President Obama Puts Politics Above the Rule of Law

From aiding Egypt to Obamacare, this administration demonstrates no regard for the Constitution.

Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to comply with it. The government may not make a person or a class of persons exempt from constitutional protections, as it did during slavery, nor may it make government officials exempt from complying with the law, as it does today.

Everyone who works for the government in the United States takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it. In our system of government, we expect that Congress will write the laws, the courts will interpret them and the president will enforce them. Indeed, the Constitution states that it is the president's affirmative duty to enforce the law. That duty is not an abstract formulation. Rather, it means the president cannot decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees or whose enforcement might cause him or his political allies to lose popularity. It also means the president cannot make up his own version of the law as a substitute for what the Constitution commands or Congress has written.

In the modern era, presidents have rejected the value of the rule of law and instead followed their own political interests. President George W. Bush, for example, while signing into law a federal statute prohibiting the government from reading your mail without a search warrant, boasted that he had no intention of enforcing that law -- and we know that he famously did not enforce it.

But no modern president has picked and chosen which laws to enforce and which to ignore and which to rewrite to the extremes of President Obama. His radical rejection of the rule of law, which presents a clear and present danger to the freedom of us all, has had fatal consequences.

The law requires that if American tax dollars are being given to the government of another country, and that government is toppled by its military -- the common phrase is a coup d'etat -- the flow of cash shall stop immediately, lest we support financially those who have betrayed our values.

In Egypt, the military arrested the president, suspended the Constitution and installed a puppet regime. But Obama, embarrassed at the fall of the popularly elected but religiously fanatical government he supported, refuses to consider that military takeover a coup. Instead he has called it a popular uprising supported by the military, and he has continued the flow of your dollars into the hands of a military that has been murdering scores of peaceful demonstrators daily in the streets of Cairo.

The president's signature domestic legislation -- Obamacare -- is scheduled to become effective in stages. One of its provisions, requiring employers of more than 50 persons to offer health insurance acceptable to the feds to all of their employees, becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2014. In anticipation of its becoming law, insurance carriers and employers have calculated that instead of costs going down, as the president promised, they will certainly go up, resulting in the loss of jobs. So the president, mindful of the midterm congressional elections in November 2014 and fearful that Democrats who supported this law might suffer at the polls at the hands of deceived and thus angry voters, announced on the Fourth of July weekend that he planned not to enforce that provision until Jan. 1, 2015.

When he wanted to use military force in Libya and Pakistan -- two allies -- without congressional approval, out of fear, no doubt, that Congress might turn him down, he dispatched the CIA to do his killing. Why? Because federal law requires that he report all offensive use of the military to Congress and eventually obtain its approval for continued use. Because the CIA largely operates in secrecy, the president needn't report its behavior publicly or even acknowledge that it took place.

In the same vein, he recently moved all records of the Osama bin Laden killing from the military -- which carried it out -- to the CIA. Why? Because the military is largely susceptible to the Freedom of Information Act, which commands transparency, and the CIA is largely not. He probably fears that the truthful version of bin Laden's demise will become known. If so, it would be the fourth version of those events his administration has given.

When he wanted to kill an American and his 16-year-old son in Yemen because the American, though uncharged with any crime and unasked to come home, might be difficult to arrest while advocating war in a foreign country, he wrote his own rules for governing his own killings. He did so in secret and notwithstanding clear language in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the government from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.

And when he wanted to keep us safe from terrorists but servile to him by spying on all of us, he established an enormous network of domestic spies who have access to all of our phone calls, emails and text messages. And he did this despite unambiguous language in the Constitution requiring a search warrant based on particularized probable cause of crime about the records he wanted to seize or the venues he wanted to search.

What's going on?

What we have is a runaway government, dismissive of the Constitution it has sworn to uphold, contemptuous of the law it is required to enforce and driven by its own values of maximum control and minimum personal freedom. And we have a Congress supine enough to let this happen, as well as a judiciary so tangled in its own arcane procedures that immeasurable human freedom will be destroyed and Obama out of office before any meaningful judicial review can be had.

Is this the rule of law? What shall we do about it?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlexInCT||

    What a stupid question.. Of course Black Jesus and his cronies are above the law! DUH!

    Stupid peasants & serfs asking stupid questions. That's precisely why these poor people in charge have to break the alw so much. Sheesh..

  • Ted S.||

    I wish I could get away with breaking the alw.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I broke my awl. Does that count?

  • Rhywun||

    I broke my Wookie.

  • JWatts||

    I am the alw!

  • Generic Stranger||

    So long as the Senate is unwilling to impeach him, he can do whatever the hell he wants. And at this point he could be caught in bed with a dead hooker AND a live boy and probably be given a pass.

  • Ted S.||

    [pedantic bastardy]

    The House impeaches; the Senate votes on whether ot acquit or convict.

    [/pedantic bastardy]

  • mnarayan||

    You could have left out the pedantic part – we can see your username. Come to think of it, you could have left out the bastardy part as well.

  • SlowburnAZ||

    Actually, wouldn't that be "pedantic bastardry"?

    Eh? See what I did there? Eh?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Obama's political Sensei said it, so it must be true.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    And the Supreme Court says the same thing.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Judge Napolitano Asks, Is Barack Obama Above the Law?

    Was Judge Dredd above the law?

    Seriously, was he? I forget the plot of that movie.

  • Floridian||

    He was the law, so no.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, but Kapitänleutnant Henrich Lehmann-Willenbrock was.

  • dinkster||

    Today's society (police) makes Judge Dredd look like fucking Dudley Do-Right.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    President George W. Bush, for example, while signing into law a federal statute prohibiting the government from reading your mail without a search warrant, boasted that he had no intention of enforcing that law -- and we know that he famously did not enforce it.

    Not fair to bring up Bush here, Judge.

  • Floridian||

    Why not? If I am reading the quote correctly GWB put himself above the law same as the president. The article is about our rulers no longer being subject to the law of the land. Seems appropriate to cite other violations to make your case.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because the Peanut Gallery here contains many conservatives and to them Bush is a demi-god and the many atrocities of 2001-09 never actually happened.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Do you also dream of building strawmen at night?

  • Doctor Whom||

    Don't progs ever get tired of lying about libertarians?

  • Inigo M.||

    Apparently not. It's really not that difficult to see the sharp differences between libertarians and conservatives. Maybe most progs are just too dumb to grasp the obvious.

  • wwhorton||

    Nope. There's progs who toe the company line, and there's everyone else, i.e. the benighted enemy.

  • some guy||

    Please name five regulars here who see Bush as a "demi-god".

    (Of course we both know you can't because you're full of it.)

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    John, Sevo, Red Rocks, Suthenboy - all conservatives who are in no way libertarian at all.

  • Jordan||

    Produce quotes. You're full of shit.

  • Jordan||

    And John admits to being convervative, but he's still a hell of a lot more libertarian than you who incessantly defends the latest central planning effort/police state manifestation from TEAM BLUE.

  • ||

    Demonstrably false, you collectivist little piece of shit.

  • free2booze||

    That's only four

  • Doctor Whom||

    Math is a Europhallologocentric, heteroplutopatriarchal construct.

  • some guy||

    First... that's only four. I don't think it qualifies as "many". Obviously the definition of "many" is subjective, though, so I'll let it slide.

    Second, none of those people have been uncritical of Bush. They are more sympathetic to him than your average Reasonoid, but your average Reasonoid hates Bush with a passion, so that's not hard to pull off.

  • Sevo||

    "They are more sympathetic to him than your average Reasonoid,"

    Dunno about "they", but I've never supported Bush at all, other than being preferable to Obozo.
    And I'll be happy to eat some crow if you find otherwise.

  • some guy||

    Sorry for the libel Sevo. I was thinking primarily of John when I wrote that.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 7.11.13 @ 9:04AM |#
    "John, Sevo, Red Rocks, Suthenboy - all conservatives who are in no way libertarian at all."

    Cites, you slimy turd.

  • ||

    to them Bush is a demi-god

    Well I've never sacrificed a chicken to him

  • sloopyinca||

    PB, you're so fucking full of shit as usual. Bush is vilified around here. Not as much as your hero, the Black Jesus, but that's because Bush is no longer in office.

    You know what, never mind. Just go fuck yourself, you disingenuous twat-hole.

  • dinkster||

    Because the Peanut Gallery here contains many conservatives

    Where the fuck do you get this from?

  • ||

    Many conservatives? Here? Wow. Jesus, I've been here, what, a year and I think this assertion is flat out wrong.

  • ||

    Actually, longer than a year. More like eight. One year as a commenter.

  • JWatts||

    "Why not?"

    Because PB likes to pretend that the Libertarian's here are applying a double standard and that justifies him hand waving away any criticism of Obama as partisan rhetoric.

  • Jordan||

    No, it's perfectly fine since the Judge didn't bring up Bush in a pathetic attempt to deflect criticism from your Messiah, as you always do. Fucking logic, how does it work?

    There's also 8 years of archives for you to peruse, moron.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is bullshit and you know it.

    You guys try to gin up fake controversies out of Benghazi or the IRS and then dismiss real ones like Plame or the firing of US Attorneys for prosecuting Republicans.

    Double standard to cover for the GOP. Even the NSA is a double standard as has been pointed out by Reason articles.

  • some guy||

    Double standard to cover for the GOP. Even the NSA is a double standard as has been pointed out by Reason articles.

    I think you are confusing this forum with some other forum you troll. Show me where "we guys" dismissed the two "real controversies" that you mention. We, and Reason, were anti-Bush before it was cool.

  • wareagle||

    are you serious? Richard Armitage's naming of Plame, who was no James Bond anyway, compares in some meaningful way to doing nothing while an Ambassador and three others are killed or using the IRS as a cudgel against political opponents? Even for you, that is retarded.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Benghazi "stand down" order is pure fiction concocted by rat-fuckers.

    Cheney leaked the Plame identity first and Scooter Libby covered it up. And she was a covert WMD Iran expert.

  • wareagle||

    you are a fucking liar. Armitage leaked it and everyone knows it. Stop lying.

  • Wesley Mouch||

    What difference does it make?

  • Wesley Mouch||

    What difference does it make?

  • ||

    Are you saying the Benghazi and the IRS are not real controversies? You think it is OK for the IRS to have one standard for "progressive" groups and another for ones that are not Keynsian?

  • sloopyinca||

    Yes. Yes he does.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What the IRS did was wrong but it was entirely unconnected to the White House.

  • wareagle||

    right...."rogue" agents unilaterally decided to screw with groups who, coincidentally, are not fans of Obama. Total coincidence.

  • ||

    Palin, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States' federal government?

    Obama is either responsible or incompetent. Pick one.

  • crashland||

    Look all the president did was point out who the enemies were and his loyal minions knew exactly what was needed. How many other presidents have called a large portion of the American people their enemy? The IRS was following their orders to "get in their faces."

    It doesn't matter whether Barry gave explicit instructions to harass his enemies to the IRS. His public comments communicated his desires quite clearly.

  • ||

    "Will no one rid me of these meddlesome Tea Partiers?"

  • wwhorton||

    "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Sometimes the orders that aren't given are the important ones.

  • wwhorton||

    Damn! SRC beat me by four minutes!

  • sloopyinca||

    What is Lerner asking for amnesty from prosecution for then?

  • RBS||

    Yes, being a pure libertarian means using the force of government to strike down your opponents.

  • Matrix||

    Shorter PB: If it affects Team Blue in a negative way, it is a nontroversy being drummed up only because of politics. If it affects Team Red in a negative way, it is travesty, and we must use every resource to get to the bottom of it!

  • crashland||

    Tell Chris Stevens that Benghazi is a fake controversy. Oh, you can, because he's dead. The IRS admitted to their abuse and Lerner hid behind the 5th to avoid testifying. If it was a fake controversy what's the bitch afraid of?? Being placed into a fake jail for a fake crime?

    Oh, yeah, fuck off.

  • sloopyinca||

    The IRS scandal ain't done yet. They're still working with Lerner, who said she'll tell the full story if she's granted amnesty from prosecution.

    If Issa's smart, or if he just wants to get at the truth and end the abuse, he'll grant it to her and put the hearings out live for the world to see what a scandal looks like in the 24-7 news era. It'll make Watergate look like House Party II.

  • Rich||

    If Issa's smart, or if he just wants to get at the truth and end the abuse, he'll grant it to her and put the hearings out live

    That'd be great.

    However, I can easily see Lerner -- having been granted amnesty -- saying "There's no 'there" there. Nyah-nyah!"

  • ||

    "However, I can easily see Lerner -- having been granted amnesty -- saying "There's no 'there" there. Nyah-nyah!""

    If I had to guess, that is exactly what she would do. This is why no amnesty should be granted.

  • grey||

    I think the term is immunity. And I think the other term is liar. And the other term is bitch. Rather see her in jail, but immunity may be the only way to blow the lid off before I die of old age.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You guys try to gin up fake controversies out of Benghazi or the IRS and then dismiss real ones like Plame

    HHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAA

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 7.11.13 @ 8:29AM |#
    "You guys try to gin up fake controversies out of Benghazi or the IRS"

    Yeah, the IRS targeting is just a so-called scandal, right, you slimy turd.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Father Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These
    [he points to some plastic cows on the table]
    Father Ted: are very small; those
    [pointing at some cows out of the window]
    Father Ted: are far away...

  • country bumpkin||

    the myth of the rule of law: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj.....ythWeb.htm

    found this on this website and it was very interesting

  • Bob Straub||

    I haven't read the whole article yet, but I took the quiz. I think the author expects that many people will answer "yes" to at least one of the questions. I can answer "no" to all, but the first one gave me some pause. But the Constitution already defines treason and how to charge, try and punish offenders. Congress may not pass a law against treasonous speech, but the consequences are punishable nonetheless. So I can answer "no" to that one, too.

  • country bumpkin||

    Yeah I felt the same way with the quiz, but the article became really interesting after that. Did you ever get around to finishing it? It's pretty long but worth it.

  • BakedPenguin||

  • From the Tundra||

    Not obligatory - just horrifying:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094602/

  • mad libertarian guy||

    As long as Congress won't impeach him and the media continues to carry his water he's above the law. It's sick and abhorrently wrong, but it is what it is. We either need to get used to the executive doing as he pleases regardless of established law, or we need to vote for those who will hold the executive accountable. If anything, the willingness to hold the executive accountable may be the absolute best argument in favor of divided government (to the extent that Congress is ever compelled to impeach the executive).

  • Floridian||

    I was thinking about how to keep a new government free and I came to the conclusion you cannot have a voting population. I think you would need a constitution that is very limited and focused. It would basically set guiding principles and not be open to amendment. Open borders. You vote with your feet. Welcome to the port here is a pocket guide of the law enjoy your stay. Don't like the lack of social programs? Port is that way.

  • some guy||

    Any law is open to amendment if enough people want it to be. That's what happened to our law. It was overcome by democracy.

  • Floridian||

    Do you mean that even without voting people would reform the government? I was thinking you could have many groups in one country and as long as they did not violate the constitution they would be legal. I see no reason a commune couldn't exist peacefully with a high priced members only club in the same country. Everyone get the associations they want. Why revolt?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do you mean that even without voting people would reform the government?

    Yes,

    The problem with your premise is the idea that the voting public is the problem. It's not. The problem is the governing elite that always is disconnected from the public to some extent and recently has become even more disconnected.

    Recently, Gun Control and Immigration 'Reform' have been pushed by the political elite, despite zero interest from the public at large and it's only public invovlement and fear of elections that are stopping both.

    Likewise, Obamacare, TARP, QE and any number of other recent policies have not been pushed by the public and in fact were unsuccessfully stopped despite substantial efforts by the public to stop them.

  • Floridian||

    The government I have in mind is extremely limited. I imagine the constitution as a written guiding principle that people agree to. There is no ruling class. No ambassador, no president, no legislator. The constitution would list people's negative rights. The courts would be funded through usage fees. Contracts between parties would agree to which court they would use for arbitration. Alleged victims choose the court for trial. Judges would be paid by the fees and thus could be impartial. They work for justice and not the state. If a court is viewed as providing poor judgements people stop using that court. Police force is private. Militia is a voluntary defense force armed with personal weapons. Social ills are treated with private charity. Free trade with all countries. It is up to the individual business if they want to do business with a country with high tariffs.

  • some guy||

    I understand the type of government you want and I'm all for it. But society can't support that type of government right now. Too many people depend too heavily on using government to steal from others. Given the population we have you couldn't institute that kind of government. And if you managed to institute it somewhere else, but kept the borders open, then your prosperity would quickly destroy you as it steadily attracts the wrong people.

  • free2booze||

    I agree. You couldn't do it with the country looking like it does today. That type of system seems like it really needs to be community based, which is tough to do in a country of 300M people, and touches two oceans. It would probably need to be done incrementally, first by weakening the power of the federal government, ultimately returning it to what it was under the Articles of Confederation. Eventually, power could be returned to the states, and then shifted to even smaller sized entities.

    I think Democracy can be more effective on a small scale, because one voice carries more weight. Also, it would be a lot easier to organize enough like minded people to establish their own community, than it would be to transform a nation of 300M people.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I think that's where limited voting ability would help. Let the wrong people starve in the street for a couple of years and they'll stop coming.

  • Wesley Mouch||

    How about we eliminate all warning labels? That would take care of a large segment of the stupid and illiterate.

  • Tony||

    You can't wish away a ruling class. Take away all social institutions and one would emerge anyway. Among about a million other problems with this fairy tale land.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.11.13 @ 10:34AM |#
    "You can't wish away a ruling class. Take away all social institutions and one would emerge anyway"

    Shithead, it would be nice to have one that didn't constantly display your level of mendacity.

  • Harvard||

    [You can't wish away a ruling class.]

    Well understood by the inventor of the guillotine and why tickets for a Pelosi/Reid/Obama bout with the blade would be pricey.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    God help me.

    I actually agree with Tony here.

    Ruling classes will always exist in one form or another. Also, the Articles of Confederation did not include a Bill of Rights nor limit State power.

    The solution should be greater restrictions on what the government can do and to limit the size of government.

  • free2booze||

    you cannot have a voting population.

    You might be on to something. Democracy is over-fucking-rated. I'm struggling to think of a Democracy anywhere in the world that is not on the fast track to Socialism (if it's not there already). Our system of Federalism may have slowed that down, but once that was shredded to shit, it's all been down hill.

    Maybe allowing citizen's groups the ability to sue the individual branches of government when they go out of bounds of the Constitution would help, but I'm sure I haven't thought that one out well enough.

    Anyhow, in modern society, the word Democracy is code for Socialism and mob rule.

  • Floridian||

    I think the only way to keep dirty hands off the levers of power is that have no levers of power. I vote no on every law proposed. Why? Because everything that should be illegal already is illegal. If you start a new country outlawing things that should be illegal why do you need a legislature. If police are selected by the communities no need for an executive. If you have free trade and are non-interventionist no need for an executive. Courts are paired by usage fees. Militia instead of a standing army. Private schools. Private roads. Private fireman. Independent insurers. The constitution is the social contract signed by entering the country.

  • some guy||

    The problem is that democracy destroys the rule of law. The laws that you propose only work if a majority of the citizens like them. Once the majority flips the other way, they will be replaced. Even if you don't initially have formal elections, a majority of people can institute them at any time and if you have open borders you will eventually have a majority of people who want democratic socialism.

  • Floridian||

    I will grant you may be correct because it has never been tried, but man would I like to see it happen. I think the wrong types would not stay long. The police only job is protection of people's lives and property. Hard to steal or kill. The only safety net is private charity and they would only tolerate a bum for so long. Even people who became drug addicts would find that they would have to do work to get their fix and would go back to a socialist country.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That's not really clear to me. The bulk of human history didn't have democracy in any meaningful sense. Hong Kong under British rule kind of came about as close as we've seen in modern history to such a situation. And I don't really think too many citizens were clamoring for the vote.

  • Tony||

    The alternative being what? Who gets to be our leader?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Hahaha!! Tony, if I wanted to write a succinct summary of your ideology, I couldn't have done it better myself. You really can't get beyond the tribal mentality of the boss telling you what to do. Even if that boss is 50%+1.

  • Tony||

    Explain how there will be no boss. What if someone really wants to be?

    In a 50%+1 situation, all you have to do is convince a couple people to change their minds, then you get your way.

    Any other system is tyranny, seems to me. I've asked this question about a thousand times, and nobody's ever answered it. What takes the place of democracy?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.11.13 @ 3:44PM |#
    "Any other system is tyranny, seems to me"

    That's only because you're an ignoramus.
    There is a form of government called a Constitutional Republic.
    We're the first to give it a try, unfortunately, it needs stronger limits. Maybe the next try will do better and keep shitheads like you and Obozo from ever getting close to power.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So it's not tyranny as long as a majority votes for it? Is that truly your argument?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • mgd||

    Judas Priest - Tyrant

    Sorry, the only live version I could find had pretty terrible sound.

  • Rich||

    What shall we do about it?

    Million Pitchfork March

  • ||

    Million Drone Flyover?

  • some guy||

    You don't need a million drones to take out a million men with pitchforks. Just look at Pakistan.

  • Rich||

    Even *this* administration would not do that.

    Right?

  • sloopyinca||

    What shall we do about it?

    We've gone almost 12 years without doing a fucking thing about all the extra-judicial security-state bullshit. Why break our streak?

  • crashland||

    Until things are so bad that many people decide that they are willing to kill and die to change them... Nothing will change except for tyranny to continue to increase and freedom to atrophy.

  • sarcasmic||

    And then even when people are willing to kill and die to change things, the old tyranny will be replaced with a new tyranny.
    Meet the new boss...

  • crashland||

    That's why TJ expected the tree of liberty to need tending every couple of decades... Tyrants must be violently purged, the fear of being purged like the feces they are is the only check on their tyranny. No fear, no check.

    At this point we're serfs essentially owned by the U.S. Federal government. We can be summarily killed. We are monitored lest we start to get all uppity and even if we move out of the country we still must render payment to our lords.

    Our lords are the law and nobody even is allowed standing to challenge their disregard of the law in court. Voting for the least tyrannical of choices is the only legal option available to us and that isn't much of an option. We get to choose a blue tyrant or a red tyrant, my aren't we free.

  • sarcasmic||

    The conundrum is that for government to govern, it must be the last word in violence. But to keep it from becoming tyrannical, society must have the last word in violence. How do you solve this?

  • crashland||

    I wonder why those damn wig wearing slaveholders were so against a standing army...

    How about we put a law into place that legalizes tyrannicide? Killing a tyrant should be treated just like any other justifiable homicide. To assert the defense of tyrannicide you simply have to prove to a jury that the person killed was indeed a tyrant.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Under the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", the State would have to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that the victim was not a tyrant.

  • prolefeed||

    Refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any person or group claiming the right to have a monopoly on violence in a given territory solves sarcasmic's "conundrum".

    Stopping those persons and groups who want to run roughshod over your refusal to accept their legitimacy to inflict violence upon innocents is the problem.

  • sarcasmic||

    Refusing to acknowledge their legitimacy won't stop them from beating you to death in front of your children.

  • Floridian||

    Crashland, the problem is that the enemies of freedom are working incrementally and under different banners. If there was a group called the anti-liberty party it would be easy to go after them. As it is, if you decide to make a stand how would you rally people? Who would you target? Their is no clear target? Our enemies are ubiquitous and insidious.

  • crashland||

    Both major parties are anti-liberty. Unless you are vehemently pro-liberty your are anti-liberty.

    We really have no possible legal means to address the situation. Voting is meaningless when the choices are simply different flavors of the same shit. The courts simply deny standing. We live in a prison, a nice prison with big flat screens, cars and pretend freedom, but still a prison.

  • Floridian||

    But to have an armed insurrection you have to have a target. If I snapped tomorrow I have no idea who I would target in the name of freedom. A local police officer? He may be one of the good ones and a great guy who helps stranded motorists. My local tax collector? He was elected and is just doing his job. The president? Nearly impossible and only would make him a maryter if successful and make libertarians the next Nazis in this country.

  • crashland||

    The president? Yes. Hard to do, you bet. Potentially nasty consequences, sure. If only somebody could pull it off and not be a total loon and survive until trial. Somebody able to eloquently state objectively why they considered him to be willfully ignoring the constitution and exactly why tyrannicide was the only available option to remedy the situation... Now that would make for some damn compelling court tv. This would certainly never happen, but it would make for a fun movie.

    Note to the Secret Service, NSA or any other governmental authority, I do no personally advocate the assassination of our duly elected president. I do not seek to influence anybody into taking such action.

  • Floridian||

    Maybe. I think you would get a media blackout of the trial if you weren't crazy. Then you would be railroad in the press by leaked details. Also killing the president would just put the next tyrant in. I think an island country is the only hope for freedom. Until it gets invaded by a larger country anyways.

  • crashland||

    Freedom is dead until humans take to the stars. In the olden days you could pack up your stuff and go west, sure there was danger, but you could clear your land and live your life as you chose. We've got nowhere to go.

  • Tony||

    It's so cute when libertarians jerk each other off.

    Hate to deflate your boners, but under no circumstance will killing the POTUS turn you into a hero, not now, and not for 1,000 years.

  • Harvard||

    A case could be made for self defense I'm thinking.

  • wwhorton||

    You're a bit of an asshole, but you're right. The surest way in American politics for a president to get a surge in public approval is to be shot. Look what it did for that incompetent son of a bootlegger Kennedy? Christ, his whole Sperry Topsider-wearing family rode those bullets to DC and never looked back.

  • wwhorton||

    That first line was for Tony. This reply indentation system is not optimal...

  • Inigo M.||

    But there IS a group called the anti-liberty party, it's divided into team red and team blue, but they are both bent on the same anti-liberty goal. They just approach it from opposite sides, some of the time.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Of course the same Republicans who are outraged over the administration's decision to not enforce the business mandate, seem very happy that the Obama is continuing to send money to Egypt in violation of the law that says no aid to countries where the military overthrows an elected leader.

  • OldMexican||

    You catch on quick.

  • prolefeed||

    Rather, it means the president cannot decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees

    The president has a duty to decline to enforce laws that violate the Constitution -- which, lately, is almost all of them.

    On the rare occasion that a law is constitutional and unpopular with the sitting president's ideology, then he or she can't decline to enforce it.

  • db||

    Troll-free Thursday, indeed.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "From aiding Egypt to Obamacare, this administration demonstrates no regard for the Constitution."

    "From aiding Egypt to Obamacare, this administration consists of Liberal democrats, always prepared to do in a New York Minute ANYTHING that they have criticized any Republican for doing.".

  • GLK||

    "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
    --Michael Palin

  • Eric Bana||

    Just read this from Quinnipiac: "Voters say 50 - 44 percent that Obama is honest and trustworthy; 52 - 46 percent that he has strong leadership qualities and 52 - 45 percent that he cares about their needs."

    That's right folks. That's the reality.

  • triclops||

    It is against human nature for anyone who seeks the presidency to resist expanding the boundaries of his/her power through willpower or conscience. Presidents and other such leaders are always held in check by societal approval, or competing sources of power within the government.
    The rule of law is a fig leaf like the value of paper money, it is a convenient fiction that works only when almost everyone takes it seriously.
    Our citizens and competing governmental institutions do not take their duty to check the president seriously regarding all those things libertarians care about. This has been true, in differing amounts, the whole time. That is why, no matter who gets elected, they expand executive power in ways which have only the silliest legal pretense. But the Tonys and PB of the world, on the right or left here in the US,only selectively "care" about checking executive power when the wrong team is in charge. What it really shows is that partisans don't ever actually care about checking executive power per se, they just want to thwart the opposing team.

    Tony really thinks democracy should be voting for a guy who appears to have the values you want him to, then let him do whatever the fuck he wants.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Is this the rule of law? What shall we do about it?"

    Raise taxes, distract everybody from the real issues by bitching about rich people, implement several new wasteful government departments whose sole job it is to fondle the genitalia of every citizen they walk up to, and then denounce anyone who criticizes these policies as a poor-hating racist War-on-Womener.

    Problem solved.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I think you just gave Tony a dopamine overdose.

  • timbo||

    Show should never have been cancelled. The only to the point and simply factual person on television.

    If we simply had a potus who obeyed the constitution and did nothing else, we could have some stability at least.

    Even scumbag politicians used to obey some certain rules. BO is no doubt raising his juice goblet nightly pouring just a little out to carl marx while laughing his ass off. If Washington himself were elected next week, it would take 20 years to fix all of this crap.

  • Federale||

    LOL, you did not even mention the ongoing Administrative Amnesty for illegal aliens. That is because you support that unconstitutional action.

  • ||

    Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 of the US Code make it a federal crime for anyone (usually but not always a public official) to use their official authority under color of law to violate someone's constitutional, civil or statutory rights.

    Section 242 covers individuals acting alone, 241 is conspiracy to violate rights. If a death occurs as a result of the violation of rights, the maximum punishment attached to these statutes is life without possibility of parole or execution.

    Under these statutes, Obama has LESS authority to carry out an extra-judicial execution than a private citizen does. If a private citizen were to assassinate a fellow citizen in a foreign country, first degree murder charges would be the least of his worries.

    A President who commits a high crime is supposed to be impeached. Two capital crimes for each assassination he orders are high crimes by any standard. And under 241, anyone who carried out Obama's illegal order is also guilty of a crime punishable by life without parole or execution.

    For military personnel, obeying an illegal order is, in itself, a court martial offense, over and above the actual crime(s) they were ordered to commit.

  • Anvil||

    This only serves as more reason to impeach Obama and the majority of the Senate and Congress.

  • madilynbrady6||

    like Valerie said I'm surprised that a mom can earn $6978 in four weeks on the computer. did you look at this web site Go to site and open Home for details
    http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement