Obama says his power to control you is 'constrained' by the Constitution

Friday, April 12, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Obama, federal power, Constitution

(NaturalNews) President Obama wants you to know that nothing he's attempting to do as head of the Executive Branch has been improper - or will ever be improper - because, after all, he's constitutionally prohibited.

During a speech in Denver, Colo., in early April, the president - in town to push, not-so-ironically, his gun control agenda, told an audience he was "constrained" in his ability to act alone on the issue "by the system our founders put in place," while verbally thrashing Second Amendment advocates who dare to say gun ownership is not just a matter of self-defense but also as a bulwark against government tyranny (as our founding fathers intended. And he did so using a now-familiar technique, and one that he has often used when pushing his agenda - hijack the language in a way that frames opponents as imbalanced and extreme.

To wit:

Opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what's being proposed and nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government...

You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself from the government." We can't do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.

Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people."

Who can be opposed to such "reasonable" proposals?

Did you catch that? "Common-sense gun laws" supported by "responsible gun owners" is all he is pushing, which, of course, automatically implies that any gun owner who does not support his measures is deemed unreasonable and devoid of common sense). And besides, what's the problem? He and his allies were all "elected by you" (which implies that no matter what he wants to do, you should support him because he won an election).

He has also said on numerous occasions that he is he is not a dictator, and since he's not, he can't possibly push for rules or policies that don't comply with the Constitution.

Only, he has - and he does - and he will do so again.

Consider:

This is the same "constitutionally constrained" president who signed 23 executive orders addressing gun violence in January, many of which violate various constitutional amendments and provisions, namely privacy (what "reasonable, responsible" gun owner would want to the this man more authority to regulate guns?).

This is the same president who has said, time and again, that "if Congress won't act" on a range of issues he cares about, he will (see examples here, here, and here.

It's also the same president who, per a federal court, has made unconstitutional recess appointments to his National Labor Relations Board, and who is - despite that court's ruling - continuing to allow that Board to operate and issue decisions in disputes between American businesses and labor.

This is the same president who launched airstrikes against Libyan government targets and signed 23 executive orders without congressional approval, insisting that prior authority to "permit" the strikes came from the United Nations, as well as accepting the rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council - a direct violation of article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution see here and here.

Hijacking the language to sound unconstitutionally "reasonable"

There is nothing "reasonable" or "common-sense" about such flagrant violations of the rule of law - the same rule of law and Constitution this president swore an oath to uphold and defend.

Look, it's no secret American presidents have been pushing the limits of their constitutional roles and powers practically since the nation's founding. There is no papering over that fact and anyone who tries is most likely being politically disingenuous. But where do such abuses stop? If not now, when? When there are no more rights left to be had? It will be too late then.

Without question the president and his allies in Congress and in the public and private sectors are going after gun rights. Obama has made it one of his second-term priorities. Even Americans who don't own a gun should care about that because if this or any subsequent president can hijack the language by making his (or her) unconstitutional actions seem "reasonable," prudent and purely "common-sense" propositions, none of our constitutional rights and protections are safe.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.infowars.com

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/one-tango

http://thehill.com

http://www.adn.com

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9