Supreme Court proves genius of checks & balances

obama supremes
Photo Credit: Healthinsurance.org

Do you know how close we are to an America ruled by a president who thirsts for unchecked federal power, total control through executive orders and confiscation of private property? We are so close, it’s chilling.

If it weren’t for five people on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama would eagerly seize the powers of dictator. This court has reined in a bully executive branch that uses aggressive and unlawful political tactics that would make the old Russian politburo proud.

Obama even had the gall in January to announce that he will “act on my own if Congress is deadlocked,” a blatant disregard for the legislative branch’s constitutional authority to create the nation’s laws. This president appointed officers without Senate confirmation, directly violating laws that say the Senate must consent. He flouted laws designed to force the branches of government to cooperate in a governing process. Obama rejected this process on a whim, hypocritically spurning promises made in his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

Obama likes to throw certain laws he dislikes over the side of the ship, hoping no one will try to rescue them from sinking.

In its wisdom over the last 18 months, the Supreme Court has issued 13 unanimous decisions against the Obama administration. Think about that. Even the two justices appointed by Obama have rejected his power-grab attempts. When his own appointees rule against him, you know he has overreached. Recently, the court unanimously ruled on the side of civil liberties and against Obama when it decided his prosecutors did indeed need a search warrant to look at cellphone records. Obama lost an earlier decision on Fourth Amendment grounds when it decided the government was not entitled to track the actions of any citizen at any time, without any reason. Obama has suffered other significant Supreme Court defeats, too.

In essence, the court is thwarting Obama’s arrogant attempts to ignore the U.S. Constitution’s limits on the executive branch. We have checks and balances for good reason, so that when Obama oversteps his authority, the Supreme Court’s duty is to re-establish balance.

The two most glaring examples of this president’s attempts to reach too far involve his climate-change agenda and Obamacare, which advanced his plan for government to take over health-care financing. Obama used his administrative agencies to create health-care rules that are essentially laws Congress chose not to pass.

Obama has tried to expand government powers beyond congressional intent in a variety of ways. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz issued a report earlier this year that listed 76 examples of lawless actions and power-grabs by Obama. That included several examples Obama instructing the Department of Justice to stop enforcing federal immigration, drug and welfare laws.

When the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in 2009, Obama still failed to pass his climate-change proposals. So he decreed, through executive orders, a series of “clean-air” rules that Congress had refused to enact, ignoring a 2011 Supreme Court warning against such overreaches.

Whether you agree with most of the Supreme Court’s decisions or not, their larger value is that five people on this court, sometimes more, have stopped Obama’s executive branch from grossly exceeding its constitutional authority. They have thwarted Obama’s desire to rule by administrative fiat, to govern by regulations and fines that pay for his abuses, and to assume powers that should remain the province of the legislative branch.

There is little doubt that if he had his way, Obama would be a tyrant, ignoring the genius of checks and balances and the counter-balancing hand of the Supreme Court, and proclaiming his executive orders are the law of the land.

John R. Smith GET AUTHOR RSS FEED

John R. Smith is chairman of BIZPAC, the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach County, and owner of a financial services company. He is a frequent columnist for BizPac Review.
John R. Smith

Comments

Latest Articles