Posted on 09/04/2014 12:54:20 PM PDT by Jacquerie
The Framers of our Constitution were well versed in the lessons of the mid-17th century English Civil War. It was in revolution that Parliamentary forces denied certain powers to Charles I. Obama, the pretend President of a formerly Free Republic, has claimed powers denied to an English king 370 years ago.
During negotiations between royalist and parliamentary forces in 1643, Charles I itemized his demands and authority:
1. Charles I proclaimed to be limited by law and parliament. From his past actions, parliament knew this was a specious, dishonest assertion. Obama often recites his fealty to the law. Not even Charles I presumed authority to rewrite statutory law!
2. He declared the traditional prerogative power of English monarchs over foreign affairs. Obama and his henchmen are probing the edges of entering into treaties without consent of the senate. His Secretaries of State refuse to answer congressional questions of national importance.
3. He refused to relinquish absolute crown control over the military. Obama has done much the same through his military campaigns in Libya, Syria. Benghazi cover up.
4. Charles I would retain control over civil and military appointments. Parliament would have no advice or consent authority over his ministers and generals. Obama, and increasingly congress think Obama should have prerogative power to hire whomever he wishes, without input or consent from the senate. Van Jones? No problem.
5. Charles I would not give up power to call and dismiss parliament at will. Obama hasn’t gone that far with congress, although he did declare the senate to be in recess so he could appoint radical moonbats to the NLRB and Lizzy Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
neither of them have much of a head...
Wasn’t Charles I tried for treason, found guilty and then decapitated?
One had their own country invaded by foreigners
over YEARS, including those who attacked their
country for decades.
The other had documentation and was accountable.
Yup, and the stigma is still so bad (from Charles II as well) that when Bonnie Prince Chuck takes over from Bess II (IF he does, actually), he’s supposedly going to take the name George VII.
I read recently that Elizabeth II has signed a document of succession that states upon her death Prince William will succeed to the throne. Prince Charles, his father, is to be bypassed due to his advanced age. That’s the official reason, rumors claim the Queen thinks Prince Charles is basically wacko. And she’s right.
I wonder how many of Hussein’s well heeled Democrat Donors generously donate to continue the expansion of Executive Orders.
If so should we call them The Royalist Class?
The only reason that Obama is getting away with acting unilaterally from Congress is the following. Obama and the corrupt media are taking advantage of the major problem that parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. Otherwise voters would know that Congress actually has the constitutional authority to act unilaterally from the Oval office, overriding Obama’s vetoes or impeaching Obama as examples, even if Obama cannot act unilaterally from Congress.
The reason that Congress is letting Obama get away with doing all kinds of unconstitutional stuff is that the corrupt, Democratic-controlled Senate is blocking Congress from stopping Obama.
Untrue. The Queen assented to the Sucession to the Crown Act of 2013 which changed succession rules to treat females on an equal basis as males. They succeed to the crown in birth order, without regard to gender. Only the first six in line need the Sovereign's permission to marry, so thousands of descendants of King George II can now get married without consent. Charles still is first in line, he and the Queen don't have any say it the matter. The only thing that Charles can do is to abdicate after he has succeeded to the throne. The job comes with some snappy accessories.
Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and Barack Obama may profit by their example.
Under Charles I Moslem pirates invaded Ireland and carried off the entire population of Baltimore, Ireland.
Under King O’bama I, Moslem pirates run wild through out the world, land and sea.
The leader of the Muslim pirates who sacked Baltimore June 20, 1631 was a Dutch convert originally named Jan Janszoon van Haarlem. Another problem that hasn’t changed.
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.