Originally published March 29 2015
31% of Americans want checks and balances removed so Obama can rule with absolute power
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Should President Obama be permitted to ignore federal court rulings if he wants? A surprisingly large number of Americans -- over one in four -- think so.
As federal courts examine the merits of some of President Obama's most important legislative and Executive actions -- his national healthcare law and his recent executive amnesty -- far too many Americans think, if the rulings go against him (one already has -- more on that in a moment), he should just ignore them, as though he were a king.
According to a disturbing new survey by Rassmussen Reports, 26 percent of respondents in a telephone survey of likely U.S. voters believe that Obama should have the authority to ignore federal court rulings if they go against what he believes is important for the country.
Meanwhile, encouragingly, 60 percent said the president should not have that authority or right, while a surprising 15 percent said they were undecided.
An exact wording of the questions can be found here.
Too many are "undecided"
Rasmussen Reports further noted:
But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama's party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
In general, 52 percent of all voters said they believe that court challenges of actions that have been taken and/or approved by presidents and legislation passed by Congress help protect citizens' rights.
However, about one in three, or 30 percent, believe that such challenges in court are just nuisances that inhibit better policy-making. A further 18 percent said they were not sure.
Another disturbing finding: The polling firm also said that 31 percent of respondents believe it is more important for the federal government to operate efficiently than it is to preserve constitutional checks and balances; left unsaid, of course, is who actually gets to decide what "efficient" means and whose civil rights get trampled in the name of "efficiency."
Thankfully, again, almost twice as many, or 59 percent, said they believe it is much more important to maintain the system of checks and balances, but once more, a sizable portion of respondents -- 11 percent -- were not sure.
More good news, of sorts -- the current findings are about the same as they were in 2013, meaning Obama's increasing lawlessness has not managed to win many converts.
"The system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government was designed by the Founding Fathers to assure that a consensus was achieved before national legislation could be implemented, but presidents of both parties have complained over the years about the challenges of getting things done in such a system," Rasmussen Reports noted.
Obama ignoring the order?
As for court cases, a federal judge in Texas ruled in recent days that Obama's executive actions were not permissible, because they did not conform with federal law. The Obama Administration had argued that the president used Executive authority -- "prosecutorial discretion" -- to implement an act that he claimed nearly two dozen times he did not have the power to implement.
As noted by CNBC, the order by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen staying the president's actions was proper:
The court's 123-page order is not some shoddy political hit piece by an anti-immigrant judge as is being portrayed in some quarters. It is a careful, narrowly reasoned application of a federal law that is designed to ensure that far-reaching administrative regulations do not go into effect without the public having an opportunity to give input to the issuing federal agency.
Nevertheless, despite the order, federal agencies charged with handling immigration procedures are continuing to operate as though the judge's ruling doesn't exist.
About that separation of powers concept...
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml