branch. The two wings in our politics are stuck on a predator drone with a mechanical brain with no soul dropping bombs on our liberty. I have no allegiance to either party, in fact, come to to think of it, the last time I pledged allegiance to anything was to uphold the Constitution when I joined the armed forces several years ago. It appears we are in a strange damage control situation right now with this upcoming election. I am just as confused as everybody else, but I do know this. These Executive Orders must be abolished. If the only way to abolish them is to wait for a President to abolish them then we might as well just call this place by its correct name: The People's Republic of America.

You read "Classified Women" Paulbot. You know how most of them are on the take. They are only complying with their masters. I have no idea how we can get around these executive orders other than to maybe do what Ron Paul does - build coalitions with other groups of people. Then raise awareness and protest. Other than that, I haven't a clue. :confused:

[jbauer]

Obamas just perfected Bush's executive order plan. They should both hang

[paulbot24]

So Congress can do nothing? If Congress had a huge majority wanting to abolish the Executive Order privilege both in the House and the Senate, there is nothing they can do? All we can hope for is that a case challenging an EO makes it to the Supreme Court? Is this really the only option? What about a Constitutional amendment? Long shot for sure. Not to mention that it would require ratification by all the states and I can't see New York ever ratifying any sensible legislation. I swear I am going to get a permanent hand-print on my face from face-palming...

[paulbot24]

You read "Classified Women" Paulbot. You know how most of them are on the take. They are only complying with their masters. I have no idea how we can get around these executive orders other than to maybe do what Ron Paul does - build coalitions with other groups of people. Then raise awareness and protest. Other than that, I haven't a clue. :confused:

I try to believe that the judges on the Supreme Court are no longer partisan and somehow harder to "corrupt" than others. I couldn't believe the level of corruption in the Judicial branch that Classified Woman exposes. Again, I try to believe that the Judicial Branch is somehow above these sorts of things, but that is probably just due to the fact that they don't get near the media exposure as the Reps and Senators. Is it my imagination or does it seem that they "shield" the judges from negative publicity in a way that they don't offer the folks on Capitol Hill?

[Lucille]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTp3exC4wqJezJnUxcx4omD3N6GJ4uAf SCmFhxiKvfgjF3OUru5