Can Congress Stop A President's Executive Actions?

Pulled this from a Washington Examiner Article on immigration, but it pertains to all Executive Actions:

The fact is, there is nothing House Republicans can do by themselves, short of another self-defeating government shutdown, to stop Obama if Senate Democrats are determined to block any move to assert congressional prerogatives and establish limits on executive overreach. But there is something House Republicans could do that would at least specifically target Obama's immigration action: They could vote to overturn the president's executive order. 

Congress can overturn an executive order. It can overturn parts of an executive order. If the executive order is based on a statute, Congress can change the statute, thereby nullifying the order. Congress can also refuse to fund activities stemming from all or part of the executive order.

The only instance in which the above does not apply is if the president is acting pursuant to an exclusive power granted to him by the Constitution. Obama's immigration order would not be such a case. "As long as it is not constitutionally based, Congress may repeal a presidential order, or terminate the underlying authority upon which the action is predicated," the Congressional Research Service noted in a December 2011 report.

It's not very complicated. The CRS report mentioned Congress' revocation of an executive order by President George H.W. Bush concerning fetal tissue research. "Congress simply directed that the 'the provisions of Executive Order 12806 shall not have any legal effect,'" the report says. It was as simple as that.

If Obama chooses not to act by executive order, but instead issues some sort of "policy directive" -- the way he implemented theDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative that stopped the deportations of thousands of illegal immigrants -- then Congress would have the same authority to get rid of all or part of the president's directive.

The Single Best Thing About a Ron Paul Presidency

I have been a supporter of Ron Paul since January 2007. That was just before he started his exploratory committee for his run in 2008. I wrote an article about my experiences supporting Ron Paul on the ‘inter-webs’ back then, which you can read here. Needless to say, I am still a supporter and would vote for him if he can just get through the Republican Primary.

However, I have been having doubts that he is up to the job of President. After watching the last couple of debates, he is obviously not as sharp as he was during the 2008 election cycle. If you doubt this, simply go to YouTube and compare his performances during those debates to the most current ones. It should be obvious.

But I think I have come up with a great solution. And a solution that would still let Ron Paul accomplish the most important job he could ever hope to do for this country: Vetoing legislation and repealing regulations.

He simply needs to draft Rand as his Vice Presidential running mate. Rand could handle the ‘heavy lifting’ of the day-to-day performance while Ron could be there to fulfill the explicit Constitutional requirements of the President. Just think how wonderful it would be to have every bill congress passes vetoed—for four whole years. Bliss! 

Shear Bliss.

Updated: Justice Stephen Breyer's View of the 2nd Amendment

Here is a 13-minute, Fox News Sunday interview with US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer is promoting his latest book. Such interviews are rare and Breyer discusses his view of the proper method of Constitution interpretation. Breyer's defense of his dissent from Heller is classic. He begins by claiming that Madison was compelled to included the 2nd Amendment in 1789--after the Constitution was already ratified--because his opponents would call up the state militias and nationalize them. Next he claims that the majority of historians support his view. The intellectual dishonesty of the man is chilling. This is a must see.







If you think his claims regarding Madison's objectives for the 2nd Amendment are accurate, please read 'Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional'

02/24/2011 Update:  David Young’s outstanding rebuttal above provides a high level review of the critical events during the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but it is of necessity somewhat short on specific references. I therefore thought to do some of my own research into the specific issue of Madison’s intent when he introduced the Bill of Rights in the first Congress. Based on Young’s clues, I easily found a supporting source. In ‘The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History, Volume II’, (Bernard Schwartz, 1971, Chelsea House,) beginning on page 764, Schwartz writes that

[During the Virginia State Ratifying Convention, on June 25, 1788, after the Federalists had defeated Patrick Henry’s effort to require modifications and amendments before ratification, the delegates voted to ratify and recommend amendments after the fact.] The next day, a committee was appointed to prepare and report such amendments as by them shall be deemed necessary, to be recommended. Both [George] Mason and [Patrick] Henry were placed on the drafting committee (along with [James] Madison, [John] Marshall, and [George] Wythe) and were able to secure the origin Henry proposals, though only by way of recommendation for subsequent amendments. On June 27, the committee reported a proposed federal Declaration or Bill of Rights of 20 articles to be added to the Constitution, as well as 20 other amendments to the constitutional text. The Convention agreed to the committee report, and enjoined “it upon their representatives [Madison, of course, was one] in Congress to exert all their influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and provisions.”

(page 842) The 17th item of Virginia’s  proposed ‘federal Declaration of Bill of Rights’  is

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper , natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 It clearly indicates an individual right. In addition, it is highly unlikely to me that Madison—who sat on the drafting committee—would allow such a clear declaration to be included in the committee report if he was against it. It is also inconceivable to me that Madison’s sole concern in proposing the Bill of Rights was in regard to threats of militia nationalization, given that he had specific guidance from the convention  ‘to exert all [his] influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the foregoing alterations and provisions’ which included a clear individual right to keep and bear arms.

Who Governs in America?

After watching the State of the Union and all the responses, I find that I am sick and tired of hearing about 'governing'. Every News show, every soundbite in the media talks about 'We were elected, and now we just have to govern.' Or some such nonsense. When exactly did this change occur in all the capitals around this nation that our representatives now think of themselves as our governors?
Yes, back during the Constitutional Convention one can read of some using the term--usually the Federalists like Hamilton I have to point out--but not nearly to the extent that one hears it today. When I hear the term 'govern', I think of kings, dictators, despots, commissars, czars (is there something to this, given our current penchant to dubbing un-elected bureaucrats with this title?), and totalitarians in general. Not my congressman 

Hey, Washington: Compromise was NOT the objective!

Here it is with the election not even 24 hours old, with many races still to be called, and I am already fed up with the liberal spin on their loss of the House of Representatives. Just as in 1994, they are trying to frame this rout as a call for compromise, a call for more civil discourse in Government, a call for cooperation so as to make this a ‘productive’ congress.
Let me be crystal clear:

I did NOT vote for compromise.

I did NOT vote for gridlock.

I voted to ROLL BACK big government.

I voted for a return to Constitutionally limited government. By that, I mean that everything not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution should be eliminated. That means the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, the HHS, the FEC, the FCC, the FDA, the EPA, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and many, many others got to go.  It doesn’t mean that we need to shut them all down immediately, but they eventually need to go.
If, for the next two years this Congress could simply go through all the existing laws and regulations with an eye to repealing about the last 80 years worth—and not pass any new laws—I would be a happy American. Think about it: if we could just get rid of the harmful subsidies (sugar, mohair, agriculture, etc.) as well as  all the Government Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie, Freddie, CPB, Import-Export Bank, etc.) and the Federal Reserve, we would save hundreds of billions of dollars a year. That would be some meaningful spending cuts which would reduce the deficit.
Yes, we need to address and wind down Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and all the other unconstitutional Ponzi schemes and welfare programs, but with the Federal Government’s current size and scope we have such a target rich environment that we need not address those really controversial issues for some time.
In short, compromise in the way the MSM portrays it—some sort of hyper civility—is not even on my radar. I know that in reality gridlock is the best we can probably hope for in this election cycle. As for rolling back big government, with only the House I expect nothing major will be accomplished in the end. But stopping the progressive machine as soon as possible is not a minor achievement, either.
If there is one area where I would welcome true compromise, it is in the regulatory arena. I fully expect Obama to pretend to move to the center on legislative issues since the Conservatives in House will (hopefully) prevent any new initiatives, and thus exploit his regulatory authority to implement his progressive agenda. If any compromise is possible, I hope it can be found in leveraging the self interest of those liberals in the legislative branch to reign in the regulators in the executive branch. After all, those unelected regulators have been slowly eroding the power of the legislative branch. Another possible area of compromise would be the repeal of the Patriot Act and other areas of Government overreach. Finally, a compromise might be possible to rollback the collusion between big government and big business. Big businesses have been manipulating the Federal Government for decades to eliminate competition, drive up prices, and increase profits. All of these areas are open for Conservatives (vice Republicans) to reach a compromise with the Liberals (vice Progressives) in the 2010 Congress.
We can only hope, stick to our principles, and take the Senate and the Presidency in 2012.

Is the US Constitution Still Valid?

I recently participated in a discussion board where an individual stated that the US Constitution is a "deeply flawed document masquerading as a 'contract' or 'compact' which describes a possibly workable, but by no stretch of the imagination consensual government." This is not the first time that the idea of the US Constitution as a failed contract has come up. Libertarian blogs have been discussing it for years. Rather more recently, however some mainstream liberal and conservative groups have been 'nibbling around the edges' of this very same idea. So has our hallowed Constitution failed us? Is it a failed document and idea? Should we scrap it and look for some new compact between the People and the Government? As Congressman Ron Paul-a 'back to the Constitution' candidate if there ever was one-is now a viable candidate in the 2008 Presidential race, it seems a good time to look more closely at the issue.
 Simply put, the Constitution is not a failed document. If anything it did not fail us; we failed it. Over time, we have allowed the safeguards that our Founding Fathers built into the Constitution to be abrogated, annulled, or ignored by our government. The founders recognized the sovereignty of the people. The people were to be the ultimate enforcers of the strict limits that were placed on government. As Jefferson said when discussing the impropriety of judicial interpretation of Constitutional questions:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." (The Writings Of Thomas Jefferson, By Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, Washington, DC, 1902, page 278: letter to William Charles Jarvis, Monticello, September 28, 1820.)

The structures the Founders established in the US Constitution were designed to create and reinforce internal and external competition and balances of power, with the intent of ultimately reducing the threat of government tyranny. The founders recognized that some tasks were best accomplished by government, but with the concomitant danger of accumulation of power in a single group. The State Governments balance the Federal Government balance the people. Within the Federal Government, they balanced the Executive against the Legislative against the Judicial branches. These two groups of three: the People, the State Governments, the Federal Government, and, the Legislative, Executive, Judicial branches, were intended to diffuse the concentration of political power in any one group while still allowing efficiency. As Jefferson put it:

"No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate." (Letters, Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826, Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, 1984, page 1380: letter regarding THE WARD SYSTEM, To Joseph C. Cabell. Monticello, February 2, 1816.)

 The founders also ensured the people had the means to enforce their ultimate sovereignty over government via the 2^nd Amendment:

"What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Henry A. Washington, ed, 1853-54, 911: letter regarding THE NEW CONSTITUTION, To William S. Smith. Paris, November 13, 1787. )

If all else fails, the people are empowered to rebel to protect their liberty and enforce their will on an overweening government. According to Jefferson, this was the only effective means of controlling government. The Constitution provided the people with the tools to effectively balance the Federal and State Governments. The people were expected to play the dominant role by reining in excessive concentrations of power in the State and Federal Governments.

The internal and external balances fundamental to the success of the Constitution have been severely damaged. The 14^th and 17^th Amendments eviscerated the powers of the States to function as a counterweight to the Federal Government. The Civil War even removed the right of the people and the States to secede from association with the Federal Government. As a result, power was shifted away from the States and the people to the Federal Government. Within the Federal Government, the careful balance established by the division of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches has been gradually defused amongst all three. The Judiciary and Executive branched now make policy with the force of law. The Judiciary interprets all constitutional questions and applies them to the other branches, the States and the people. The careful balances crafted by the founders have been systematically disassembled, and the associated political power has been shifted further and further to Washington, DC. We the people allowed it, and in some cases actively aided and abetted this shift.

All is not lost, however. There is still time to reestablish the Constitutional balances. The recent defeat of the Immigration Bill provides two lessons: One, we can still get our Representatives to execute our will if we unite and bludgeon them into it. Two, we are nearly to the point where we are in danger of becoming the subjects of a new populist regency. We will have an elected dictatorship of those who pander most to our shortsighted avarice. The people will be left with little more than the ability to elect their choice of dictators. We are not at that point just yet, as our Representatives in the end, bowed to the will of the people. The fact that they nearly did not should serve as a clear warning of how close we are to a complete loss of our power to control the Federal Government.

A recent email exchange I had with a Congressional Aide demonstrates this point. We were discussing the need to rescue Social Security. I had been providing studies and other background materials so that the aide could intelligently brief the Congressman. One statement that the aide made in passing struck me: "Congress is going to have to make some tough decisions shortly. The earlier they tackle the solvency issue, the less painful it will be." Notice that 'Congress' is going to have to make some tough decisions; not the American people. This should serve as a clear indication that we are nearing a point at which the Federal Government will be completely unrestrained by the people.

The Constitution is not a failed document. If there are flaws, the Constitution itself provides for changes. The Founding Fathers were well aware that it was not a perfect document, and so included in Article V two means of modification: Congressional proposals of amendment, and a Constitutional Convention called by the State legislatures. We have seen some of the flaws, such as no clear statements on the right of secession, the limits on judicial interpretation, and the right of the people to adjudge the justice of the law itself, not only the guilt or innocence of the accused. That the Constitution provided a means to fix these types of oversights demonstrates its continued viability.

Erroneously faulting the Constitution for our improper use is equivalent to blaming the handgun for the crimes of a murderer. Our misuse of the tools the Constitution provided has caused a systems failure, however. If we uphold our responsibilities as envisioned by the Constitution, return the power to the States in line with the Constitution, and enforce the division of power within the Federal Government as was intended, we can correct the systems failure and re-invigorate our Constitutional Republic. With the people firmly back at the helm, just as the Constitution intended.

Confessions of a Ron Paul Spammer

(This was published by Associated Content)
After all the news stories from online pollsters, radio talkshow hosts, and news people in general stating unequivocally that Ron Paul's domination of online polls on the two Republican Presidential debates is due to "spamming polls on the Internet", I have decided that I must be a Ron Paul Spammer.
There, I admitted it. All the psychologists say that the first step toward a cure is to admit the problem. I guess I will now need to join "Ron Paul Spammers Anonymous"? Does anyone know if there is a chapter in Florida yet? Or is it an online program only? I could always Google it, but I am not sure if Google still allows searches that include the contiguous words 'Ron Paul'. I'll have to try it.
I don't know how this happened to me, really. I used to be just a normal, 50-ish, Republican. Ever since January, though, when Ron Paul announced his Exploratory Committee for President, I just haven't been able to stop myself. I initially attributed it to the elation I felt that a truly principle man had finally entered the Presidential race. Someone who stands by and defends the US Constitution as I did when I was in the Military. But my fervor has continued, unabated, and I find myself spending more and more time working to support Ron Paul, both online and in real life. I still find it hard to believe however, that ardently supporting someone on the internet who represents my values could be considered spam by anyone.
Spam--at least according to the American Heritage Dictionary--is an "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." In Wikipedia it is defined as "the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, which are generally undesired. While the most widely recognized form of spam is email spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, mobile phone messaging spam, internet forum spam and junk fax transmissions. Spam is also called junk mail."
I'm a spammer, alright. I have sent emails to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Kudlow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and others regarding comments on their programs about or relating to Ron Paul and his positions. I doubt they wanted them. I am active online, and I have voted in numerous polls. In fact, we Ron Paul activists have several eGroups that we use to disseminate information about polls just so we can vote in them. So far as my personal behavior, I vote in them. Once. No bots, no electronic assistance of any kind. The same old, go to the website and 'click'.
Well, I must admit that I have cheated twice: The first time, I was confused by the 'slider bars' on the MSNBC site after the first Republican debate in California; Before I knew it, I had voted 'neutral' on all the candidates. Since the site prevented me from changing my vote or voting again, I got on my daughter's computer and voted the way I really wanted. The second time was after the South Carolina debate, when I voted via Text Message: I punched in the message the first time and got no response, so I voted again about 20 minutes later just in case I sent the wrong number or something. I only got one 'thank you' message, so either they had it covered, or I did send it incorrectly. I guess that is spamming, too.
Or could it be that most of Ron Paul's support actually is on the internet? Regular people, who have access to a computer, and can actually voice their opinions? They don't need a lot of money and can't be considered pundits in the sense that they have wide influence with the media. Just average Americans, who think that this country is going in the wrong direction. Those who read and understand the Constitution, and still consider themselves--The People--to be the sovereigns of this country. Those who do not think that they are well served by the people that purportedly represent them in Washington D.C. Look at percentage of people who don't vote in this country: do they abstain because they must choose between bad and worse? The people I have spoken with that support Ron Paul are from every party and no party. Some haven't voted for years because they consider it a waste of time. These are the people who are 'fired up' and out there voting in every poll. They want Ron Paul.
So the question becomes, are we spammers because we are active, or because we have some sinister technology that allows us to defeat all the software engineers and security experts deployed to prevent just such abuses? Or are we simply more widespread and conveying a message that is considered 'undesirable' by all the pundits? Both, by definition, are spam, but the latter is also quintessential to the concept of being an American.
Since I don't have any technological miracles, it must be becuase I an active online and I support Ron Paul. I think I will skip the next Spammers Anonymous meeting, as I see I have a few polls I haven't voted in yet...