January 17, 2013

"In this bill we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation."

"And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen.... I’m afraid that President Obama may have this 'king complex' sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen."

ADDED: "If not good law, there was worldly wisdom in the maxim attributed to Napoleon that 'The tools belong to the man who can use them.' We may say that power to legislate for emergencies belongs in the hands of Congress, but only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers."

44 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

I saw Smacks of Legislation open for the Brides of Destruction.

MadisonMan said...

I've been all for the Legislative Branch asserting itself a little more forcefully since about 2001.

pogo101 said...

I agree in principle, but even if Paul could get such a bill through the Senate, it won't be veto-proof in either chamber.

Mutaman said...

Shouldn't Rand be spending less time talking smack and more time straightening out Rand Jr.

cubanbob said...

Barry has created a boatload of employment in the gun, ammo, government drone-functionaries and now apparently in the legal industries. Too bad he can't do the same for the rest of the economy. Like in the useful and productive sectors.

EMD said...

Shouldn't Rand be spending less time talking smack and more time straightening out Rand Jr.

Would you be this enthused about legislative fiat via the Presidency if it were Dick Cheney, Jr. in the White House?

Be honest.

sonicfrog said...

Good lord! have these people not even read the list of EO's? Of all of them, only perhaps # 18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers". rises to lawmaking status, as it is directly altering a revenue source. But even that is stretching things. Kind of losing respect for the younger Paul.

Lyle said...

Congress has found its penis.

Sigivald said...

Doesn't need to be veto-proof to make a point and undercut claims of a "mandate".

Of course it's posturing - it's politics!

(I am also with sonicfrog, though - I'm not seeing anything in those EOs or pseudo-EOs that is obviously outside the scope of natural or delegated Executive power.

Nothing wrong with saying "no, you can't" with legislation anyway, but I'm not sure the "lacks the power" argument applies to these actions.)

The Godfather said...

"Nullify" has an unhelpful historical resonance, but if some of the executive orders tread on legislative powers, it's good to have that challenged.

And this is a great issue on which to have this legislative-executive conflict: Most Americans don't like oppressive gun control, but most media big mouths do. If the objective is to undermine the media as the established church of right thinking, this is a good start.

Methadras said...

Harry Reid is basically Urkel's O-Line blocker.

chuck said...

Of all of them, only perhaps # 18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers". rises to lawmaking status

Doesn't matter. The rule of thumb when dealing with crazed fascists is don't. They are always after something and they never reach the end of their demands, so the only way to stay sane is don't deal ever.

rhhardin said...

“But the notion that we’re going to nullify presidential action when the president is acting pursuant to law, that’s just kind of this anti-government rhetoric that I’m surprised to hear somebody in government use it,” [Kaine, D] said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”

That's anacoluthon.

Zwicky's example: "It [prescriptive grammar] is what some people (the ones who write the books) think everyone who speaks English should follow their rules." _Mistakes_ p.20

cryptical said...

I think some of the "studies" that he wants to authorized are specifically prohibited in the funding bills for the CDC, so he's nullifying those as well.

edutcher said...

Have to agree with sonic, but anything that shows a little resistance to dictator Zero is welcome.

As for the use of nullification, if that's what it's called, why sugarcoat it?

John C Calhoun is smiling somewhere.

bpm4532 said...

But, but, he's the ONE! The big O! Sent down from heaven to save us all!

Big Mike said...

@sonicfrog, as a designer of healthcare systems I'm very concerned about #2, which can be interpreted to mean something along the lines of "to heck with patient privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality."

Would you like to have personal healthcare data shared with law enforcement agents absent a warrant?

sonicfrog said...


John C Calhoun is smiling somewhere.


Can it be considered a smile when your lips have long since turned to dust???? :-)

Pogo said...

Face it. We live in a dictatorship.

Over the last few days I have seen in excruciating detail just how completely fucked up medicine is going to get. You have no idea how intrusive and suffocating it looks to be.

They own us; every bit of data, every goddamned cent, every bullet, every breath we take.

Big Mike said...

And if you would like to have healthcare data shared with law enforcement agents, are you including your own personal healthcare data?

cubanbob said...

Well these EO's will be probably be litigated to death. Might not be such a smart idea in the end for the democrats. CJ Roberts probably wont be so accommodating to the executive branch after the Obama care debacle. Besides that cluster is far from being disposed off in terms of litigation. In the court's tortured accommodation to the Democrat's they did put in some potential legal IED's such as claiming their is an outer limit to congressional power via the commerce clause and the ability to coerce states. Both of these logically extend to the executive branch.

sonicfrog said...

Big Mike, this is what i wrote on # 2 on my blog post concerning these EO's:

Clarification on what can and can not be allowed within the confines of a law is always good. Still of the opinion that the ACA, on the whole, is going to end up being a boondoggle, but this doesn’t really do much to it one way or the other.

I think your point is valid though. can I add that to my post?

Revenant said...

I really hope Rand Paul gets the Presidential nomination in 2016.

sonicfrog said...

And if you would like to have healthcare data shared with law enforcement agents, are you including your own personal healthcare data?

Here is the problem though. The congress has already approved data sharing via different agencies through the Patriot Act. All they will need to do is declare gun violence a matter of national security or remind us that it is a form of domestic terrorism, and that will legally open the door to sharing all sorts of data, medical, and otherwise.

Hagar said...

Kings don't get to act like this any more. Mr. Obama is getting his office confused with that of an emperor.

edutcher said...

sonicfrog said...

John C Calhoun is smiling somewhere.

Can it be considered a smile when your lips have long since turned to dust???? :-)


You always have lips...

in the Twilight Zone.

Revenant said...

Of all of them, only perhaps # 18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers". rises to lawmaking status, as it is directly altering a revenue source

#14 and #16 do as well, since they override existing law.

bpm4532 said...

Obama wants to be the first King of the Planet Earth.

Big Mike said...

@sonicfrog, I would be happy for you to incorporate my thoughts. The more people who are aware of their rights under HIPAA, the better. IMHO not enough people realize what they're signing when they sign HIPAA forms at their doctors' offices. I took Obama's verbiage related to EO #2 to suggest that he regards the privacy of patient information as a nuisance impediment, not a safeguard for patient rights.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

bpm4532:

Obama is not the only one to suffer from a god complex. He is mortal and would not reign without the support of other mortals. Perhaps suffering lesser delusions, but nonetheless pretenders to divinity and a desire to control mortality.

He also wouldn't be the first man (or woman) with global ambitions of conquest and reordering the world to suit his interests.

n.n said...

Exactly. As America is ours to lose, so too is the federal government ours to lose. We can disagree with the morality of the current administration, but they have demonstrated a superior ability to manipulate the system to advance their interests, if only through fraud and extortion. While I hope we do not exploit their "tools", we should at least be aware of them, and how to effectively counter their use.

That said, we are not the first civilization to encounter subversion from within, and we will certainly not be the last. The Russians failed. The Germans failed. The Chinese failed. Perhaps Americans will prevail. Perhaps we will do so without physical conflict. Perhaps through identification of reasonable compromises which recharacterize democratic leverage.

sonicfrog said...

Rev... # 14 states:

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Which law does this overwrite?

And # 16:

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

That doesn't over-ride law, as much like the Patriot Act, there were many parts of the ACA that were passed with the intent to be filled in later or given the OK by White House counsel (which happened tons in the previous administration as well). It's yet another reason why I hate huge bills like these. Unfortunately, this is, in our modern Congress, more the rule than the exception.

wyo sis said...

It's all about our health. Now that the government controls our health they control every part of us. Think of the children.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

...but only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers."

Well, yes, but (according to the Constitution, for what that's worth) sovereignty ultimately is in the People, who can elect (or not) a responsible Congress.

Revenant said...

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Which law does this overwrite?

Well for starters, the law establishing the Centers for Disease Control. :)

Congress establishes entities within the executive branch to perform certain functions. They are limited to those functions. For example, the President may not order the employees of the Department of Defense to take over tax collection.

Guns and gun violence are not diseases, and thus don't automatically fall within the CDC's area of authority. Now, the CDC *does* deal with some non-disease issues -- but only because Congress authorized it. Congress specifically revoked authorization for the CDC to do gun research serious biases and conflicts of interest were found at the CDC.

That doesn't over-ride law

The law can plausibly be read as prohibiting doctors from querying patients about guns (something they have no legitimate medical reason for anyway, but I digress).

It is not the President's job to "clarify" what an unclear law means. That's the court's job.

Revenant said...

As America is ours to lose, so too is the federal government ours to lose.

The problem is that Democrats and Republicans have both consistently supported giving the federal government more power. Cracking down on drugs or environmental pollution or partial-birth abortion or health care costs or gay marriage or terrorism was just too fuckin' IMPORTANT to let a little thing like the plain language of the Constitution stand in the way.

It still is, really. If you tried mustering bipartisan support for resurrecting the doctrine of enumerated federal powers you'd be lucky to get enough votes to elect a neighborhood dogcatcher.

Lem said...

Run Rand Run

JAL said...

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

IIRC there is a rather interesting section of the ACA which addresses this.

It does not say physicians cannot ask. It says they cannot share (or words to the effect) that information. So what's the point of collecting it?

So Obama is calling on physicans to ask and tell.

Not what the ACA says, sorry Sibelius, Obama & Co. You created and had this monstrosity voted in.

sonicfrog said...

Revenant said...

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Which law does this overwrite?

Well for starters, the law establishing the Centers for Disease Control. :)


Well... That is just silly. If he were to do away with the CD entirely, that would be overriding law.

The CDC, by law, does this:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services.... It works to protect public health and safety by providing information to enhance health decisions, and it promotes health through partnerships with state health departments and other organizations. The CDC focus national attention on developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, occupational safety and health, health promotion, injury prevention and education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States. The CDC is the United States' national public health institute and is a founding member of the International Association of National Public Health Institutes.

Getting shot is certainly an injury, so therefore this is well within its preview.

Revenant said...

Well... That is just silly. If he were to do away with the CD entirely, that would be overriding law.

There are two possibilities here. One is that you think the on way to override a law is to abolish it. The other is that you realize that's a dumb thing to think but are suggesting it because it is easier than responding honestly.

But yes, Obama is overriding the law by assigning tasks to the CDC that it isn't legally allowed to take. You're welcome to disagree; it won't be the first time you've been wrong about something.

The CDC, by law, does this:

And if the President's job was to faithfully execute Wikipedia definitions cut and pasted without attribution, that would be a pretty good argument.

But if you're going to say what the CDC does by law, you might want to cite -- and this is just a suggestion -- the law. :)

X said...

Rand Paul is the highest ranking most libertarian person in the government and reducing the size of the government is our best hope long term whether your concern is economics, health care, or civil liberties.

Strelnikov said...

A "king complex", eh? Gee, you think?