Posted on 04/08/2012 8:08:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
It’s not his to conquer.
The three braches of government are idependent of one another. Guess he doesn’t know that.
Obama drips with Caesarism, which is reduced in American usage to a throwaway reference to Spengler, but Spengler meant a lot by it, and anyone who's read Roman history knows exactly what he is talking about. The elements of the Roman Revolution are identifiable already in ours, even if they aren't as stinkingly developed. A legislature, for instance, peopled by millionaires, and controlled by them and by corrupt-and-corrupting special interests with a vested interest in controlling outcomes in an ossified legislative process in which unconstitutional procedures (continuing resolutions, "reconciliation") are increasingly used. That, for one.
Obama brings the element of the adventurous, ambitious scofflaw, constantly inventing and directing new pressures against existing groups and institutions to work not his singular will, but a collective factional will, in this case the neo-Stalinists' who are working with Obama as his kitchen cabinet and executive reports.
"Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt.
Notice that in the "New Deal" and "Great Society", both Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson promoted precisely the idea of "a compact between the Govt. & the people" -- thereby promoting FDR and LBJ to the status of equals of the People, and counterparties to a "compact", rather than servants of the People.
There's a con man on every street corner, and in politics they mob you, all spraying your face and offering to squeegee it dry for you -- with their hands in your pocket, or on your wife's honor.
Hamilton fought nobly in the revolution, and was Washington's most important officer, Secretary of the Treasury, when Washington accepted the presidency. Hamilton was very familiar with the common-law upon which our republic was based, and shared his judgments with Washington in voluminous letters. In one such letter, from 1790, Hamilton commented: “But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these different opinions.” Hamilton, unlike Obama, depended upon “nature's law and Law of Nations” to support most of his decisions. In that respect alone, Hamilton is the antithesis of Obama. Open disagreement comes with the territory. In a republic, different opinions are expected. The Constitution established the ground rules, a doctrine of constraints on government, the opposite of Obama. And Hamilton, in an early draft, required a ‘citizen’ president, made no objection to John Jay and Washington's further constraint, probably taken, as noted by founder John Marshall, directly from Vattel.
From what I've read about Hamilton, the abandonment of his possibly Jewish mother in St. Croix by the black sheep of a titled Scottish family, and the terrible treatment of slaves , and of most not from Britain's privileged classes generated little or no allegiance for the British Colony, again, recalling that most everyone in pre-revolutionary America was a British colonial. Obama, on the other hand, if we believe Bill Ayers' biography of Barrack, ideolized his absent father, whose allegiance was to some flavor of Islamic Marxism. Hamilton and Obama are on opposite ends of spectrum from freedom of the individual to a central oligarchy built around socialism. (I would appreciate a reference to a better biography than the Ron Chernow Volume, which seems preocupied with Hamiltion’s possible bisexual activities, and reads like a potential montion picture script, causing our family put it down about half way through. A briographer familiar with legal history would help.)
“Worse still, it seems that very few Americans recognize the President’s behaviour is problematic.”
Mr. Maher, on his TV show, said it best; something to the effect that it should be done in this country the way it’s done in China.
His attitude reflects the opinions and “feelings” of many in the electorate who think Mr. Obama loves and cares for them.
They’re willing to forego the Constitution in order for him to take care of them.
(President Obama in 2013, 55 percent to 45 percent.)
IMHO
“Worse still, it seems that very few Americans recognize the President’s behaviour is problematic.”
Mr. Maher, on his TV show, said it best; something to the effect that it should be done in this country the way it’s done in China.
His attitude reflects the opinions and “feelings” of many in the electorate who think Mr. Obama loves and cares for them.
They’re willing to forego the Constitution in order for him to take care of them.
(President Obama in 2013, 55 percent to 45 percent.)
IMHO
Thanks Clintonfatigued and justiceseeker93.
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.