Obama Establishes Fascism by Executive Order

EO's are for telling the executive branch how to do things. They do not require Congressional approval. But neither do they have any authority outside the executive branch. And most EOs (like this one) simply describe how the executive branch is to carry out a given Congress-passed law.

An EO that unilaterally imposed a flat tax, for instance, would have no effect, because the executive branch does not have the power to do such a thing. Taxing power resides with Congress.

But if Congress enacted a flat tax, the president could issue EOs specifying how the executive branch should carry it out.

Such power is routinely granted -- by Congress -- in emergencies. Think World War II. Wage controls, price controls, monopolization of important raw materials like steel, rubber, etc.

But the authority comes from Congress. And Congress can revoke that authority any time it wants. Or if it doesn't like the EO, pass a revision that is more specific as far as how it wants things carried out.

 

Here are some actual facts the Obamabots want us it ignore!

 

It does in fact explain why the Constitution was written and for what purpose.

Why do you suppose we celebrate the day it was signed and NOT the day the Constitution was ratified?

 

Last I checked, the Executive employs almost 3 million Americans, and includes the Treasury Department... how exactly does it matter that "only congress can issue taxes"? The exec can issue mandates and contains all of the enforcement capabilities. The point is there is "legal" potential for complete totalitarianism---just look at Guantanamo Bay.

 

I'm interested to hear how this particular discussion would have gone if it hadn't gone down this rabbit trail:

So can everyone agree that the Constitution doesn't "give" us our rights, but it recognizes the rights we inherently have as people - it doesn't matter if you say they came from our Maker, from the Power of the People, or from fairy dust, as long as you don't think that our rights come from the government; but the government is supposed to protect those inherent rights.

Now back to the original question: do you consider "...monitor[ing] production/output of private business..." fascism? How is this infringing on our inherent rights? What do you think this means that's so dangerous?

 

Considering the damage deregulation caused and the price tag for it, I'll take this any day!
We are still paying for the deregulation and the bailouts of the savings and loans under raygun!

 

That's for sure. If we lose that we lose a very big market for US Treasuries and will be an extreme restriction on our ability to borrow. Interest rates will sky rocket.

Then the decline begins.

 

Whatever. Investors buy US Treasuries because we're a $15T economy. We're only in trouble if we stop being productive.

 

With the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency, Countries need to put their dollars somewhere. If the dollar is replaced by another currency or basket of currencies, demand for US dollars go down. Then you're looking to dump your dollars, not trying to tie them up in US Treasuries.

Or whatever.

 

Well, actually, the preamble to the Constitution does that.

The Declaration only explains why we rebelled against England.

Tangentially, it's kind of fun to note some the reasons listed. "He" in the following examples is the King of England:


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.


He didn't pass enough laws!

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He opposed immigration!

Those Founders were a bunch of soft-headed liberals!

Because that's the day from which we trace our independence.

How does that have any relevance at all when discussing the Constitution?

 

Countries don't own USD because it's the world's reserve currency, but the USD is the reserve currency because world banks want to own so many dollars. And they want them because we're the most productive economy in the world. If we stop being productive then we're screwed.

 

from the Declaration...

"...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 to 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..."

Seems to me they were talking about making a new Government...

How does the day we decided to write a Constitution, for our newly established "Government", not have any relevance to the actual document?

No where in the Constitution does it say anything about 'God-given Right's', but clearly that is what they all believed them to be, as stated in the Declaration itself.