By now you have either watched, heard, heard clips of, or analysis of, or read the transcript of , the President's State of the Union address. I will not address here the finer points of it. Nor will I list the parts I disagree, or agree with. I am using this space to point out something that should scare the hell out of you.
The President of the United States of America is charged with, and sworn to, upholding our laws. The backbone of our republic, is that our elected officials will voice our wishes, and vote them into law, in congress. For good or ill, congress is the vox populi. So it is important to understand that the voice of congress, is the voice of the people. Maybe not each individual's voice, but as a people.
"America does not stand still, and neither will I, 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."
-President Obama-
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address-full-text/)
At the outset this sounds good. Sounds like a man fed up with congressional inaction, and honestly, who isn't? But who is he to say what will or will not expand opportunity? Also, when a President uses an executive order, it is typically for something like: pardoning someone, protecting a marsh, or getting something done in an emergency, not setting policy.
Now I have seen it quoted that this President has used fewer executive orders than any in recent history. I don't doubt that. But when he says he intends to bypass the due process of law, on things that require it, such as economic policy, we are going down the wrong path as a country if we do not challenge him on that.
So when our President says that this will be a year of action, with or without congresses' consent; when he says that he will use executive orders, and any other means at his disposal to get things done, even if congress does not cooperate; when he makes it clear that he knows better than the people of this country what is best for the people of this country; what separates him from a despot?
Hopefully this was just the grandstanding of a lame duck, wanting to make things better. Hopefully these were the words of a frustrated man who realizes he doesn't have the time left in office to do the things he wanted to do. Hopefully he was merely angry at not just the Republicans who have not cooperated, but also his own party which failed to support him on many issues. But that is really my point. When your own party does not get behind you, you need to consider that you may be wrong.
When the President attempts to enact policy, without congressional approval, should that carry the full weight of law? That is not an executive order. That is a Royal Decree.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
President Obama to grant full pardon, and award Medal of Freedom to Snowden.
On the anniversary of a much better speech, by a much better President, about the dangers of ongoing war and the intrusiveness of government that would result from the overgrowth of the military-industrial complex; the President today gave a rousing speech about the need to limit the scope of NSA authority. Included was this gem: "Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power." Funny how he doesn't see that also applies to firearms... but that is another post.
Since he gave such a well thought-out, and obviously earnest (can you hear the sarcasm drip?) speech calling on the NSA, and any other agency, to get permission to spy on us, he obviously has changed his mind about Ed Snowden.
Of course all of the details are left up to congress, and the agencies themselves, but clearly he feels that the unwarranted spying (which he authorized) on the American public (and foreign diplomats, and foreign nationals here and abroad) should immediately (or soon, maybe later, whenever, really) be stopped. (unless we are talking about national security letters, demanding information from companies about anyone and everyone. Those are OK)
Since he now feels that such comprehensive data-collection is reprehensible, he is obviously about to pardon the man who blew the whistle on the practice in the first place. Given the insurmountable obstacles faced by Mr. Snowden, to come out to the media about such practices is tantamount to jumping on a grenade.
For this the President must, of course, be ready to give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. We should accept nothing less. After all Ed Snowden has certainly done a damn-sight more for American freedom than Oprah Winfrey.
All kidding aside today's speech was long on vague promises and assurances, short on detail or action.
Since he gave such a well thought-out, and obviously earnest (can you hear the sarcasm drip?) speech calling on the NSA, and any other agency, to get permission to spy on us, he obviously has changed his mind about Ed Snowden.
Of course all of the details are left up to congress, and the agencies themselves, but clearly he feels that the unwarranted spying (which he authorized) on the American public (and foreign diplomats, and foreign nationals here and abroad) should immediately (or soon, maybe later, whenever, really) be stopped. (unless we are talking about national security letters, demanding information from companies about anyone and everyone. Those are OK)
Since he now feels that such comprehensive data-collection is reprehensible, he is obviously about to pardon the man who blew the whistle on the practice in the first place. Given the insurmountable obstacles faced by Mr. Snowden, to come out to the media about such practices is tantamount to jumping on a grenade.
For this the President must, of course, be ready to give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. We should accept nothing less. After all Ed Snowden has certainly done a damn-sight more for American freedom than Oprah Winfrey.
All kidding aside today's speech was long on vague promises and assurances, short on detail or action.
53 years ago...
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower-
Today...
"Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization, instead of the current three, and I have directed the attorney general to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency."
-President Obama-
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower-
Today...
"Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization, instead of the current three, and I have directed the attorney general to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency."
-President Obama-
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Colorado and Marijuana
I am not going to bore you with Colorado's legalization of marijuana. I'm sure by now you've all made your jokes. I am going to analyse what I believe will happen, in the next year or so, in the form of several scenarios.
1. The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal. (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal. Colorado will not do this. The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents. This could:
A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.
2. The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force. This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely. This scenario is highly unlikely.
3. The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado. This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak. Ignoring it is one solution. And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
4. The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal. This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy. In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually. This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)
This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.
See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution. No one wants that. (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.
I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt. Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.
The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.
1. The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal. (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal. Colorado will not do this. The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents. This could:
A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.
2. The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force. This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely. This scenario is highly unlikely.
3. The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado. This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak. Ignoring it is one solution. And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.
4. The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal. This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy. In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually. This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)
This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.
See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution. No one wants that. (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.
I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt. Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.
The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)