Ron Paul Rages "Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Ron Paul of the Ron Paul Institute,

President Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority.  Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most Presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.

Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and polices without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively aiding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.

Executive orders are perfectly legitimate and even necessary if, in the words of leading Constitutional Scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, they “….  guide the executive branch on how to enforce a law or…complement and supplement what Congress has already done.” The problem is that most modern presidents have abused this power to issue orders that, as Judge Napolitano puts it, “restates federal law, or contradicts federal law, or does the opposite of what the federal law is supposed to do.”

Political opponents of the president rightly condemned Obama for disregarding the Constitution. However, it was not that long ago that many of the same politicians were labeling as “unpatriotic” or worse anyone who dared question President Bush’s assertions the he had the “inherent” authority to launch wars, spy on Americans, and even indefinitely detain American citizens.

Partisan considerations also make some members of the opposition party hesitate to reign in the president. These members are reluctant to set a precedent of “tying the president’s hands” that could be used against a future president of their own party.

The concentration of power in the office of the president is yet one more negative consequence of our interventionist foreign policy. A foreign policy based on interventionism requires a strong and energetic executive, unfettered by Constitutional niceties such as waiting for Congress to pass laws or declare war.  So it simply was natural, as America abandoned the traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism, for presidents to act “without waiting for Congress.” After all, the president is “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect “national security,” they argued. Once it became accepted practice for the president to disregard Congress in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before presidents would begin usurping Congressional authority in domestic matters.

It should not be surprising that some of the biggest promoters of an “energetic” executive are the neoconservatives. They are also enthusiastic promoters of the warfare state. Sadly, they have misled many constitutionalists into believing that one can consistently support unchecked presidential authority in foreign policy, but limit presidential authority in domestic matters. Until it is fully understood that virtually limitless presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot coexist with strict limits on Presidential authority in domestic matters, we will never limit the power of the Presidency.

The people must also insist that politicians stop viewing issues concerning the separation of powers through a partisan lens and instead be willing to act against any president who exceeds his constitutional limitations. Thankfully we have scholars such as Louis Fisher, who has just published an important new book on presidential power, to help us better understand the Founders’ intent with regard to separation of powers. The key to achieving this goal is to make sure the people understand that any president of any party who would exceed constitutional limitations is a threat to liberty, and any member of Congress who ignores or facilitates presidential usurpation is being derelict in his Constitutional duty.

Comment viewing options

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

Anyone else hear a voice in the wildnerness?

Sure wish we had more like him

SilverIsKing's picture

Do you mind if we start the revolution after tonight's episode of The Bachelor?

johngaltfla's picture

Funny thing is, I remember another "President" who issued orders like this also.

The trains then ran on time.

And he was the leader of Italy form 1922-1943.

Lots of similarities, including the way Obama juts his chin out.....

akak's picture


Lots of similarities, including the way Obama juts his chin out.....

Obamao does not jut his chin out --- he is looking down his nose while inwardly laughing at the morons who elected and continue to support him.

bigdumbnugly's picture

doesn't he have a libertarian son named rand???

knukles's picture

Rand Fuckyou?
Why, I knew him in college!

Jack Napier's picture

Then -- We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

Now -- We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved with or without Congress.

Xibalba's picture

Just wondering how the NSA was created.... Oh right, Executive order 

James_Cole's picture

Just wondering how the NSA was created.... Oh right, Executive order 

Yeah, being an outsider I'd been under the assumption (based on past precedence) that the entire point of the executive branch was to circumvent the congress. 

Fish Gone Bad's picture

Complaining about people seizing power is like zebras complaining to lions that they don't like being eaten.  The  way things change is when the victims stand up and do something about it.

bunnyswanson's picture

No.  How it works is the manager is taken to task by the owner who receives public backlash and threat of BOYCOTT.

Boycott lazy pussy men.  Everywhere I go, I see women standing up and taking podium.  Rarely do I see a man do it.  Are ya scaredy cats?  Pussies I mean? 

Creepy Lurker's picture

Pussies? No, if they had pussies they'd actually DO something.

Supernova Born's picture

Can't/or and Boner will do nothing. They are two plastic fake testicles in a neutered dog's nutsack.

kralizec's picture

If Ron wants to lead an armed march on Washington, I think he'd find more support than he ever had as a professional politician.

Joe Sixpack's picture

Ron Paul 2012!


Oh, ummm..., ....

Carpenter1's picture

NSA = Dirt on every person needed

There will be no opposition because everyone has skeletons in their closet. That's the power of a clean life, which nobody has anymore, therefore evil wins.


cynicalskeptic's picture

Why do you think the warrantless wiretapping was full on BEFORE 9/11.  Collecting dirt on Congress to make sure the Patriot Act and all else would go through Congress without any opposition.

Funny how all those Bill of Rights supporting Republicans who were such vocal critics of this illegal power grab - and all the so called liberal defenders of individual rights - all caved and voted FOR what was so clearly IUNCONSTITUTIONAL - and how judges upheld it all.

Congress is increasingly irrelevant - a distraction of 'us vs. them' to give the masses the illusion of choice - while TPTB pull strings from behind the scenes.  No Presidential Candidate since Carter has run witout vetting by the CIA.  They didn't want any other President trying to rein them in.  The Bush ties are obvious - trhe Clintons - google Mena Arkansas.  Reagan (figurehead) the Bushes and Clintons are all neck deep in Iran CONTRA drug running and dirty money.  Obama's maternal family is Company as well.... grandmother worked for a CIA front firm in the Pacific - grandfather was likely a field op and mother was with USAID when they were being used in Indonesia as a cover   Lots of questions about 'where was Obama and when?' as well.  Was he working for them too?

KickIce's picture

Supreme Court is about worthless as it has long been just another arm of the executive branch.

A Nanny Moose's picture

SCOTUS is government. A bunch of unproductive high priests, to the laws of men.

What is the logic behind expecting a group of 9 people, who are appointed, and approved by the other 437, to remain dispassionate?

Soul Glow's picture

Here's my personal favorite Executive Order -

The President's Working Group on Financial Markets:

Spumoni's picture

Anybody read this lately?

"IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Declaration of Independence, first two paragraphs.

DaveyJones's picture

"it is their right, it is their duty"

if you don't hold up the second, you quickly lose the first

(and that rule also relates to the numbered amendments)

OC Sure's picture

Yes, I know it verbatum but with these corrections:

1. and of Nature's God entitle them  ...This is redundant, remove it.

2. We hold these truths to be self evident and therefore sacred  ...There, Ben and Tom are both reunited.

3. by their Creator   ...This is irrelevant and a hat tip in the wrong direction that was required then but not now.

4. ...that they are endowed with certain inalieanble rights which are derived from the fact of man's existence and the requirements of     his survival.

5. that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of PROPERTY ...Happiness is an inside job and not a right. Your rights concern freedom of your action; whether or not you can be happy with that is your business.

6.  Such has been the patient sufferance of mankind throughout all of history and such is now the necessity which contrains us to return to our former system of governemt; THE REPUBLIC WHICH WAS NOT KEPT. The repeated injuries and usurpations of our current despotism collectively controlled by an unharnessed political elite all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, we list the following petition for a redress of grievances:

[insert violations of the US Constitution here]

Secede Or Die's picture

"it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I have thrown them off in my life as much as is possible. If a few million of you will join me in personal secession, the revolution would be over soon and liberty would be restored.

Starve the beast....

Seceded or die...

sylviasays's picture

Ah...good try but, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Public law 85-568) is the United States federal statute passed by CONGRESS that created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

DOT's picture


NSA.........secret charter by executive order. Still classified. (Secret Law)

MontgomeryScott's picture


Creepy Lurker's picture

National Security Agency - NSA

Now go back to your playstation.

MontgomeryScott's picture

I direct you to the following link: The origins of the National Security Agengy -1940 - 1952 (U)

Truman issued a DIRECTIVE, as seen on page 97 of the document. This document was written by the Agency in question, and is now declassified.

Sylvia: Next time you want to play 'Fight Club', I suggest you come somewhat better-armed than you appear to be. (Classic Misdirection by Sylvia, perhaps? HMMM?)

Leveraged Algorithm's picture

You could not be a college grad - maybe Berkeley?  

SilverFish's picture

Rand Paul is no Libertarian. He's about 75% of the way there, but that other 25% is a big deal breaker.



dogmete's picture

doesn't he have a libertarian son named rand???



pndr4495's picture

GIC is also an acronym for G uaranteed I nvestment C ontract , which guarantees a return to the buyer , of principal and interest. GICs are probably Congressional scrip to keep score of who's winning and who's just bangin' 7 gram rocks. Do any elected representatives represent the interests of the average citizen in their respective states, municipalities, or districts/parishes?

NoDebt's picture

It's dicey at best even at the municipal level.  Above that, forget about it.  Pure rot.

Mister Kitty's picture

Listening to Ron Paul would lead to starvation.  We need sensible government.  We need anit-trust laws.  We need laws to break up the banks.  Bitches.

sylviasays's picture

Starvation for the free shit army that would have to get off the bankrupt government entitlement plantation? Bring it on Ron Paul!

CH1's picture

Listening to Ron Paul would lead to...

Widespread wealth.

Johnny Cocknballs's picture

I took a quick look at your blog there, sport.


You're a fat, sad, lonely man in a loveless marriage, aren't you, sport?


No need to take it out on former politicians, though.  Get to a gym, stop wanking to porn and save it up for the wife, and read "End the Fed."


And stop touching children.

Balanced Integer's picture

Admit it: Your blog is really based on MadLibs™.

FreedomGuy's picture

So you want to give the government more power to disempower the banks which it empowers? What do you suppose the odds are that the government will favor you over wealthy bankers which it needs like a junkie needs a dealer?

I have a different suggestion. Disempower the government which actually enables the very things you seem to hate.

knukles's picture

During his first campaign there was a slip by one of his idolators in the MSM, that he had been studying FDR.
And mistakenly mentioned in response to a followup question, his policies, philosophy, etc?  That no, he had been studying is public persona, the presentation, the gestures, the imagery

FDR jutted his chin out... look at some of his most famous photos...

Which fits perfectly with the proven premise of the empty suit.

Give another speech....

jon dough's picture

Nice touch, ZH, using the word if.


Gimme a fucking break, RP never RAGES.

acetinker's picture

Nope, Ron never rages.  The only people, no matter their political persuasion, who get shit done are the obstreperous who have the wherewithal to go "instant asshole".

Andrew Jackson comes to mind.

Ron almost went there with Chris Wallace, but bless his heart, he just don't have it in him.  He looked like an old man in an ill-fitting suit, which he was.

The thing that makes me go hmm, though is that because I financially supported his campaign(s), I now get appeals from wannabes from all over the place.  What part of "this economy sucks" do they not understand?

We had one last chance in 2008.  It's too late now.

Well then, I reckon that we either have WWIII, or US civil war II.  US civil war II is my personal preference.

Johnny Cocknballs's picture

Paul's problem was Perot's problem - he was smarter than all the reporters who were trying to discredit him at every turn, and after a while, I imagine they just wear you down.