Obama’s Executive Orders Are Pushing Our Constitution to the Tipping Point

0
Share

by Grace Colucci

I sent around the ACLJ picture below and someone I know accused me of spreading misinformation.  He said that Bush and Reagan have signed way more executive orders.  That’s not what the ACLJ is saying, however, they are saying that Obama’s executive orders are unconstitutional. 

This is my rebuttal.

okingSay no to unconstitutional Executive Orders. Photo via ACLJ


I want to be fair and make sure that by posting this ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) picture regarding President Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders, that I wasn’t misinforming anyone.  Let me provide some information as to why I agree with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

First, let’s compare the number of executive orders (EOs) signed by the presidents compared with President Obama’s:

President Ronald Reagan certainly did know how to use his pen alright. He signed a total of 381 EOs during his 8 years in the oval office, averaging at a hefty 47.625 a year. (EO’s Reagan)

Now let’s see just how active President George W. Bush was with his pen…during George’s 8 years in office he signed a total of 291 Executive Orders, averaging 36.375 a year.  BTW: the average for his first 4 years (his 9/11 years) was 42.75 EOs, the 2nd term averaged 30 a year. (EO’s Bush).

Now, for President Barack Obama. The link I am providing for the Executive Orders to date does not include the couple signed this month (February 2014). As of January, 2014, President Obama signed 168 EOs, averaging 33.60. During President Obama’s first term he signed 147 EOs for an average of 36.75. (EO’s Obama)

At this point in President Obama’s presidency, it appears that he and President George W. Bush are pretty equal in their exercise of signing Executive Orders.

Let’s look at other comparisons. Poppa Bush, George H.W. Bush signed 166 EOs, averaging 41.5 (EO’s Bush).

The much admired by the Democratic Party, William Jefferson Clinton, signed 364 EOs during his 8 years in the White House, averaging 45.5 EOs a year. (EO’s Clinton)

Reagan’s predecessor, Jimmy Carter signed 320 Executive Orders during his 4 years, averaging 80 EOs a year. (EO’s Carter)

In my research I found that ALL Presidents, with one exception (William Henry Harrison, the first president to die in office on his 32nd day in office.) signed at least 1 Executive Order. Some much more than others. The Founders signed VERY FEW.

I would be negligent to omit the beloved President John F. Kennedy. During his short term (1961-1963) JFK signed 214 EOs, averaging 71.333 (EO’s Kennedy).

Just to highlight the 2 presidents who signed the most Executive Orders were Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Just for completeness they are both Democrats. Wilson signed 1,803 EOs between the years of 1913-1921, averaging 225.375 EOs a year. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) during his presidency (1933-1945) signed 3,522 EOs, averaging 293.5 EOs a year. (Wiki)

So in view of these facts, Presidents George W. Bush and President Barack Obama seem to be light-weights as far as the number of Executive Orders signed.

Here is the problem with the Executive Orders President Obama is signing. They violate the Constitution by overstepping the powers of Congress and the Supreme Court. He is legislating from the White House.

He has rewritten the Affordable Care Act 27 times; he has appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board unilaterally, claiming they were recess appointments when Congress was not in recess. He has ignored the law of the land on the issue of immigration (DREAM Act) and marriage (DOMA). He has done the same thing with drug laws, climate change, and so on.

Essentially he is passing laws by executive order that the Congress had rejected, wouldn’t pass, and that is unbelievably unconstitutional.

Obama is using government agencies to overreach. The EPA is writing laws to shut down coal-fired plants, grab privately-owned land, et cetera. The IRS is targeting his opponents and the DOJ is targeting reporters.

Please check EO 13,603. (NDAA). Interestingly, President Obama signed this EO on March 16, 2012 (a Friday night) the weekend that the Trayvon Martin case hit the MSM with a vengeance – a month after the shooting. (White House EO’s)

The fact that President Obama campaigned on “fundamentally” changing America should sound an alarm. What do you think he meant by that statement? I believe it means that he wants to change the fundamental foundation of America, the Constitution, The Law Of the Land.

Back to The ACLJ’s picture. Please check out the articles on this link for the basis of their statement of “Unconstitutional Executive Orders”. (ACLJ)

I find that:

1) President Obama relayed to the Russian Official that he could be more flexible during his second term.

and 2) President Obama will not be wait for Congress to act, that he has a pen and a telephone – he will bypass Separation of Powers and usurp Congress and the Constitution.

I believe that left unchallenged, President Obama will abuse Executive Orders to achieve his desire to “fundamentally” change America. The cost will be our Freedom and Liberty.

President Obama and his pen and telephone (he should have said he has an eraser too, he is erasing the Constitution and our Civil Liberties)


To make it worse, Congress applauded it. Listen to liberal Jonathan Turley, “I am very alarmed…I believe we are in a tipping point…it’s a dangerous place to be in..”:

obama_eraser-1

Share