Grassroots Commentary

A Nation of Laws or a Nation of Men?

Larry Reams · Nov. 25, 2013

One doesn’t have to have a law degree, or be on the same intellectual level as Albert Einstein, to see the advantage of civilized nations having laws to control society. Without rules and laws, anarchy would eventually reign. America has been a nation of laws since our founding over 200 years ago. However, over the past few decades, and particularly since Mr. Obama became President, we have steadily slipped more towards becoming a nation of men where a small group of elitists determine what the law is and is not; which will be followed and which won’t, based on their personal desires and agenda; they’re thirst for power.

Perhaps the most blatant step in that direction occurred on November 21 when the US Senate went "nuclear.“ For over 200 years, on certain executive appointments, it took a 60 vote margin to confirm those appointments rather than a simple majority. That rule has existed since our founding days, written by Thomas Jefferson, for the simple reason of protecting the minority from being overrun by the majority. That is why America is NOT a Democracy, as we so often hear pundits say, but a Republic; to protect the minority from tyranny by the majority. On this day, Senator Harry Reid changed that long standing tradition and rule. He broke a rule of requiring a 60 vote majority in order to change the rules of the Senate that required a 60 vote majority to stop a filibuster of judicial appointments. The vote was 52 to 48, almost completely down party lines, with only three Democrats voting against it.

This was obviously a coordinated decision between Reid and Obama. The President followed the vote with a press conference, agreeing with the decision. It was Democratic partisanship to the extreme. But "The One” wanted more control over his socialist agenda and this was necessary to block minority Republicans from slowing down that agenda to protect the people and the Constitution. Now, what are the ramifications?

In the short term, it means the Democrats in the Senate can get any individual they so desire appointed to the federal bench, except for the Supreme Court (for now). Specifically, Obama wants to stack the US Court of Appeals for the Washington DC District, hoping his liberal appointees will rule in his favor when the many cases arrive there. And no doubt they will. They’re probably all briefed beforehand; "tit for tat.“ With this action, Mr. Obama’s "transformation” took a giant leap further to the left and he can appoint anyone. If his Democrat colleagues are behind him, the Republicans can do nothing. It’s rule by a handful of men and cannot be changed until the Republicans regain control of the Senate, IF they regain control of the Senate. You want Nancy Pelosi on the ninth circuit court? No problem. In a center-right nation, the left wing extremists are now in charge. Just imagine what kind of damage Obama can do before he leaves office, or, before the Republicans regain Senate control?

Long term, it establishes a “rule of man” attitude. “Well, they did it so we can do it too!” The camel’s nose is under the tent, soon to overrun the whole campsite as you know this is precedent setting. Supreme Court nominations are exempted from the rule change but who wants to bet against making that change also in the years ahead? This move further divides the nation politically and is certain to lead to more of the same. And it shows the extreme partisanship of both Reid and Obama.

A few years back, when the Republicans controlled the Senate and Obama was a senator, Bill Frist threatened to do the same thing in order to get some Bush judicial appointees through the Senate that the Democrats were holding up. Frist “threatened” it but did not do it. He used it as a negotiating tool to help get Bush’s appointees confirmed. At the time Senators Reid, Obama and Biden all made speeches on the Senate floor raising the same issues covered above - protecting the minority from the majority. Back then the Democrats called it a “Republican power grab.” Why is it not a Democrat power grab now? Can you say “double-standards?” It is hypocrisy of the highest order proving that none of them can be trusted with anything. In modern day politics, if a Democrat’s mouth is moving, he’s probably lying about whatever he’s speaking about. And the polls show that America’s trust in Obama has taken a nosedive of late. He is a pathological liar, with an enormous amount of power, and an anti-American agenda. What could possible go wrong there?

In the same way Mr. Obama has used Executive Orders to circumvent laws and our Constitution, this move by Reid is a power grab and another step towards America becoming a Nation of Men where once we were clearly a Nation of Laws. Congress did nothing about the executive orders. Will they do anything about this abuse of power? And we all know what the real problem is: we have an incompetent dictatorial president, a maniacal, power grabbing Democrat Party where the “ends justify the means," a compliant media, and a spineless Republican Party. The real solution is impeachment of Obama yet none have the spine for that as we steadily head for the abyss.

Obama’s agenda, and the support and loyalty of his staff and members of the socialist Democrat Party are so obvious, it boggles the mind that such actions can even be contemplated, let alone enacted and then accepted by a Republic known the world over as the bastion of liberty.

So when the shooting starts, remember you were warned. And remember all these violations / changes and who’s at the core of it, both actively and passively.

Subscribe! It's Right. It's Free.