When I get into a really good rant about the U. S.
Federal Government, I often note that the tyranny under Obama far exceeds the
tyranny under George III that provoked the American Revolution.
Well, the Library of Congress, no less, has pretty
much determined that I am . . . correct.
What would George III do when faced
with a law he didn’t like?
Not even the King of England at the
time of the American Revolution had the authority to suspend laws unilaterally,
the Law Library expert wrote in a memorandum to the Senate committee tasked
with responding to President Obama’s recent executive orders on the enforcement
of immigration law.
One hundred years before the American
Revolution, another British king had “attempted to suspend a number of laws,”
contributing to the onset of the Glorious Revolution in England, a senior
foreign-law specialist at the Law Library writes in the memo to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. “King George III,” the specialist goes on to remind the
committee, “was thus unable to enact or repeal any laws unilaterally without
the involvement of Parliament.”
Now British friends will surely say that we
Americans can come back if we like.
To which I say . . .
Don’t tempt me.
If the Republican Party continues enabling, instead
of really opposing, Obama’s tyranny, I will be sorely tempted as it is.
2 comments:
Only if there's a Magna Carta II, to remind the Royals (of all types) that the common man still retains all God-given rights, especially the right of self defence, by any means necessary.
I would say that Congress in a sense did allow the laws to be repealed by Obama by inaction. The Senate would do nothing under His Highness Harry Reid even if the House were to pass a bill. And then there is the veto power of the President. We're just screwed even if the new Congress does something the Democrats will ensure that the POTUS's veto is not overridden.
I am not at all tempted to rejoin the British Empire. The UK has some very bad issues also.
Post a Comment