One Nation Under Socialism

“One Nation Under Socialism”, by John McNaughton

A post by Maynard

There’s been much discussion of Obama’s recent announcement that the Obamacare mandate on large employers to purchase health care has been pushed back a year.

At this point, the prominent Republican response is a request to suspend the mandate in its entirety, rather than just for targeted business interests. (Imagine how the Democrats would scream if a Republican president declared a suspension of legally-mandated employee benefits for the sake of big corporations.)

On the surface, the Republican response appears reasonable. It sounds odd for the president to selectively suspend the mandate. Isn’t it unfair to spare some but not all? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh?

What’s wrong with the foregoing reasoned response? There is a catastrophic flaw in the legal foundation of the Republican answer, that’s what’s wrong!

In announcing a delay on the employer mandate, Obama has singlehandedly set aside the Constitution and declared himself America’s sole lawgiver. If he gets away with this, we might as well pack up and go home, because the Constitution and the American heritage of rule of law will have gone extinct.

Am I overreacting? Making a mountain out of a molehill? Shall I take a Xanax and shrug? Read on and decide.

Most people don’t comprehend the forces in play here. These dynamics are explained in this WSJ editorial, Obama Suspends the Law.

President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

You see the problem now? A world in which a president can simply suspend the law is a world in which there is no law. There is only a president, and the law becomes whatever the president declares it to be.

If our political players were sane and decent, we would have seen both Democrats and Republicans immediately screaming protests against Obama’s move. Democrats should realize that if Obama can do this, then the next Republican president can likewise unilaterally declare Obamacare suspended in its entirety. On what possible basis could they object? And it would be great if the next president would declare Obamacare suspended, except — do we really want to be living in a country with one-man rule? This is not the way America is supposed to work.

Obama has hijacked the Federal government, and not for the first time, but this may be the most barefaced, inexcusable act of corruption we’ve seen so far.

So what could stop Obama? The courts? In a sane country, judges would quickly put a stop to this criminality. But how could the case come before the courts? That’s where Obama, like all clever lawbreakers, throws up technical roadblocks. The WSJ notes:

The courts cannot be counted on to intervene in cases like this. As the Supreme Court recently held in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the same-sex marriage case involving California’s Proposition 8, private citizens do not have standing in court to challenge the executive’s refusal to enforce laws, unless they have a personal stake in the matter. If a president declines to enforce tax laws, immigration laws, or restrictions on spending—to name a few plausible examples—it is very likely that no one will have standing to sue.

So an executive act can be blatantly criminal, but it goes unchallenged because the legal system refuses to acknowledge that anyone has authority to complain. That’s the law for you.

As an aside, it’s harder (not impossible, but harder) to imagine a Republican president ignoring the rule of law as blatantly as Democrats do. Partly this is a matter of political philosophy, and partly it’s because there is less slack for Republicans. The nation’s watchdogs are looking to pounce if a Republican fails to cross a “t” or dot an “i”, while they make excuses for Democrat criminality. Thus a major story such as this is a tiny blip on the political radar. The man on the street hears the buzz of reasonable debate in search of reasonable compromise, and does not realize that his American heritage has been stolen.

Back to today’s news:

House Speaker John Boehner and other top GOP leaders this week urged the administration to delay the individual mandate as well. Separately, lawmakers are planning for a possible vote on the issue.

So Boehner is implicitly validating the legitimacy of the Obama dictatorship, and is merely begging that it be softened. Maybe he’ll try to schedule a vote on the matter. As if voting, or Congress, still mattered.

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
14 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Kitten says:

    Pretty sobering, Maynard. But come on now, isn’t the Constitution just some old document? We’re an evolving people and we’ve “progressed” beyond those old truths. Besides, the Constitution doesn’t mean a thing to the Smooth Criminal from Chi-town. Without an official pronouncement, OBummer has made himself King. All he has to do is speak it, and it’s so. Look, the GOP in the House are scurrying around trying to figure out how to best do his bidding without looking like the failures they are. As you stated, they should be screaming over this.

    It seems everyday we are beset with more and more face-palm, head-shaking, I can’t believe this is happening in America news. Nevertheless, where there is hope, there is life. I still have hope.

  2. Alain41 says:

    To repeat myself, liberals used to be against horrible illegal actions like this, but now illiberals are only against it if Republicans do it. Anyway, you’re right Maynard that the Republicans reaction is all wrong. Obama’s action shreds the constitution and makes Congress meaningless. The correct Republican response to this is an impeachment proceeding. Up to now, I’ve been against calls for impeachment, but this does call for it.

    Also to me, this reinforces why 2,000 page laws that are not read before they are voted on is so wrong. It’s not just that we get a bad law, but it encourages more lawlessness. How can a politician truly complain that what is happening is not what they voted for, when he/she didn’t know what they were voting for. The President’s response to a Congressman saying, you’re not faithfully executing the law, can be, you had no idea what you were passing so what does it matter now.

  3. kwilder says:

    Great piece, Maynard… as usual.

    I think the ‘powers-that-be’ in the federal government has done such a good job at creating such CHAOS that it’s getting impossible to stay on top of all the corruption and usurpation of the Constitution that is taking place. This thing just seemed to slip through the cracks because of so much chaos going on all around us. It’s become extremely difficult just to keep up with all the shenanigans going on.

    The only solution to this problem is to send as many small-government conservatives to Washington that we can. Only then will we get representative leadership in Washington that understand the core issue (big government run amok) and begin the process of reducing the size, scope, spend, and impact that the federal government is having on our daily lives.

  4. Pat_S says:

    Historically, the American people put their lives on the line to establish and keep government of the people, by the people and for the people. Now it is slipping away into government over the people.

    Executive orders, 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, secret courts, administrative agency regulations, these are forces shifting the balance of power, slightly or greatly, on a daily basis. Now the president acts like a ruler and gets away with it. The people have elections every two, four and six years during which time the politicians lie to us and insist they are not what we’ve seen them to be. We reelect them.

    So maybe it isn’t so much the government is taking over the people. The people are handing everything over to the government.

    We on the political right encourage ourselves with polling that indicates the people are naturally conservative. Still, on a political level, conservatism comes off on the losing end too often. The message of a restrained government is conflated with moralistic social issues and a stoic economic message that comes across as defending employers over workers, too adoring of the rich and scolding people for their laziness.

    If conservatives can’t figure out how to present a winning political argument for a restrained government, the steady erosion of power from the people to the government will become a landslide.

    It isn’t enough to be on the right side. It has to become the winning side.

  5. Shifra says:

    Excellent post, Maynard. I don’t know how much more we can take of this Pseudo-POTUS.

    But, the country somehow survived the progressive tyranny of FDR. So maybe there is hope, after all…. just not feeling it right now 🙁

    • Maynard says:

      No, I do not feel optimistic either. But as much as I’d like to (and sometimes need to) feel good about the thing, that’s not really the point. Nobody lives forever; our days are numbered, whatever we do. At the end of the day, I want to have done what I could, and to have testified to the truth and stood with the righteous crowd. I hope good may come of what we do, but there’s no guarantee there.

      I’m peeking at this Wikipedia article, “Lives of Prophets”. Plenty of them died the difficult deaths of martyrs. Likewise for most of the Christian Apostles. So if we go down fighting the good fight, we’re in good company (I say this with a degree of anxiety; it may be that martyrdom isn’t quite as much fun as it looks from a distance).

      On the other hand, Elijah was picked up by a fiery chariot and thus spared death; it’s said his work here is not done and we have not seen the last of him.

      It’s also worth remembering that the great Prophets, including Elijah, suffered moments of great doubt and lament.

      Okay, enough sermonizing for the moment. Back to work!

  6. Dave says:

    How many things does this jerk have to do? EVERY DAY, he sneaks something past, tells another lie, spends more money, impowers some new enemy. WE SHOULD KNOW WHO, AND WHAT, HE IS BY NOW.
    He’s not going to stop, he on a MISSION to Fundamentally Transform our Nation and Divide us.

    Crickets, Crickets., Crickets…..WHATS GOING ON IS OBVIOUS. I mean, ITS EVERY DAY!!
    The Tammy Bruce Show, is like therapy for me….she speaks for us, I feel the same way she does, she can SWEAR on air, all she wants , because to me, it shows the kind of PASSION we need to beat this bastard. I’m swearin’ right along her her , so God Bless her.
    SHE is a FIGHTER, and I love that about her…. ( one of many things I love about our Tammy.)

    ….whats the saying?

    ” All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing!”

    That pretty much sums it up for me… I’d be slightly optimistic if someone was in his face.
    But they’ve all got his BACK, more than his FACE.

    Good Post Maynard.

  7. RosaLee says:


    Thanks for giving voice to my thoughts.

    I fear the republic is lost.

    I hope that there are still enough patriots left that remember what freedom was know that rule of law is is an essential underpinning for that freedom.

    I pray that they have the will to do what is necessary to restore the rule of law, the republic and our freedoms.

    Mr. Rosalee

  8. Dave says:

    Dave to Dave. Dittos and kudos.

  9. Alain41 says:

    Kim Strassel article on lawlessness of Federal Elections Committee staff.

    “…The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), for instance, makes it clear that staff may not commence investigations until a bipartisan majority (four members) of the commission votes that there is a “reason to believe” a violation has occurred. In theory, this provision should guard against IRS-like witch hunts.

    Except that over the years staff have come to ignore the law, and routinely initiate their own inquiries—often on little more than accusations they find on blogs or Facebook. For a sense of how these investigations can go off the rails, consider that Lois Lerner—before serving as the center of today’s IRS scandal—was the senior enforcement officer at the FEC….”

You must be logged in to post a comment.