Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.


God, Obama and Post-Constitutional America

F.I.S.T.

Iron Killer
Jacked Immortal
EG Freak
Mutated
Board Donator
Fully Loaded
EG Cash
82,365
God, Obama and Post-Constitutional America
October 27, 2015
Kenneth Levin


The widespread and blatant seizure of unconstitutional authority.

"Nam homo proponit, sed Deus disponit," wrote the medieval cleric Thomas a Kempis. "For man proposes, but God disposes."

The observation that human intent, however well conceived and deftly pursued, is commonly frustrated, does not require the invoking of God. One can, for example, comprehend the frustrating agent as fate, fortune or simply the exigencies of worldly existence.

But the founders of our republic considered the particular circumstance of people’s aspirations and intent being frustrated by the heavy hand of government, and in addressing this phenomenon they clearly attached importance to invoking God.

In the Declaration of Independence, they assert, of course, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They further assert that the proper role of government, indeed the raison d'etre of government, is to secure these God-given rights.

All the signers of the Declaration were Christian, but they did not all comprehend God in the same way. Nor were the distinctions simply a reflection of sectarian theological differences. Some, including Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, were sympathetic to Enlightenment-inspired deism, belief in a creator who does not directly intervene in the world but established it with rationally comprehensible natural and moral laws. He was critical, for example, of elements of the Gospels that he believed did not meet the test of reason.

But whatever religious disagreements the other signers may have had with Jefferson, they were all prepared to endorse his references to unalienable God-given rights.

Their doing so reflected in large part a common desire to cast actions taken by the British monarch in opposition to the expressed will of the colonial citizenry’s chosen representatives - representatives charged by their constituents with protecting people’s rights - as a violation of, in a phrase used elsewhere in the Declaration, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God."

Historic claims, by rulers and by apologists for governance by royal decree, of "divine right" or of the monarch as God’s anointed, or older traditions that went further and asserted the divinity of crowned heads, were sacrilege to the founders of the republic. To them, the natural order of things was not one of man proposing, a king disposing.

But it was not simply from established authorities that the Founders saw threats to individual rights and proper governance. They recognized the ever-present potential for some in any community to seek to accumulate power and control over others, and more particularly the potential for some of those who have achieved office in government to seek to wrest for their office greater sway over affairs of state and to exercise that authority at the expense of others.

The authors of the Constitution sought to address this threat most famously via a system of checks and balances among the three constitutionally established branches of government, a system that would, they hoped, frustrate attempts to accumulate power to the detriment of basic freedoms. But a number of state ratifying conventions called for additional guarantees against potential accumulation and exercise of oppressive power by those in positions of authority within the new federal system. This ultimately led to enactment of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The first nine spell out individual rights as a further buttress against assaults on personal liberties, while the tenth establishes that all authority not explicitly assigned to branches of the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people.

In the subsequent history of the republic, the grasping for additional power, particularly by the executive branch at the expense of Congress and of the citizenry, has been a recurrent phenomenon. But over the past hundred years, with the gargantuan expansion of the executive bureaucracy, the potential for such encroachment has increased in ways unimaginable in earlier periods.

Still, there has been little precedent for the widespread and blatant seizure of unconstitutional authority by President Obama and by the federal bureaucracy under his aegis.

Foremost is the President's own creating or rewriting of federal statutes in pursuit of his policy goals - whether, for example, in the context of implementing Obamacare, or recasting immigration law, or signing off on far-reaching international commitments without constitutionally prescribed Congressional authorization, and even violating the provisions in the watered down Congressional oversight of the Iran deal that had become law only two months earlier.

Additional examples are the Administration's use of federal agencies such as, to name but a few, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to assert and exercise powers beyond those allowed them by statute. Administration transgressions also include use of the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies for political ends - punishing critics of the President and rewarding supporters - in blatant violation of federal law. Other unlawful conduct by the Administration includes the ignoring of Congressional subpoenas by, for instance, the Departments of Justice and of State.

Some of these myriad transgressions have been redressed by the federal judiciary, but most have not.

The motive driving the President and those around him has been comprehended by many as single-minded commitment to an ideological vision they regard as too grand and too important to be impeded by Constitutional niceties. A variation on the same theme articulated by others likewise perceives a determination by the Administration to impose a new system of governance. But they link this government agenda to the fact that today’s executive branch leadership, made up largely of academics, career government bureaucrats and senior figures from so-called non-profit public service organizations, is broadly hostile towards and dismissive of the work-a-day population of the private sector that comprises the vast majority of employed Americans. It sees itself as the brighter and the better part of the body politic and feels free to impose its agenda on the nation even if doing so entails circumventing whatever Constitutional obstacles stand in its way.

In his run for and ascension to the Presidency, Barack Obama was greeted by many, including many in the chattering classes, as god-like or messianic - just one example was Newsweek editor Evan Thomas’s 2009 characterization of the President, in a television discussion, as "standing above the country, above - above the world, he’s sort of God." And Mr. Obama has given ample evidence that he shares such visions of himself and his destined role. More broadly, there has been a predilection across the Administration's leadership, and among its True Believers, to ascribe to the current Executive transcending wisdom and seek to wrest for it concomitant, transcending authority.

The Declaration of Independence, in dissecting the British monarch’s "history of repeated injuries and usurpations," lists most frequently royal acts that had done violence to colonial legislatures and their enacted laws. The Constitution, in its seeking to preclude the possibility of such transgressions, granted to the federal legislature exclusive authority to enact laws and defined the role of the President and the executive branch as essentially enforcement of Congressionally established law.

This constitutionally delineated separation of powers, and the President’s obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," are the arrangement that every President, in his oath of office, has pledged to uphold. But in today’s post-Constitutional America, instead of the people’s elected representatives enacting laws and the President enforcing them, we have - once more paraphrasing Thomas a Kempis - Congress merely proposing and Obama disposing.
 
Not all signers were Christian and the creator does not equal a Christian god...
 
GRIM said:
Not all signers were Christian and the creator does not equal a Christian god...


LOL.Well one thing for sure,they werent worshiping a muslim one.
 
Muslim and Christian actually use much of the same religion. They differ on who the profits and jesus were..
 
GRIM said:
Muslim and Christian actually use much of the same religion. They differ on who the profits and jesus were..

Yea,you keep trying to convince yourself of that.

Are you suggesting that they WERE worshiping a muslim God?
 
F.I.S.T. said:

Yea,you keep trying to convince yourself of that.
You don't like facts? Like most religions they have many of the same exact stories.
Just as the bible copied religions far more ancient.
 
F.I.S.T. said:

Yea,you keep trying to convince yourself of that.

Are you suggesting that they WERE worshiping a muslim God?
Where did I ever say a Muslim god?
The Quran, bible, torah all are made up of alot of the same text. All include Jesus
 
GRIM said:
You don't like facts? Like most religions they have many of the same exact stories.
Just as the bible copied religions far more ancient.


I love facts.Sadly though you know so few.The muslim beliefs far differ than the Christian one.Im not either so cant comment on either from experience.I can comment on those signing the DOI were NOT of muslim belief.So no matter how similar you try to convince yourself the religions are,when in fact they are,those Americans had no muslim beliefs and rightly so.
 
GRIM said:
Where did I ever say a Muslim god?
The Quran, bible, torah all are made up of alot of the same text. All include Jesus

You didnt.You stated they were not believing in a Christian God for whatever reason.So which God were they following?
 
They were not Christians all of them. God of nature free of religion..
 
mankind invented more then 10 000 gods in the course of history and time. Zeus was real for those who believed in him in the old days, now we laugh at it.

there is no scientific proof for a creator. what i find funny is when people talk about god, they always think of THEIR own little god they believe in and this always happens to coincide with where they happen to be born. you are born in india = you are hindoe, africa = some jujiwuji god, middle east = clusterfuck of made up gods, asia = fat budha etc etc

everybody is an atheist. all people are born atheist, the enviroment and parents indoctrinate them at young age where kids dont have the intellectual power to muster up any logical opposition to these stories so they end up inside their hearts.

and even the religious people are atheist to all gods except 1.

religion and politics should not ever mix. same as with money and politics but this is our next battle. freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.

the moment some made up notions start affecting other people = the moment religion needs to get cut down. keep thy religion private, like everybody else. the world is made from facts, scientific empirical facts.

US should really look forward to how some much further developed and better arranged countries in the world do it and much less religious: france, holland, scandinavia, UK, germany etc.
 
and to everybody saying human 'rights' are this or that and most importantly god given, lol, check this out, carlin destroys that notion with facts in 3mins flat

https://youtu.be/gaa9iw85tW8?t=4m20s

there are no rights. PEOPLE make rights, we amend them, we make new ones and delete other ones. we as people are responsible, nobody else. there IS nobody else. we need to grow up as species
 
There is no scientific proof regarding evolution. Sure species have evolved once they are already living. Organisms have to be a whole before they can develop heart lung brain functioning nervous system Iets not get into it I'm driving
 
there is plenty of proof on evolution, its all around us from bigger feet to darker skin,,,
 
Evolution
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Evolving
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Evolution- is the THOUGHT of XYZ and like 90% of all science is nothing more than THEORY.

Evolving- can be measured. Therefore can be proven.
 
GRIM said:
Muslim and Christian actually use much of the same religion. They differ on who the profits and jesus were..

Yeah but Muslims chop everyone's head off that doesn't agree with them to their s very day. When is the last time a Christian did this?
 
This world needs a cleansing. Well fellas we all need to go. 🙂

My god bless you and I will see all you believers in heaven. And all the non believers will be in hell with all those liberals 🙂🙂🙂
 
Lol!!! This world is in a downward spiral. Too many little groups for fake bullshit causes. Something has got to give
 
SkinNbone said:
Yeah but Muslims chop everyone's head off that doesn't agree with them to their s very day. When is the last time a Christian did this?

The French in the 1970's I believe. Christians also tortuted thousands of Jews in the Spanish Inquisition, read how barbaric that was. All in name of Christianity.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

  • thread_type.tlg_group thread_type.tlg_group
Jake Paul argues Conor McGregor isn’t fighting due to the UFC wanting better leverage over billion-dollar rights deal. Despite Conor McGregor...
Replies
0
Views
99
  • thread_type.tlg_group thread_type.tlg_group
Agreed they know what their getting into and they know about what yo expect pay wise also. If it's not enough move on or don't complain.
Replies
3
Views
45
  • Article Article
Fans of Prime’s smash hit series, Citadel are in for a treat as the spy universe expands with Citadel: Diana. The spin-off takes viewers forward...
Replies
0
Views
49

Latest threads

Back
Top