Obama and the Democrat Autocracy perpetuating political power

SAN JOSE, November 21, 2014 – President Obama addressed the American people last evening and announced his Executive Order with sweeping changes regarding amnesty for illegal immigrants, which reveals how far he would go to ignore the Constitution of the United States. Yet, the amazing thing is that in his mind he is doing something completely legal: “The actions I’m taking are not only lawful,” he alleged, “they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century.” Actually, the jury may still be out on whether it is lawful, but when he explains that others before him have used Executive Orders that part is true – it is just not in the way he is doing, in that he is using his national pulpit to usurp the power of another branch of government. He has violated, with arrogance, the very law he has sworn to uphold and defend!

This is not just a blatant stand-alone disregard of the Constitution on the part of a megalomaniac, it follows the path or prescription for perpetuating power that the Democrat Party has had from its inception. It is quite interesting that Obama’s move comes during a month that is designated as American Indian Heritage Month because the precedent for violating the Constitution was established by the founder of the modern day Democrat Party, Andrew Jackson. He spurred the passage of a law (even Jackson managed to work with Congress) which was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at the time. Jackson had orchestrated the passage of the infamous Indian Removal Acts that was responsible for the removal of hundreds of thousands of American Indians from the Southeast portion of the United States. When Chief Justice John Marshall deemed that such actions were unconstitutional, Jackson ignored the ruling.

Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Native American tribes were sovereign nations. Based upon the foundation of U.S. government efforts with the Indians and the precedents established by the six previous presidents, Indian lands were considered their land. What a concept. Marshall ruled that state law had no jurisdiction over tribal lands, essentially that Jackson’s efforts were unconstitutional:

“The several Indian nations were distinct political communities having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive, and having rights to all land within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States.”

Jackson and the Democrats ignored the Supreme Court ruling. A famous quote attributed to Jackson at the time, which is disputed today, was that Jackson is reputed to have said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Yet, whether he said it or not, Jackson’s actions showed a complete contempt for the Constitution.

Where ambiguity existed with respect to the letter of the law regarding American Indians, the first six U.S. presidents followed the precedent established by the Northwest Ordinance that was passed by the U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation, which was still law after the new Constitution was made the law of the land. The essential understanding was that the Indians were to retain dominion over their lands. The first six presidents tended to follow this legal foundation and generally followed the precedent of George Washington, who had initiated a policy of friendship, education, and cultural assimilation into the newly formed American republic.

Such a precedent radically changed during Andrew Jackson’s administration as there was a fundamental change in the way the native lands were viewed by the old Indian fighter and his cronies. Obviously, President Jackson had little respect for the legal precedents established under the Articles of Confederation or the views of previous presidents. He did not accept the premise that the lands belonged to the Indians. He viewed their lands as existing within the boundaries of the sovereignty of the United States, so from his myopic viewpoint, the ownership of Indian property was up for negotiation, or quite simply domination.

Andrew Jackson’s administration essentially dismantled the foundation and the history of efforts to create an amicable method of assimilation and immersion into the predominant culture at that point in time. Not long after his first term commenced, Jackson shepherded the bill through Congress that literally altered the landscape. In 1830, a bitterly divided Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, and a pleased Jackson signed into law orders that would force the indigenous peoples of the Southeast region to relocate to “Indian Territory,” or what is now the state of Oklahoma and part of Arkansas. This was a significant turning point in the official relations between American Indians and the U.S. government.

The Indian Removal Act was quite divisive and controversial at the time – it still is. Of course, the five Indian tribes protested, some of them even put up a futile fight against the U.S. Army. It didn’t matter. Many Christians and missionaries protested against passage of such legislation; it didn’t matter. There was also significant opposition in Congress as New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen along with Congressman Davy Crockett of Tennessee, representing the same state as Jackson spoke out strongly against such objectionable legislation. Unfortunately, after incredibly bitter debate in the divided Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the legislation.

What Americans witnessed yesterday from President Obama was a flagrant violation of the fundamental notion of the separation of powers of the three branches of government. This moves the Democrat Party to a new level of violation of the Constitution. It represents a flagrant breech of the revered notion of the separation of the three branches to ensure that no one branch would usurp power over the other, and that there would be cooperation between the branches, or at least the notion that each branch had their own specific set of duties outlined under the Constitution. Andrew Jackson made a definite decision to ignore the Supreme Court. Obama is making a definite decision to ignore Congress.

This precedent radically changes the way the relationship between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Even Obama understands this, as Jackson understood what he did was unconstitutional. With regard to Jackson’s actions, it is important because by the time of the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott, history reveals that Democrat President James Buchanan tampered with the outcome of that decision by influencing a Supreme Court Justice in the way he voted in the decision. One initial step by Jackson to break the law of the land, led to a further disrespect of the branch designated to determine whether laws were constitutional or not. Incidentally, Dred Scott was a decision easily won by the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court at the time.

With regard to Jackson’s and Obama’s actions, each understood what they were doing, yet each used lies to justify what they did. Jackson said that it was for the good of the Indians that they be removed from their ancestral homelands, where the ancients may have lived for thousands of years on that land. Obama says today that this effort will make America stronger, which if you understand Alinsky-speak, it means it will make America weaker. Jackson’s motivation was to enhance his own political power as well as the power of his political party. Obama’s motivation seems to fall in line with a similar desire: power and the perpetuation of political power. Smart Americans saw through what Jackson did and tried to stop it. But, the Democrat Party had their way. Smart Americans see through Obama, but what will be done?

A deeper study of history sheds light on Andrew Jackson’s critical departure from the legal, political, and practical precedents regarding the government’s respect for the American Indian ownership of their homelands. A deeper study of Jackson’s actions back in the early 1800s, reveal similar motives today from Obama and the Democrat Party. The purposeful scheme by Jackson and the Democrats in Congress dispensed with all obstacles in their way creating a shift in the fundamental premise that previously had respected the rights of the Indians and their inherent claims of ownership of private property. Likewise, Obama and the Democrat Party want to maintain power in the same way the Democrat Party came to power at the point of their origination.

A flagrant disregard for the Constitution enabled the Democrat Party to retain power because the land of the Indian was bartered for votes. At the time, the old rules of a landed gentry being the only ones permitted to vote had been changed by the Democrats, and a simple promise of obtaining land was enough to secure the votes of the ones who could easily obtain vacated Indian lands. Jackson and the Democrats opened up the door for all males of a specific age (and race) to vote regardless of whether they owned any land knowing they would be able to secure the electorate for years to come with such a deft political maneuver. Obama and the Democrats today are taking their cues from “Old Hickory” in the promise to illegal aliens that they can easily obtain a piece of the American pie.”

Both actions set in motion a new set of precedents in the way the federal government, as well as state governments, could deal with human beings, but any way you look at it, it is sheer political manipulation. Under Jackson, the Indian nations were violated, and they lost their homes and their lands. Under Obama, the stakes are much higher, he is not taking over localized native nations; he is allowing other peoples of other nations to take over, bit by bit, the land Americans call home. And in the process he is trampling the Constitution. In either case, the most serious obstacles were the bedrock principles contained in a document called the Constitution of the United States of America. While the Indians were not U.S. citizens the Constitution would have protected them, but Jackson chose not to.

In our time, we are witnessing a similar phenomenon. Obama is using his national pulpit to usurp the power of another branch of government. It must be repeated – he has violated, with arrogance, the very law he has sworn to uphold and defend! The historical reality is that it exists within the DNA of the Party that he represents. Yet, this all may seem obvious to the perceptive observer regarding the current Democrat Party. The real question that remains to be answered is whether the GOP shares the same political DNA. Now is the time to draw the line on those who disregard the law of the land! Now is the time to defend the Constitution! Will the GOP lead, or will they whimper away into the shadows?