In order to take advantage of so-called “crisis,” Presidents Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Barack Obama used the strategic use of Executive Orders to bypass Congress and the will of the American people, in violation of the Constitutional balance of powers.
Mr. Clinton said he would legislate by Executive Order if Congress did not bow to his legislative agenda.
“I have a continuing obligation to act, to use the authority of the presidency and the persuasive power of the podium, to advance America´s interests…,” said Mr. Clinton.
There was no debate, no media coverage, and no vote… just a President signing into law whatever he believed “is the right thing to do.”
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool,” said Mr. Clinton´s senior advisor Paul Begala.
In 1994, President William Clinton authorized himself to place American soldiers under United Nations control by a completely new set of rules. He signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) that ordered submission of American troops to multilateral peace operations. This order was unlawful and unconstitutional. Specifically, U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9 prohibits any person’s acceptance of any emolument from a foreign state without congressional consent.
Executive Orders are nothing new.
Every president issues executive orders. Presidents issue them to agencies or employees of the executive branch of the federal government—not the American people—regarding how to carry out specific duties or programs. The Take Care Clause of the Constitution in Article II commands each president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” So long as he issues orders specifically directing his subordinates on how to administer or enforce some aspect of federal law, he’s fulfilling his constitutional duty.
But executive orders cannot make law, and they cannot stop laws from being carried out.
Using these unconstitutional Executive Orders, the White House is able to implement international treaties that are bad for America. By law, the president must submit international agreements to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent, and two-thirds of the senators must concur. President Clinton warned if the Senate, for example, didn’t ratify the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, he would use an Executive Order to instruct the EPA to implement regulations which would impose the treaty on Americans anyway.
President Obama said in his State of the Union addresses that he would use orders to meet policy goals if Congress didn’t act on certain requests. “America does not stand still, and neither will I,” Obama said. “So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do,” he said.
After Obama’s Dream Act failed to pass Congress, he authored the DACA program, (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) as a way to not enforce existing immigrtion law by not deporting so-called “Dreamers”). In violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, he’s created a new federal program, designating illegal aliens into four different categories and establishing new criteria for who can indefinitely stay in the United States and who cannot.
These are not the only examples of the Executive overstepping the bounds of the Constitution. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War using a presidential proclamation. Signing a whopping 3,522 Executive Orders, President Franklin Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II using Executive Order 9066.
Taking back our country won’t be an easy task and it won’t happen overnight. Democrats and Republicans alike are not only being duped by the Socialist propaganda themselves, but in many cases are championing it. The same is true of many citizens in the U.S. Not everyone believes freedom is worth preserving and either advocate corporate fascism or clutch at the handouts of the Socialist nanny state.
Every now and then an individual politician rises above the common riffraff and challenges us to return to our Constitutional government. Their voice is quickly suppressed by the media to the delight of the mainstream candidates. They are ridiculed for their divergent messages by fellow politicians and are mostly excluded from public exposure in the corporate controlled mass media.