Do you have something on your mind and want to write your own online editorial?
Click here to get started!

We the People…or I the President

Date posted - January 12, 2013

We the People…or I the President:

Recently a Georgetown Constitutional Law professor has claimed that the nation’s foundational document is the real impediment to progress and solutions to America’s troubles. He claims that the American system of government is broken and that the real culprit is our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. Does our President share this mans views? The United States is a constitutional republic, a form of government which has served us well for more than 200 years. Our ability to preserve that government — in fact, our ability to remain a representative democracy – depends on our willingness to hold our leaders accountable when they violate the law or act in ways that are unconstitutional. President Obama has demonstrated a willingness to: aid and abet violations of the law, to abandon his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to intrude on the constitutional powers of the Senate, and to violate our right to due process, and an unwillingness to protect our liberties and those of generations to come. Barack Obama’s intrusions on the constitutional powers of Congress, his failure to fulfill his own constitutional duties, and his willingness to sign legislation which includes provisions which violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution render him unfit to serve as president.

He has used Executive Orders to by pass decisions made by congress b/c they did not fit his ‘agenda’. The Dream Act being one of them. Just before the election he told some Defense contractors not to follow the WARN Act law, and that his administration would pay any fines imposed on them b/c they broke the law. How can he do that? He can’t not according to our constitution. He also made three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, even tho it was the Senates responsibility to do so. Oh, but he said the Senate was in recess, yet the Senate said they were not. A direct violation of the Article 1 of the Constitution. That was the Senate’s job. Then there is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 section 1021, that Mr. Obama signed on 12-31-11, it provides that the president may authorize the military to detain indefinitely any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of enemy forces. (now what constitutes ‘enemy forces’ is very ambiguant) Now when did it become acceptable or constitutional for the president to use the military to detain a citizen of the United States within our borders indefinitely for any reason? The way I take that, if you are writing something that the president feels is against his decisions, he can and will detain you, if he so chooses. Where is our 5th amendment rights on this one? Benghazi? Fast and Furious? Over-promising Economic Recovery? (“If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”) And now vowing to not work with congress, on raising the debt ceiling, he insists on raising it with a blank check!!
And the list goes on and on!! Has this president overstepped the boundaries of his office?

Where will it end?? Our Constitution is “We the People” not I the President. Who is going to to hold this president accountable??


Print Friendly

33 Responses to “We the People…or I the President”

  1. Chicken Strips says:

    Well, it appears that 51% of Americans held him accountable by reelecting him.
    Republicans clearly didn’t have what America wanted! Try harder next time!
    (This is common sense, folks–I voted for the other guy–QUIT COMPLAINING!).

  2. Fred says:

    Hopefully it will end with him leaving office and a peaceable return to constitutional government. Sadly this appears to be more difficult with each passing day given the support and interference from the mainstream media and his zombie voters. The ugly alternative may need to be succession by freedom loving people.

  3. Doug says:

    Succession is not an option. The Civil War has proven that, and there is no provision for it in the Constitution. The Republicans screwed up again when they negotiated an end to the fiscal cliff. They had a chance to de-fund all of his crony cabinet Departments, almost as if they “threw the game”.

  4. willy Pedro says:

    I I I not we we we but it still seems like we are getting the shaft by inadvertantly having new laws pushed through and boom done before the general public even knows about it I have to agree with fred about just get him out of office and hope for recovery before its too late!

  5. Franksma says:

    First, it is not all the president, although he does influence policy. For the record, I am a Republican and a moderate conservative. Yes, I do think Mr Obama has done and said some very questionable things. However, we must hold the senate and house accountable, they are the ones who make law and check the Executive branch. They have failed, but many get re-elected. We have too many lifers in there that have become the system of good ole boys. We need to encourage and elect honest, respectful people who are willing to be true representatives of the ones who elected them. We need term limits. We need to end the benefit packages of those elected. This would help in eliminating an entrenched system of “I scratch your back if you will scratch mine” mentality and bust up special interest groups from owning politicians. Most of all we need some people in there who are willing to confront issues head-on and stop the whining that has turned so many off. Thse in Washington need to stop sugar coating and covering the butts and get something done.

    • Chris says:

      Finally – someone who understands how our government is structured. I wish more people would realize that it is our elected Congress that passes legislation, not the President, and that our Congress is not representative of the populace of this country. If you are dissatisfied, make your vote count where change needs to happen.

      • Lee Ann says:

        Just as the Conservative right are screaming that Obama wants to spend their money by raising the debt limit. We only want that taken off the table because the debt limit is about the money already spent, and must be paid. Its not about new debt or spending, its about our country not being a deadbeat and getting our bills , that Congress spent money on, paid on time. I would only wish that our education dept. would insist that every American child have a civics class before graduation. So that they can learn who does what, and who legislates for each kind of situation.

  6. Robert Keller says:

    None of my guns are on paper(what guns?). But I still don’t dial 9 1 1 if someone breaks in my house. My only problem is where to hide their vehicle?

  7. LazloTu says:

    Tim – Your rambling letter is but more nonsense kept alive by the GrandOldTeaParty. If you cannot stand the idea of a black man as president, so be it. But the fact is that he was re-elected by a majority of voters; even in Iowa, although not in this little corner of the state.
    Get a life and stop watching and listening to the likes of Fox News, Limbo, and other radical conservatives. Spread out a bit, get out of town once in a while, and learn more about the Constitution, and the workings of the branches of federal government.

    • Lazlo Tu what? says:

      Lazlo Tu how was your comment a question? You said “If you cannot stand the idea of a black man as president, so be it.” Please do explain how that is any sort of question, cause I see that as a statement. Your telling Tim that he cannot stand the idea of a black man as president when in fact he never made any comment at all about him being black, your the one that brought that up, not him. Before we know it you’ll have Tim painted as dressed in a white cape and being part of the KKK.

      • willy Pedro says:

        how did this conversation turn into the KKK? what ya tryin to bring I dont see it you are acting like it is all race ! this is not all the problem it is the the problem of guns and regulation it is aall politcal and the xxxxxxxxx if it pertains to it have a say but make sure the facts are right I havenot posted any websites or ? facts it is my opinion. just sayin!

  8. Lazlo Tu what? says:

    Lazlo Tu, I’m curious to where anything at all was mentioned about him being a “black man”?

    • LazloTu says:

      It was merely a question, Tim. I raised it since this is such a ‘red’ area, filled with rather more racism, not only covert but overt, than the much of the state and country. The lame gop congress makes no bones about their agenda, despite their failed attempt to make him a one-term president.
      Name one other person attacked by the ‘birther crowd’ and the majority of the gop clinging to the coat tails of pathetic attacks against President Obama. Your letter simply mimics the poorly informed radical right; therefore I raised the reasonable underlying issue.

      • Tim says:

        I first thought, ‘Tim, don’t even answer’ but then…
        First, I would say the same thing if our current president was a Republican, Libertarian, or even from the so called “GOP Tea Party”.
        I did not say one thing about the man having different color of skin. Makes absolutely no difference to me. I base my views on what he does not the color of ones skin.
        Second, yes he was elected by 51%. (so many use that as a defence for this man it does not cut it any more) Out of those 51% how many do you think really knew who they were voting for, or what he stood for? Ask yourself today would those same 51% have voted for him after they have seen what their paycheck is doing after Jan 1, 2013? Have you seen yours?
        Third, I don’t listen to Limbo, I watch MSNBC, Fox and CNN, and others, and THEN do my own research. Hence the “ramblings” you complain about. I have been taught to do my own research!!
        “birther crowd” what? I never mentioned it.
        Will you address what my concerns were in my op-ed? I don’t see you addressed a single one of them!!
        And lastly, thank you for telling me to get out of town just because you don’t agree with what you have read. I just got back, and I am staying for awile!! Also, I carry my copy of the constitution with me, where is yours?

        • willy Pedro says:

          very well said Tim at least you can post your name with your opinion I think people shouldnt hide behind a stage name!!!!

        • LazloTu says:

          I responded once, with links to, to dispel several of your mis-truths; however my post was scrubbed, (for whatever reason).
          I’ve concluded that it’s you who should support your rant with facts. Additionally, I’ve concluded that you are merely a tparty guy, with no willingness to be reasonable.
          I don’t carry a copy of the Constitution with me; I really don’t feel the need to do so – I have a fairly good comprehension of the Constitution, and live my life accordingly. However, you and the tparty folks feel patriotic by carrying the abridged copy of the Constitution. If that feels patriotic to you, carry on.
          You’ve taken issue here with any person challenging your original comment, and I suspect that was your intent. Not surpringly, most of the favs are to be expected; after all, as you well know, this corner of Iowa is going to support you. Yet, there really are others, a bit more liberal, willing to stand up to your ultra-conservative talking points.
          You’ve twisted my response to your comments (i.e., getting out of town once in a while…).
          Best wishes to you as you maintain the rigidity of your mentors.

          • Tim says:

            Mr Lazlo:
            I have not seen your links to I highly doubt the webmaster of this system would be discriminating against you as you insinuate.
            You say I should support my “rants” with facts. Please use to follow up on my “rants”.
            I think I have my “rants” fairly accurate.
            One of my “rants” claimed Mr Obama, ‘made three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, even tho it was the Senates responsibility to do so. Oh, but he said the Senate was in recess, yet the Senate said they were not. A direct violation of the Article 1 of the Constitution. That was the Senate’s job.’ Well…guess what today, according to reports put out by USA Today, and I quote “A federal appeals court said Friday that President Obama overstepped his authority with a series of recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.” as I suggested in my op-ed. (which somehow turned into an attack on myself for being racist, and a tea-party radicalist) Yes I am conservative, and FYI, I supported Ron Paul.
            I stand by original views in the op-ed I wrote.

  9. HA says:

    Or lets look at the almost 300 executive orders by Bush compared to the 140 of Obama’s…. Where do I start…..

  10. Lee Ann says:

    Excuse me, Mr. We the people……..

    Have you got any links for your insinuations? All of the executive orders he signed only reinforced the laws we already have. He is going to nominate a boss for the ATF, since the money behind the NRA fought it and for six years, we have not had someone running the ATF. He did nothing in executive orders that hadn’t been done by your hero, Ronald Reagan. I’d like to read your links. Unless it is on the NRA site. 94% of the NRA members, not the NRA bosses, want a background check on EVERY gun bought and sold, improved background information, and assistance to law enforcement to enforce the laws banning trafficking in illegal weapons, and enforcing the sentences when arrested. Other than that he has requested that Congress pass these bills. He knows the law.

    • Tim says:

      Sorry Lee Ann my op-ed said nothing about the 23 EO’s that Mr. Obama just signed. It was written before he signed them. In fact, the way I read them, (I have not torn them apart yet) they really are not EO’s. I need to study them closer. I am a member of the NRA, and I want strong background checks, always have!! I went thru them, fingerprints, service records, training, etc, all were out in the open. Where are the background checks on the “illegal” gun owners?? Have you purchased a firearm recently, FYI, before you buy one “legally”, you MUST already pass a background check, I am all for it. NRA was not even mentioned in my op-ed. Address the issues I raised in it. It was written to address misuse of the constitution of the United States of America. My “hero” Ronald Reagan? He was a great president, however, my “hero” as far as president was JFK. Just me, you don’t have to agree, just mine. BTW, I never mentioned my “hero” in the op-ed either.
      I have noticed a very interesting pattern on here, whenever there is the slightest hint of questioning Mr. Obama on anything, people take great offence to it. (Either they say things like other presidents did this or that, or he must be great 51% voted for him. Does that make it justified, or make him fit for the job?) Why is that? Should we not ask questions of our leaders? This is the president we have TODAY, the responsibility for leadership is in his hands TODAY. He is accountable TODAY!!
      You also say, we have not had a ATF director b/c NRA fought it, perhaps, but really, Mr. Obama DID nominate Andrew Traver in 2010, but his nomination approval did not make it past the Senate. Yet at the time there was talk that Mr. Obama would “appoint” him as ATF director when the Legislators were in recess. Exactly one of the issues I raised in my op-ed. And remember, the debacle of Fast and Furious was going on during this time. I wish to quote something from the Christian Science Monitor wrote regarding Mr Traver, “Mr Obama picked a strong anti-2nd amendment person for an administration job that has far more influence over the practical exercise of 2nd amendment rights than anyother job in the country”. Now I ask you, is that why there has not been an ATF director? And again, as in my op-ed, is this part of his agenda?
      Please go back and reread the op-ed, address the concerns raised in it, if you will.

      • Lee Ann says:

        Saying “your hero” was for the collective “you”, not just you. There are many youtubes of Ronald Reagan and his dislike of semi automatic weapons, that he banned in California when he was governor.

        Mr. Traver was nominated and in the Senate, it was filibustered by McConnell. So it never came back up for a vote.

        When I lived in Colorado, I had to pass a background check every time I took my shotgun out of pawn. LOL. I also worked for Colorado DOC, so passed an FBI check. The polling is showing that 94% of all NRA members want background checks for EVERY one buying a weapon, or buying ammo. I was an NRA member for any years. I also have a Hunter’s safety card, and belong to the Rocky mountain Elk Foundation. And I don’t see any need for a semi automatic rifle with a 100 bullet magazine.

        • Tim says:

          I would have to agree Lee Ann, I personally, also see no reason for a 100 magazine clip. However, that being said, where does the law stop? If you say 100 is too many, the next guy will say 50 is too many or the next guy 10 too many. I can pop my magazine clip out of my handguns and replace them in a matter of two seconds, so what good does it do to limit the size, for the law abiding people. Also, someone on here asked for a REAL definition of an assault rifle, I have not seen that yet.

          • Lee Ann says:

            When Gabby Giffords was shot, the only reason they stopped him, was because he stopped to reload. He had 31 bullets in that weapon. He had a few more magazines he could pop in the pistol, but they got him down while he was trying to reload.

            I agree that “where does it stop? is a logical question. I have also thought what happens when someone who previously had an arsenal of weapons comes down with a severe mental illness. What do they do then? Go to his house and take them away? THAT could start a real slippery slope. Someone that is paranoid, mentally ill could logically want to amass an arsenal for protection from whomever is after him in his paranoid delusions. So the cops show up, and prove to him that the government REALLY is after him. It could start some real problems.

            There is really no good answer. People are going to get hurt and killed throughout the world for different things. Look at the number of car accident fatalities. We just live with it, because we all drive to places. People are sometimes afraid of airplane travel. yet you are much safer in a plane than you were in the car.

            I always hunted with a Parker Hale 30.06. Bolt action. I don’t think a semiautomatic weapon would be good for hunting. A semiautomatic weapon with a large magazine is used for one thing, killing people. Not deer, elk or bear. Just people.

  11. Tim says:

    Yes ..Lets look at this closer:

    Mr. Obama ——- 144 EO’s —- in 4 years
    George W. Bush — 291 EO”S —- in 8 years
    George HW Bush — 166 EO’s —– in 8 years
    Reagan ———- 381 EO’s —- in 8 years
    Carter ———— 320 EO’s —- in 4 years
    Clinton ———— 364 EO’s —- in 8 years
    And then there was FDR a whopping 3728 in 13 years, but during WWII.

    So, yes they all have done them, does it make it right? I submit that according to the constitution, not really. Here is a great interpitation of how Exectutive Orders are supposed to work.
    In Article I Section I of the Constitution it is clear that all legislative powers reside in Congress. (Senate and House) The Executive Branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congess. An Executive Order is not legislation it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress.
    An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employess of the Executive Branch of government. Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees is a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues an Executive Order that extends to all of the people, Congress has the responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees. When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
    There was a specific reason why the founding fathers of this country allowed for three branches of Gov’t. And they are, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. All having equal power. So that no one branch would become morre powerful than the other.

    Now, this is what my original op-ed was about!! Reread the last paragraghof my op-ed. I still feel, (I have not been convinced by anyone yet that I am wrong) this president has overstepped his boundary. I invite someone to convince me otherwise.

    • Facts says:

      George HW Bush was only President for 4 years

    • Jon says:

      It would be good for everyone involved in this conversation to understand that Obama did NOT issue 23 executive ORDERS regarding gun control. The documents drafted and signed are actually what is known as an executive action, essentially detailing directives and plans, including asking for legislation and a few executive memorandums (double-speak for executive orders) directing agencies to act on certain policies and laws already in place and encouraging things like conducting more research on gun violence and deaths, something the NRA has successfully lobbied against. In regards to appointments like the head of ATF, it would be important to note that the constitution clearly states that the legislature, specifically the Senate, has the power and responsibility to approve most cabinet appointments, but it also includes the caveat that appointments should not be unduly held up as long as qualified and competent appointees are nominated by the executive branch. Congress continues to abuse this process, blocking appointees and dragging their feet. Our founding fathers, in their wisdom, realized that this could be a potential problem, and so the Constitution further stipulates that the executive branch can make appointments during a recess of congress. This Constitutional truth has led to a congressional abuse of power whereby they almost never have an official recess, thus preventing the executive branch from fulfilling its appointments. Republicans in the House are solely responsible for Obama’s inability to make recess appointments as outlined in the Constitution because of their own abuse of the Constitution and its stipulations.

      • LazloTu says:

        Jon – Thanks you for your reasonable post. I’d like to share a post from a collegue from elsewhere:


        “You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

        You didn’t get mad when Bush’s VP allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

        You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

        You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

        You didn’t get mad when we spent over 4 trillion (and counting) on
        illegal war.

        You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in

        You didn’t get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

        You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

        You didn’t get mad when the national debt doubled under the previous President from $5.674 trillion to $10.024 trillion and has added over 4 trillion in ongoing expenses and interest since they lost.

        You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping
        Americans and the President lied about it.

        You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden in Tora Bora.

        You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter

        You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown!

        You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark and 800,000 jobs a month were being shed, You didn’t get mad when GDP hit -9%

        You finally got mad when the black man decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. And you became livid when Obama caught up with bin Laden. So you get 4 more years to burn out all of your remaining credibility.”

        • Lazlo Tu what? says:

          Why do you continue to bring up that he is black? What does that have to do with anything at all? nobody on here has said one word about his skin color other then you Lazlo Tu so why is that even being brought up?

        • Tim says:

          Black Man??? This op-ed has nothing to do with racial tones…..UNTIL someone racist bringss them up!! Get real!

Leave a Reply

Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language.
2. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem (personal) attacks.
3. Threats are treated seriously and will be reported to law enforcement.
4. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. or its advertisers agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the selected staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email

Back to:We the People…or I the President