Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

December 3, 2013 - 10:48 am

During today’s House hearing on President Barack Obama’s tendency to rewrite the Affordable Care Act and other laws to suit his whims, Cato Institute legal expert Michael Cannon warned that Obama’s actions can lead Americans to decide that if the government won’t abide by the law, why should they?

Counting from memory, President Obama has ignored existing law on immigration and Obamacare. President Obama has also flouted court rulings against his gulf oil drilling moratorium and attempted to “recess” appoint members of the National Labor Relations Board when Congress was in session, in clear violation of the Constitution.

Watch.

Democrats on the House committee treated today’s serious hearing with undisguised contempt. They mocked it, belittled it, derided it, and then abandoned it before it was even finished.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The idea that Leftists would criticize a totalitarian streak in their main man is laughable. There isn't a Democrat politician today that wouldn't support Obama fully if he were to declare martial law and suspend the 2014 elections and all elections beyond. I'm not saying he'd do it, I AM SAYING that he would receive accolades for doing so from every single Democrat politician, from Vice President on down to the local dog catcher. In every Leftist is a very strong, very dominant, fascist gene.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
If the social/governmental contract is broken and we are not governed by our consent; then we can be said to owe them nothing. Without our consent, we are governed only by threat of force. One may lie to those threatening us and our families with force. There is no need to tell them, when a more effective form of resistance is to undermine them. Resistance to tyranny is honorable.

Subotai Bahadur
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, if called to jury duty I'll go along with them. I'll tell the judge I can't be impartial- if the leaders can flout the law, if whole sections of law aren't enforced (immigration, identity theft, etc etc) I can't in good concscience vote to convict anyone of anything. If they want lawlessness and anarchy-- I'm up for it.

Won't get on the jury, but I don't care.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (35)
All Comments   (35)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
What is truly sad is that we all know just how much he does ignore the laws, yet our representation does nothing. that tends to make those who still support him criminals as well.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
A paperback I read and kept a copy of by Red Beckman in the 80's called Born Again America lays out jury duty in a way as to be almost exciting, to my at least.
If you get it, spread it. And don't get too bent out of shape about it's secondary purpose: repealing the 16th Amendment. Lots of people I knew got jailed and ruined by following the aggressive posture in the book before the public got fully informed on jury powers.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
The idea that Leftists would criticize a totalitarian streak in their main man is laughable. There isn't a Democrat politician today that wouldn't support Obama fully if he were to declare martial law and suspend the 2014 elections and all elections beyond. I'm not saying he'd do it, I AM SAYING that he would receive accolades for doing so from every single Democrat politician, from Vice President on down to the local dog catcher. In every Leftist is a very strong, very dominant, fascist gene.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Dems might take this a little more seriously if Conservatives circulated a list of the laws we plan to ignore once we regain the Presidency. Lets start with the laws prohibiting demonstrations outside abortion clinics. How about Davis Bacon, or the most recent thousand EPA regulations. The possibilities are endless!
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
"if Conservatives circulated a list of the laws we plan to ignore once we regain the Presidency."

Uh, what? What planet are you on? I am not aware of "conservatives" EVER holding the Presidency, never mind retaking it!

Perhaps you are confusing Republicans with conservatives. They are not the same.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Cato Institute legal expert Michael Cannon warned that Obama’s actions can lead Americans to decide that if the government won’t abide by the law, why should they?"

Warning too late. I've been there for quite a while. I guess I'm precocious.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Looks like several made-for-tv campaign commercials in that clip....your modern neo-communist party mocking YOU, America....belittling YOU, America; the outright arrogance and smugness of those people is just amazing. But, of course, Issa will 'investigate' and possibly write another strongly worded letter...

Remember BENGHAZI - FULL REPEAL NOW!
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why are they holding meetings? They should go to Court to stop this lawlessness.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
> Why are they holding meetings? They should go to Court to stop this lawlessness.

They've gone to court when they had standing. They won, and it didn't matter. (Standing is important - most of Obama's refusals to obey the law can't be attacked in court because no one has standing.)
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
So where's the legislation- and the public outrage to support it?
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, if called to jury duty I'll go along with them. I'll tell the judge I can't be impartial- if the leaders can flout the law, if whole sections of law aren't enforced (immigration, identity theft, etc etc) I can't in good concscience vote to convict anyone of anything. If they want lawlessness and anarchy-- I'm up for it.

Won't get on the jury, but I don't care.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Never do that. Get on that jury and render justice. The LAW will always be on your side even if the statute and the judges instructions are not. Jury duty is the LAST, real chance for peaceful revolution. Levin's Liberty Amendments is provocative but I think a bite more than we can chew.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Well, if called to jury duty... I'll tell the judge I can't be impartial- if the leaders can flout the law... I can't in good concscience vote to convict anyone of anything."

You won't get on the jury, but you'll have put the bug into the ears of all twelve who do. Plus maybe 100 more who were in the pool during jury selection.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
First, get on the jury, then do that.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Right. Keep your trap shut and be careful how you answer in voir dire.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
The point of a criminal/civil trial is to assess responsibility ("guilt"). This requires the presentation of credible evidence.

The government no longer has any credibility, therefore it is impossible for it to present credible evidence.

As a result, the only possible verdict is "not guilty", rendering the entire trial process a waste of time.

For those who say that this sounds like anarchy... You are absolutely correct. And the responsibility for that is on those who destroyed the rule of law and faith in the government...
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have had those thoughts. However, I would convict if conviction was merited. However, lots of stuff people get strung up over I would vote, not guilty. It isn't anarchy when a jury is doing justice. Don't confuse the two and give jury duty and justice a bad name. You're on the right track.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, I would not refuse to convict everybody, just those where I thought the law was BS. For example, I would convict rapists, frauds, muggers, murderors etc, no matter what, as long as the evidence was there, and the case did not look to be politically motivated. Basically anything that would have been a crime in 1890 and still is today, I would convict. But if they bring some guy up on some fed gov regulatory violation, or even for taxes, no way I would convict now, since our entire fed gov is grossly politicised and corrupt.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
You could also NOT make those statements and if seated on the jury vote to acquit. Jury nullification is the right of each juror.

Those who are outraged at the unchecked power of and abuse of power by law enforcement in the drug war may choose to acquit an otherwise peaceful user of marijuana, for example. Each juror may have different issues/law which they choose to nullify. Some may nullify a tax law trial.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think a better statement is if many of us took this attitude. We will not be complicit in unequal application of the law. Of allowing leaders to flout or ignore laws they disagree with vice going through the process of having them changed. Of ignoring enforcing laws like immigration, which have a sound basis, which the marjority of people support-- yet want to turn around and charge folks under other laws. Ain't right to prosecute some for even traffic crimes while actually condoning sanctuary cities, aiding and abetting illegal aliens and the gang, identity theft, fraud, DUI, licencing crimes that go along with it. (Also enabling Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Quade etc. entry and concealment- kind of the point of enforcing borders)
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
If the social/governmental contract is broken and we are not governed by our consent; then we can be said to owe them nothing. Without our consent, we are governed only by threat of force. One may lie to those threatening us and our families with force. There is no need to tell them, when a more effective form of resistance is to undermine them. Resistance to tyranny is honorable.

Subotai Bahadur
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
You seem to be under the impression that we are not already governed "by threat of force"....

Perhaps it's time the people started slipping monkey wrenches into the government cogs at every opportunity?
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Government IS force. Ostensibly under control and limits. Ostensibly, anyways.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, imagine if the majority of us OFWGs and government workers and folks who actually show up for jury duty because we support the rule of law took the same position.

Imagine a court system which could not seat any juries because all have refused to participate and enable a system where elites/leaders flout and are capricious in the enforcement of laws.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, if they cannot seat juries under the old system, they will either change the system to seat juries exclusively with their people, or more likely create a system where there are not juries. The plain text of the Constitution does not protect us anymore.

Alinsky their asses. Use the rules to get on a jury, then resist from within. Especially in cases where are using the courts to attack the Constitution.

Subotai Bahadur
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
They have already changed the system to where there are not juries.

Not one case went to trial during my recent jury duty in San Diego. Everyone accepted a plea deal. Whatever you think of criminal or civil jurisprudence, the jury trial is a dying institution in this country.

As has been stated elsewhere, we're all guilty of about three crimes a day under the current over-regulated regime. That's a fact that is useful to those who want to leverage submission and revenue out of any of us that come under the purview of the Law. The fifth amendment is passe; they have us through surveillance and through our own DNA.

Face meet Boot.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
The key is not to conceal it from 'them' but to tell everyone in essence 'you are not alone' and 'this is how you do it'- maybe a Youtube video? Russians became expert at non-cooperation under the Soviets. I am sure Americans will be quite innovative in this regard. Imagine what happens if you put a honey badger in a pot of water and turn the heat up- too quickly.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'll do the same thing, only difference will be that I'll tell the judge AFTER I vote to acquit.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All