Ron Paul: Who Will Stand Up To Obama?

PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE DISREGARDING THE CONSTITUTION President Barack Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority. Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is…


President Barack Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority. Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most Presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.

Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and polices without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively adding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.

Executive orders are perfectly legitimate and even necessary if, in the words of leading Constitutional Scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, they “…. guide the executive branch on how to enforce a law or…complement and supplement what Congress has already done.” The problem is that most modern presidents have abused this power to issue orders that, as Judge Napolitano puts it, “restates federal law, or contradicts federal law, or does the opposite of what the federal law is supposed to do.”

Political opponents of the president rightly condemned Obama for disregarding the Constitution. However, it was not that long ago that many of the same politicians where labeling as “unpatriotic” or worse anyone who dared question President Bush’s assertions the he had the “inherent” authority to launch wars, spy on Americans, and even indefinitely detain American citizens.

Partisan considerations also make some members of the opposition party hesitate to reign in the president. These members are reluctant to set a precedent of “tying the president’s hands” that could be used against a future president of their own party.

The concentration of power in the office of the president is yet one more negative consequence of our interventionist foreign policy. A foreign policy based on interventionism requires a strong and energetic executive, unfettered by Constitutional niceties such as waiting for Congress to pass laws or declare war. So it simply was natural, as America abandoned the traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism, for presidents to act “without waiting for Congress.” After all, the president is “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect “national security,” they argued. Once it became accepted practice for the president to disregard Congress in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before presidents would begin usurping Congressional authority in domestic matters.

It should not be surprising that some of the biggest promoters of an “energetic” executive are the neoconservatives. They are also enthusiastic promoters of the warfare state. Sadly, they have misled many constitutionalists into believing that one can consistently support unchecked presidential authority in foreign policy, but limit presidential authority in domestic matters. Until it is fully understood that virtually limitless presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot coexist with strict limits on Presidential authority in domestic matters, we will never limit the power of the Presidency.

The people must also insist that politicians stop viewing issues concerning the separation of powers through a partisan lens and instead be willing to act against any president who exceeds his constitutional limitations. Thankfully we have scholars such as Louis Fisher, who has just published an important new book on presidential power, to help us better understand the Founders’ intent with regard to separation of powers. The key to achieving this goal is to make sure the people understand that any president of any party who would exceed constitutional limitations is a threat to liberty, and any member of Congress who ignores or facilitates presidential usurpation is being derelict in his Constitutional duty.

ron paul

Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.

Related posts



Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality


Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons


Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 10:32 am

The only ones with any gumption are currently being demonized by every MSM source known to man.

Tom February 10, 2014 at 1:41 pm

How about examples so we can determine if you know what you are talking about.

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 2:07 pm

You’re funny.

Tom February 10, 2014 at 2:11 pm

How so? You say the “ones with gumption”. You obviously have people in mind. So which ones are they?

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Pick any political figure aligned with limited government you will find your answer. I’m sure you’re anxiously awaiting names, why don’t you fill in the blanks yourself. You’re only quizzing me so you can launch into a rhetorical tirade.

Bill February 10, 2014 at 4:51 pm

Typical Republican answer. Don’t worry me with a request for facts. Just like Romney, Ryan, Sanfraud etc. etc. Facts are confusing.

JW February 10, 2014 at 11:24 pm

Limited government does not = Republican. Limited government = Libertarian. If you knew that you would not have responded as you did. All the people you names are statists just as the collectivists the democrats front. Educate yourself.

Sorry February 11, 2014 at 8:26 am

“Educate yourself.”

You ask too much.

Sean February 11, 2014 at 8:26 am

Ron Paul, who had the highest conservative voting record according to Heritage. Dennis Kucinich, on the “left.” Andrew Napolitano who had a very successful show on Fox Business taken off the air because he supported Ron Paul and non-interventionist policy. Gary Johnson! Not even allowed to debate because the DNC and RNC run the debates. there are some names for you. and before you go off on a tirade remember that the ONLY person that beat Obama in national polls was Ron Paul, so spare me your “he could never get elected” nonsense.

Bill February 11, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Please educate yourself, I said the answer was a typical Republican Answer. Actually I was wrong, it is more typical of a Teapublican answer. In other words no facts to back it up and largely parroting Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. etc.

PT Barnum February 10, 2014 at 10:43 am

Ron Paul missed his calling in life, that of “Carnival Barker.”

SCBlueWoman February 10, 2014 at 10:48 am

Executive orders are not usurping the Constitution. President Obama has only issued 168 and other presidents have issued many, many more than that. Why have EOs only become an issue under this President? I think I know and it has nothing to do with usurping the Constitution of these United States of America. Ron Paul, Anne Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Tom Rice, Mick Mulvaney, Jeff Duncan and others of their ilk are simply pandering to the simple minded.

PT Barnum February 10, 2014 at 11:00 am

Black Presidents are only allowed one EO. Obama hit his quota on Jan. 21, 2009.

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 11:28 am

The practice should be stopped for ANY president. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

cuvinny February 10, 2014 at 11:39 am

What? executive orders have been around since George Washington.

What I love about these fear mongering articles is that they don’t point out to a single order that is unconstitutional.

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 11:55 am

No shit sherlock, I said ANY PRESIDENT.

Tom February 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Why should a President not be allowed to issue executive orders that are not unconstitutional. That is how they exercise executive power. The branches of government are “co-equal.” So, which Executive Order by Obama do you contend is unconstitutional?

The Cynic February 10, 2014 at 4:16 pm

Technically they are unconstitutional…but they’ve never been challenged.

Additionally, you can make many cases that the Supreme Court has actually erred in Constitutionality of several items on technical grounds.

It’s all a mish mash of “living Constitution”, there aren’t really any rules, people just like the idea of rules and think those in power give a damn.

Smirks February 10, 2014 at 11:29 am

Executive orders are not usurping the Constitution.

Depends on the executive order.

A lot of outrage seemed to come out after Obama wrote one to make sure new fed janitors get at least a minimum of $10.10/hr. That’s pretty damn stupid to work yourself in a frenzy over.

What also pisses me off is when people pretend that Obama somehow signs more executive orders than previous presidents. Here’s a Snopes article that debunks one claim of 900+ EOs under Obama, and lists the number of EOs under other presidents. FDR puts everyone else to shame in that regard (granted he got more than two terms, but damn, over 3k?).


If you’d like to see what EOs Obama produced:


Each executive order should be judged by its merits. I’m sure Obama has done a few that could be listed as damaging or wrong, especially depending on one’s ideology, but Paul doesn’t really list anything as an example.

Also, while I’m sure the Founders didn’t intend for executive orders to be used quite as much as some presidents have used them, or for purposes some presidents have used them for, I’m also sure that they didn’t envision our do-nothing, worthless Congress to be as lazy, divisive, corrupt, and unproductive as it currently is.

SCBlueWoman February 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm

Here is the list by president. You can click on the the number and actually read the EO.. Nothing earth shattering will be found under President O. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Elfego February 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm

Simple minded is mild compared to ignorance.

Torch February 10, 2014 at 4:07 pm

That would be the simple minds of Limbaugh and Beck.

venomachine February 10, 2014 at 10:59 am

I still can’t believe Obama is a specialist in Constitutional law. I really can’t.

Tom February 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Since you know nothing about Constitutional law, on what basis do you judge Obama’s knowledge? Those idiots at the Fake News Network or Glenn Beck?

Ben February 10, 2014 at 3:05 pm

Andrew Napolitano is no idiot. He is far and away the best judicial analyst on television, whatever the network.

venomachine February 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm

It is pretty easy, really.

1) Read the Constitution
2) Observe the actions of our eelcted officials.

It isn’t rocket science. I hope this primer helped.

Quite frankly, very few of them seem to grasp the Constitution, but one of the big deals about Obama was his supposed grasp of it.

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 4:20 pm

Oh, they understand it perfectly… but because they are weasely assed lawyers they know how to lie, cheat and steal their way around it.

Bill February 10, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Typical Teapublican answer. You can just read the Constitution and understand all its intricacies. Two + centuries of court arguments and debate mean nothing. Our Founding Fathers were so brilliant they devised the best system of government ever, and made it so simple anyone can understand it. Its amazing no one ever thought of it before.

The Constitution is anything but simple. No you can’t just read it and understand, In fact many of the founders were highly educated men and the system they devised was far from simple, and they knew it. Yes it is rocket science. Most laymen are clueless as how complicated it actually is.

The truth is a Constitutional lawyer explaining Constitutional Law to a layman is like a physicist trying to explain general relativity to a layman. It just seems to be more simple than it actually is, and most people don’t have the educational background to understand.

RICK RUDE February 10, 2014 at 5:29 pm

This is complete BS. The Constitution wasn’t written in a secret code.

Bill February 10, 2014 at 7:25 pm

Neither was The theory of General Relativity. That does not mean you don’t need an education in certain topics to fully understand it.

Ok Einstein February 10, 2014 at 9:14 pm


Comparing the Constitution to the theory of Relativity?


Bill February 11, 2014 at 1:50 pm

Most likely you do not fully understand either, and thus fail to see the analogy.

JW February 10, 2014 at 11:32 pm

Bill, just because you are too lazy to read and educate yourself is only reflective of your limited intellect. Buy a book. Start with the Anti-Federalist papers.

Bill February 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm

You know nothing about me. I have done plenty of reading, including significant portions of the Federalist Papers. I suspect its you who is under-educated.

quelishrelish February 10, 2014 at 6:19 pm

OMG, are you actually comparing the Bill of Rights, written in plain English, to the Theory of General Relativity?
My God……now I know why we are so screwed. People like you suffer from the delusion known as cognitive dissonance. You will do anything to keep your exisiting beliefs intact so that you don’t have to deal with the fact that you’re wrong.
Why is he/she a “teapublican”? Should I call you a statist then, since you obviously abhor common sense and inalienable rights?

Bill February 10, 2014 at 7:24 pm

OMG, you don’t know the difference between the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. I rest my case.

Obviously you are also unaware that the Theory of General Relativity has been translated into every major language in the world including “plain” English; which I assume in your mind differs from English.

I conclude he is a teapublican for the same reason I conclude you are one. You both have no clue what you are talking about.

JW February 10, 2014 at 11:37 pm

I always find it enlightening when liberals try to take the moral high ground but end up resorting to name calling. Name calling = bullying which is not PC according to liberal etiquette. Hypocrite. Name calling is the last resort of those without a valid point or argument.

Bill February 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm

When I resort to name calling it is largely for retaliatory purposes. For example, I consider myself a moderate, but I am called a liberal as though that is something evil. As for the name Teapublican, I do not consider that name calling. That is someone who says they are a Tea Party member but always votes Republican. Thus Teapublican. If I want to name call, I would call them a Teanut. That is what I would call you.

I believe most Teapublicans are simply uninformed on a lot of constitutional issues. They take their opinion from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Beck, etc. They assume others believe things they do not because they are told that by these sources. The assume issues are settled because they are told that by these sources. I know that because they all say the same things over and over. I must have heard the, “Its not rocket science” line a 1000 times.

There is no dishonor in lacking education in a specific area. We all do. But to say anyone can simply read the Constitution and understand Constitutional Law, is a joke.

JW February 10, 2014 at 11:30 pm

Wrong, The constitution is a simple document. In article 1 section 8 it enumerates the powers of the federal government. In the 10th amendment it defines that all those powers not explicitly provided to the federal government are reserved for the states so that we could have government diversity. It is the last clause of Article 1 section 8 that provides for passing laws that are “just and necessary” that has driven us to the over bloated and oppressive federal government that we have now. The truth is anyone who can read can see that statists and collectivists now rule our government. Maybe you don’t have the intellect to understand these things but don’t belittle those that would and stand up against the oppression.

Bill February 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Its not belittling to say a person lacks education. Everyone should be educated but they are not, and none of us can know everything, but to pretend things are simple when they are not leads to errors. The Founders certainly never thought governing their new nation would be simple or that the document they drafted was a simple one.

Constitutional law and litigation is typically complex, because it relates to clashes between the rights of people. i.e. what happens when the rights of one person interfere with the rights of another person or group of people; or vica versa.

We can all read the Theory of General Relativity and if we concentrate we can even understand a good portion of it. I have. But if we are not schooled in Math a very high level we can never fully understand. Just as if you are not schooled in two hundred plus years of Constitutional Law, you cannot fully understand the Constitution. And even if you are there are still areas where the answer is unclear.

Ben February 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm

Constitutional lawyer = someone skilled at circumventing the Constitution via wordplay and so on. Now does it make sense to you?

idiotwind February 10, 2014 at 12:04 pm

ron paul is a silly old crank.

Chad February 10, 2014 at 12:37 pm

Excellent deconstruction and rebuttal of his argument.

Elfego February 10, 2014 at 12:43 pm

You really show your ignorance!

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 1:06 pm

Silly? In what way? Is it his stance on nonintervention into foreign conflict? The fact that he wants to do away with the IRS? Stem cell research? What is so goddamn silly?

Old, I’ll give you that one.

Crank? If you’re not cranky about the way things are going in America you are complicit in the decline of western civilization.

Torch February 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Where the hell were you when Bush II was issuing them. Get over it. Your Republican party blocks everything. Even blocks bills that most of them would vote for but your teaparty members keep it off the floor.

venomachine February 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm

You forgot to mention party of no and war against women in your little talking point diatribe. Your handlers will be displeased.

Uh Huh February 10, 2014 at 3:54 pm

“Where the hell were you when Bush II was issuing them.”

Paul bitched every time…but no one was listening to the “Crazy Uncle”.

ronb28135 February 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Outlaw political parties.

Elfego February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Fact is Americans of all races other than blacks are afraid to stand up to Obama for fear of being called a Racist. America has truly been dumbed down and brow beat into submission!

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 12:51 pm

I’ve been called a racist by operatives of local black politicians for calling them out on their crooked lawless buffoonery. The same way I would call out white politicians, but there’s nothing to gain from pointing that out.

Elfego February 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm

I beg to disagree.
Folks have a tendency to believe that statement unless they look into the facts. I honestly believe America has bought into the Democrat Propaganda and it is killing our country.

Tom February 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm

This is total BS, only racists need to fear being accused of racism. Plenty of people on this site complain about Obama and elsewhere complain about Obama without being called racist.

Of course you and Jay Ellington have fully established your credentials in that regard. Once you have made it clear you are a racist, it is difficult for anyone to not consider your comments as potentially racist. Reputations are earned.

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 1:51 pm

Racists feel that one race is superior to another, this couldn’t be farther from my ideological fabric. You go right ahead judging and see how far that gets you in life, Tom. Idiots like you should crack open a dictionary.

Elfego February 10, 2014 at 2:04 pm

You have your head in the sand.I do not fear being called that .My statement stands as offered. So many others are and it is a method used by the MSM and Democrats to keep people quite. I would hope you are more intelligent than your statement!

Bruce Willis February 10, 2014 at 9:18 pm

Shhhhh….I want to tell you my secret now…..I see RACIST PEOPLE!

Jay Ellington February 11, 2014 at 9:07 am

I didn’t say I was afraid of being called a racist, I said I HAD been called a racist.

euwe max February 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm

Ron is a Republican.

Enough said.

Jay Ellington February 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm

Because of his libertarian beliefs, wouldn’t that make him a RINO?

euwe max February 10, 2014 at 3:35 pm


PostSurgeOperative February 10, 2014 at 3:54 pm

Ron Paul is a hypocritical, pandering demagogue. During his past two presidential campaigns he repeatedly claimed that if he were elected president, he would pardon all ‘non-violent’ federal drug convicts. Of course, the only way he could issue such a blanket pardon would be by executive order, similar to the blanket pardon Pres. Carter issued for Vietnam-era draft-dodgers. Never mind the decisions made prosecutors, juries, and judges, based on the evidence in each of those cases, and never mind the fact that such convictions arise from laws duly passed by Congress — Ron Paul disagrees with those laws, so he wouldn’t enforce them, and would essentially overrule the Congress, the Judiciary, and the People.

But why stop there, Ron? What about other prisoners convicted of ‘non-violent’ crimes, such as cheating on taxes, money laundering, illegal weapons trafficking, espionage, and many other types of crimes that could be considered ‘non-violent’?

Iva February 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm

The war on drugs was not declared by Congress, so it is an unconstitutional war. The president also has the power of clemency and to pardon. It is a victimless crime, not just non-violent. Strain your brain and think of something legitimate to trash Paul.

MashPotato February 10, 2014 at 9:47 pm

Laws that violate the Constitution should not be enforced and should be struck down in the proper legal manner. That can be through the court system or through an executive order. Those who enforce the law cannot hide behind the safety that they were only following the law because the Constitution is the supreme law. Every president that enforces unconstitutional laws violate the Constitution in doing so. Ron Paul voted consistent with the Constitution all twelve terms in Congress, so it’s a good bet he would’ve upheld the Constitution as the executive.

Iva February 10, 2014 at 6:17 pm

Obama is a lying corporate prostitute. A UN communist , with intent to “transform” the US into global serfdom, ruled by unelected corporate fascists. For those that defend O for his Hollywood dictator aspirations, and insulting constitutional RP is desperation. and idiocy. .

Tim Brown February 10, 2014 at 6:18 pm

USA INC is not the united states of America, Dr. Paul doesn’t address that. Just Google : USA vs usa, Original 13th Amendment, Act of 1871 for starters.

Re-start the Republic, dissolve the maniacal, corrupt, murderous corporation,

swampdonkey February 10, 2014 at 8:16 pm

easy. no one.(who wants another IRS audit?)
Ask Dr. Ben Carson…Or Sarah Palin’s 80-year old dad (retired teacher-been audited 4 years in a row!) Thug government? You betcha!

SCBlueWoman February 11, 2014 at 9:18 am

I’m a liberal. I’ve been audited every year since 2006…. I guess I was targeted too.

I see racist people! February 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm

Probably because you are black.

SCBlueWoman February 11, 2014 at 4:24 pm

I’m not black.

I see racist people! February 11, 2014 at 7:20 pm

I just figured with you being blue that you’d also be black. Is your wife black?

swampdonkey February 11, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Are you an 80 tear old retired public school teacher?

Lukedwards February 11, 2014 at 10:15 am

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.


Leave a Comment