Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow

[Ares]

Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government

During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.

On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”


“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Watch the video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etERtCH8RHM

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etERtCH8RHM

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/expert-testifies-to-congress-that-obamas-ignoring-laws-could-lead-to-overthrow-of-government/

[palani]

Too late. On or about June 20th, 1948 Harry S Truman signed a bill into PUBLIC law while congress was on a major recess. This is not permitted by the constitution. The act he signed formed federal districts by name over each of the several states. There have been two instances prior to this where the supreme court looked at this same issue. One was La Abra Silver Mining Co vs United States http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/175/423/ and was settled in the presidents favor because the congressional break was not of long duration. The second case the supreme court looked at involved private law rather than public law and their decision is not applicable to a public law case. Where private law is concerned the private individual it affects is the only one who might complain.

[Ares]

Too late. On or about June 20th, 1948 Harry S Truman signed a bill into PUBLIC law while congress was on a major recess. This is not permitted by the constitution. The act he signed formed federal districts by name over each of the several states. There have been two instances prior to this where the supreme court looked at this same issue. One was La Abra Silver Mining Co vs United States http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/175/423/ and was settled in the presidents favor because the congressional break was not of long duration. The second case the supreme court looked at involved private law rather than public law and their decision is not applicable to a public law case. Where private law is concerned the private individual it affects is the only one who might complain.

I doubt if people get in their heads to overthrow a government via violent means, I don't think they'll care what law is in place.

[madfranks]

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Riiiiight. Because if one bureaucrat (the president) imposes obligations on the people, it's morally wrong, but if a handful of bureaucrats (the legislature) imposes obligations on the people, it's morally sound? Give me a break! Nobody has the right, no matter what "office" they hold, to order around other human beings.

[Cebu_4_2]

Riiiiight. Because if one bureaucrat (the president) imposes obligations on the people, it's morally wrong, but if a handful of bureaucrats (the legislature) imposes obligations on the people, it's morally sound? Give me a break! Nobody has the right, no matter what "office" they hold, to order around other human beings.

No it's because Palini said so.

[7th trump]

I don't know...is the president ignoring laws?
The healthcare act isn't really mandatory.........you have to sign up for it........meaning its voluntary to begin with.
Unless of course you think being fined for not having insurance is violating the Constitution.
Even the way the fine is collected for not having insurance(doesn't specifically say obamacare insurance) is voluntary.......they said the IRS will collect the fine by deducting it from your refund....that is if you have a refund.
So far nothing is mandatory...the constitution isn't being violated.
Remember the issue about obamacare being constitutional surrounded the "fine" for not having insurance and that fine was deemed just a tax.

Before you go cutting my head off....revisit what the controversy was about..........the fine!.......not the health insurance act itself because that requires you to sign up for it....that's voluntary, not compelling.
You can have your own insurance and not what the government offers.
I don't know about you guys, but that thread about the O-care website you guys were talking about. You were talking about how you wouldn't touch that site because you lose rights if you sign up.
These capital hill guys are slick, so pay attention to the details and out think them....they always hide things right out in the open.

Just know the difference here. Obamacare isn't mandatory, you don't have to sign up for it if you already have insurance that qualifies.
No, I don't like it, but keep your eye on the ball and don't wonder away from understanding that o-care is not compelling.

O-care is not breaking the law.

[Cebu_4_2]

So I dont have insurance, I am breaking the law then? Insurance is organized crime.

[palani]

I doubt if people get in their heads to overthrow a government via violent means, I don't think they'll care what law is in place.
Who said anything about 'violent means'? You do get to decide whether it is your government or not and if it is not your government you ignore their edicts to their minions. My post was just an illustration that there are other instances of the executive branch ignoring the conditions imposed upon it. 'Bamacare is just a minor blip ... executive ignoring legislative while in Truman's case the event was the executive ignoring the constitution.

[palani]

it's because Palini said so.
I think thou wast created for men to breath themselves upon thee.

[SWRichmond]

“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

I think at this point we must conclude that the government does not care about being constrained by law. I think it is hopeful and irrational to believe otherwise. Even if one believes the government DOES care about law, then one must admit that government will change the law at its whim and to suit itself, and that government will selectively enforce laws to suit itself and at its whim. One cannot, either, escape the conclusion that in order to seek redress under the government's law, one must navigate the government's court system.

So it also becomes blatantly obvious that any theory or practice that involves either simple or complex legal arguments can, should it become more than a minor annoyance to the government, be swept aside in the blink of an eye by the government. So I conclude that any effort one might place into pursuing these courses of action in court are little more than a diversion of effort. A few individuals claim (and claim ONLY) to have achieved greatness using them, but no real change can come of them. They are built on feet of clay: the notion that one can achieve justice through truth in the legal system, and that that truth will always be respected by the governing power.

Anyone who has studied history knows what a fallacy that is. Some of you guys are like some kind of bad joke.

[Libertytree]

Congressman: Did he say overthrow the government? I move we set up a committee for the procurement of 1 billion more rounds of suitable ammunition to protect this great nation from the heathens that would think such blasphemy or try such dastardly deeds. We'll also need to hire 10,000 more security personel to protect the astute members of this body that are courageously serving the homeland.

[iOWNme]

Riiiiight. Because if one bureaucrat (the president) imposes obligations on the people, it's morally wrong, but if a handful of bureaucrats (the legislature) imposes obligations on the people, it's morally sound? Give me a break! Nobody has the right, no matter what "office" they hold, to order around other human beings.


Which is why there is no such thing as 'Government', never has been and never can be. The reason your statement stands true is because of two things: Each individual OWNS THEMSELVES, and a man cannot delegate a Right he does not have to anohter.


Applying morals universally is a terrorist action. Are you a 'terrosrist'?

I AM!

[iOWNme]

think at this point we must conclude that the government does not care about being constrained by law.

Ummm......The BELIEF in 'Government' has killed close to 300 MILLION innocent people. ALL of those murders were carried out under the 'Law'. DEMOCIDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide). So to say they are not 'constrained' by 'Law' seems a bit misleading.

The biggest mistake people can make is to IMAGINE that a VIOLENT GANG OF CRIMINALS is going to 'follow the Law'. It is absolutely absurd, yet people continue to BELIEVE in something that is patently false and ridiculous: The RELIGION of 'GOVERNMENT'. Because it is ALL based on faith, and not any type of logic, rationality or reason.