What Constitution? Obama To Emphasize Intention To Use Unilateral Presidential Authority

Tyler Durden's picture

While the stats of the union remain unremarkable at best, it would appear that despite the rancor in Washington, President Obama will get his way "whatever it takes." As the WSJ reports, the State of the Union address Tuesday night will emphasize his intention to use unilateral presidential authority — bypassing Congress when necessary — to an extent not seen in his previous State of the Union speeches. "We need to show the American people that we can get something done," Dan Pfeiffer, a senior White House adviser, told CNN; it seems no matter how totalitarian and unconstitutional it would appear to be.


Via WSJ,

President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night will seek to shift the public's souring view of his leadership, a challenge the White House sees as critical to shaping the nation's policy direction over the next three years.


Mr. Obama will emphasize his intention to use unilateral presidential authority—bypassing Congress when necessary—to an extent not seen in his previous State of the Union speeches, White House officials said.




Mr. Obama will stress that he intends to take unilateral action on a host of other issues: infrastructure development, job training, climate change and education. Administration officials hinted broadly at the assertive new direction Sunday.


"We need to show the American people that we can get something done," Dan Pfeiffer, a senior White House adviser, told CNN as part of a round of interviews previewing the speech.


The more aggressive, executive-led approach marks a recalibration by the White House after seeing how congressional Republicans responded in 2013 to the president's re-election, a senior administration official said. Several key White House initiatives stalled in Congress last year, including an immigration revamp, an increase in the minimum wage, gun-control legislation and economic proposals.




"He says, 'Oh well, it's hard to get Congress to do anything.' Well, yeah, welcome to the real world. It's hard to convince people to get legislation through. It takes consensus," said Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.). "But that's what he needs to be doing is building consensus and not taking his pen and creating law."


Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in an interview that Mr. Obama's speech wouldn't present "a grandiose agenda. It's going to be a very practical agenda aimed at middle-class people."



One big agenda item is apparently a "pledge" to hire more by US companies...

He also is expected to announce that some of the nation's largest employers, have signed a White House pledge agreeing not to discriminate against the long-term unemployed when making hiring decisions, according to a draft of the policy and interviews with several people familiar with the matter.

But the corporate hiring pledge also shows the limits of executive power. Under the nonbinding agreement, companies won't be obligated to hire the long-term unemployed, and it is unclear how the administration will monitor progress.

More lip-service, more class-warfare, more totalitarianism... just what we need for 'growth'... It does make one wonder if the surge in t-bill yields around the debt-ceiling dates are indicative of some reaction by the Republicans to this aggression?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

All hail the mighty Wizard of O.

Midas's picture

If you like your anal virginity, you can keep your anal virginity.

Rick Blaine's picture

Obama is a great man.


(Please have your sarcasm detector set to ON before reading that.)

New England Patriot's picture

Phew. I'm glad he's a constitutional law "professor."

Imagine what the alternative could have looked like. 

duo's picture

Rome had an executive who spent his whole term trying to make the Senate irrelevent while partying the whole time.  His name.....o yea, Caligula!


CH1's picture

Dude's out of control. Arrogance, delusions of grandeur and narcissism are a BAD combination.

nmewn's picture

Not to mention incompetent.

XenoFrog's picture

It would be nice if some brave soul had the testicular fortitude to yell out, "Tyrant!" when he starts explaining why he doesn't need Congress to pass laws.

akak's picture

I'd settle for "Get your stinking executive orders off me, you damned dirty ape!"

superflex's picture

I'd settle for "Nigger, Please!"

g speed's picture

does't matter to me what he says. I completely ignor the irrelevant POS---and fuck his cohorts and his court sycophants.

TruthInSunshine's picture

"If you liked what remained of any shreds or vestiges of the Constitution, Fuck You!"

-- Barack H. Obama

TruthInSunshine's picture

"You Lie!!!"

The Sequel. January 28th.

South Carolina Representative # 1: That's what you said last time, dipshit!

South Carolina Representative # 2: Yeah, I got a solution, you're a dick! South Carolina, what's up!


GetZeeGold's picture




If you still do it after we say no......that's just rape.

Arius's picture

POTUS is working  hard for the best for the country like previous Presidents always have done.

He surely in these trying times needs all our support regardless of your party affiliations!

kralizec's picture

Who is going to stop them?

The GOP just rolls over and taunts "that all you got, boy?"!

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

There is a case to be made for moving to Costa Rica.  Fishing is good too...

"Quepos, Costa Rica"


mkkby's picture

If you like your constitution, you can keep your constitution.

Max Cynical's picture

It would be even better if nobody showed up.

johny2's picture
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

We might not live, yet, in an Orwellian, technodystopian socieity, but clearly we're in the left lane headed there.  Language is well used as a weapon.

A person yelling "tyrant" would be deemed a 'Tea Party extremist' and dismissed, for the most part by the major press.   Moreover, in our crazy, fucked up duopoly, both Republicans and Democrats each think that the other side only engages in criticism out of some derangement - partisanship  {often true}, or "racism" or "socialism" or "hate" or some other word that serves to stop further thinking.

I'm not a 'libertarian', or at least not an orthodox one. I hold a lot in common with progressives, I'm unapologetically 'right wing' on illegal immigration and to the extent I can know myself, it is not based on 'hate' of the 'other'.  My family were all Democrats, but I remember in my punk rock politics phase watching Limbaugh and thinking the guy was funny and seemed to make some good points.


My point... is that I don't take disagreement personally.  We all arrive at a conclusion as to what's best, or fair, or right, or true, to the best of our ability.  My opinion that the state should, in fact, massively fund {and reform} education for its citizens comes from a pragmatism and nationalism that overcomes the limited government and view of governmental power that I otherwise adhere to.  I tend to feel the same way about health care - that our view of it as a commodity instead of a right makes no sense, and also isn't good for the country...




But here's what, if you disagree...  I won't think you're dumb, or be upset with you.  You look at it differently.  You're allowed to.


All of this said, this imperial power grab begun long ago, accelerated under Obama, and the hypocritical cryptofascist "progressives" who perpetually seek to impose their will via coercion are both wrong, and dangerous, and if they are ever stopped, it will be so much harder and worse because all of us simply watched them rip up the bill of rights for years and years and did nothing, or let those who turned it into some bullshit about racism or being "right wing" get away with intellectual absurdity.


Government is limited by the grant of power in the Constitution, or it is not.  Those who seek to use a government unbounded by it's contract with The People are, in common parlance, for reasons of language use, fascists... and they are not my enemey because they disagree with my political opinions, they are my enemy because they are the enemy of all that is good and sweet about being human.


Jendrzejczyk's picture

Nice writing style. You do need to explain why the government would be a wise choice as Overlord of Education Decider in Chief.

Johnny Cocknballs's picture

No I don't.  It needs to get done. And that means kids from piss poor families whose potential is squandered. Right now, state government is in the best position.


I'm familiar, trust me, with the theoretical free market arguments.  But theory isn't practice. The country needs an educated populace.  There may be no way to profit off the poor, and especially not in a way that gives robust education relative to the wealthy and to kids in other countries.


Public education as it is now is shit, sure. But I, personally, and you can take it or leave it, view an educated populace as vital as defense, police, or fire. I don't think the free market can ir would provide this, so I'm not going to make the good the enemy of the perfect, that is, *you* still have to explain a pragmatic non (state) govt alternative that isn't just empty theory.


Educated citizens are vital to the country's well being - and by the way for resisting govt fuckery.  As a Pragmatist and American nationalist, I don't agree with the idea of letting millions of poor kids get shit education because people who are Idealists suggest there's a theoretical better way to get it done.


Whatever *actually* gets it done. I get the libertarian theoretics, but I'm an American nationalist who wants even poor kids getting a competitive education.  State government should do thst, in my *opinion* until it can, genuinely, be done otherwise.


But some system where the poor get shit efucation relative to kids born rich is horseshit, unfair, and most of all, in my view, harmful to us as Americans.

STP's picture

The biggest problem I have with your education of the poor, is that we have a federally subsidized program of breeding low IQ, low motivation and low class people that wouldn't have otherwise inflicted their moron kids on the taxpayer as lifetime beneficiaries.

Random's picture

Yer a statist Johnny...Keep searching!

zen0's picture

"Sic Semper Tyrannus" would be the shout of testicular fortitude. Just yelling "tyrant" is for passive aggressive types.

Chupacabra-322's picture

Five words:

Fuck this Treasonist War Criminal.

wee-weed up's picture



We again need someone with balls at the SOTU to call out the Treasonist War Criminal...

"You lie!"

Anusocracy's picture

We should declare the Constitution null and void and go from there.

Like to the Republic of Texas.

dryam's picture

You have to hand it to him. He can get retards worked up in all out uproar at the snap of his fingers, not unlike a guy named Adolf.

Keyser's picture

I believe you have just insulted Hitler, if that is possible. 


GetZeeGold's picture




This note from hell just in.....Adolf is super pissed!

knukles's picture

With all due respect, Mr Pfeiffer.
He has already shown the American people he can do "something"

He is successfully destroying America

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

"He is successfully destroying America"

Yes, after 100 years he's the "closer"!

Johnny Cocknballs's picture

Hillary, and her backers, will close.

Oracle of Kypseli's picture

I just saw Michelle down arrowing every comment on this post.

johny2's picture
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
nmewn's picture

He's done such an excellent job on health insurance reform, he's perfect for immigration reform!

nonclaim's picture

"He's done such an excellent job on health insurance"

I'm sure his infrastructure developments will have more holes than pavement.

superflex's picture

He'll only need $500 million for the new illegal wetback website.