Patrick Henry on Kings and Presidents

Sometime this summer, Obama is expected to violate federal statutes, usurp congressional authority, and grant some form of legal residency to millions of illegal aliens. As our once republic holds its breath waiting for Obama to assume more despotic power, I thought a short read from June 5th, 1788 might be of interest to fellow patriots.

At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry expressed concern with a new office of the proposed constitution, that of executive powers in a President of the United States.

The purpose of this post is not to revisit the worn out Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate at FR. It is to remind us that that the Framing generation set up a fabulous system which has been horribly corrupted, and that only a return to first principles in free government can save our beloved nation.

"Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."

"If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?"

Barry says the Republicans are mad at him because he is “trying to do something.”

Our poor, deluded (or deliberately obtuse) president.

Barry, remember the Supreme Court’s reasoning when striking down the law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton that gave him a line item veto? The opinion said that the Constitutional provision is for Congress to pass a law and then for the president to sign it, veto it. If vetoed, then Congress can override his veto. There is no provision in the Constitution for a president to pick and choose the parts of a law passed by Congress that he does or not like. If so, that makes the concept of a vote to override the veto nonsensical since the president could then say, “Well, I still don’t like that part so I just won’t enforce it.”

Everything in the opinion applies directly to the executive orders you use to arrogate to yourself the power of legislation that belongs only to the Legislative Branch.

It applies to your selective enforcement or non-enforcement of laws passed by previous Congresses and signed by previous presidents to arrogate to yourself the power of judicial review that belongs only to Judicial Branch in order to make things go the way YOU want them to, regardless of what the Peoples’ representatives say.

It applies to your postponing various parts of various laws, such as Obamacare.

It applies to your giving waivers to various people and organizations for your own private or political reasons.

It applies to your instructing the EPA and other agencies to do what Congress, by refusing to pass legislation you want, forbids them to do.

It applies to your belief that an executive order is something that allows you, the chief executive, to do with legally binding force whatever you want regardless of what Congress directs or forbids rather than being a tool the chief executive may use to direct members of the Executive Branch to fulfill their duties in helping him to keep good on his word to faithfully execute his office in the enforcement of the laws passed by Congress and defending the Constitution.

So Congress won’t pass or even introduce legislation you want passed?

Well, tough crap, Barry. You don’t have the Constitutional authority to do it yourself.

So Congress has passed a bill that was signed into law by a previous president that you don’t like and that you don’t want to enforce?

Well, tough crap, Barry. You don’t have the Constitutional authority to veto, by refusing to enforce, or to amend, by selective enforcement, a law already passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous president.

Your contempt for our system of government demonstrates to us that you are one of the guys the Founders and Framers warned us about.

Your refusal to enforce immigration law, for instance, demonstrates that you are a clear and present danger both to the country, our Constitution, and to our form of government.

The Republicans aren’t mad that you’re doing “something.” The real Republicans are angry that you’re doing something illegal and unconstitutional, that you’re violating your oath of office and trashing our country in order to pimp your statist ride.

Fundamentally transform us?

Screw you, buddy. You don’t have the right.

Now if Boehner and the establishment GOP would collectively grow a pair, we could start to reverse the mess you and folks like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made of things.

In the spirit of Islam that you evidently like so much:

We renounce you. We renounce you. We renounce you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.