Well after hearing a rather upbeat SOTU speech last night, all five of these Conservative "leaders," somehow all simultaneously came up with a brand new derogative label for President Obama.
All of them, among others, have independently decided in unison, that President Obama -- is an Imperial President.
Senator Jim DeMint
Senator Ted Cruz
Rep Paul Ryan
Rep. Mike Conaway
Rightwing Radio-hack Mark Levin.
Presumably for the "Imperial crime" of vowing to pay Federal Contractors a minimum wage of $10.10 -- by Executive Order.
E-Gads! -- you'd think he just sold off their Government-funded Pension funds or something.
What else do DeMint, Cruz, Ryan, Conaway, and Radio-hack Mark Levin ALL have in common?
They know not of which they speak. (... What else is new, eh?)
When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power, Obama Is A Mere Piker
by Richard M. Salsman, Contributor, Forbes.com -- 1/28/2013
[...]
That Mr. Obama has issued fewer edicts (so far) than his predecessors does not thereby justify his decrees, but it does allow us to question the unrestrained hyperbole we’ve been hearing from the right-hand side of the American political spectrum. In the 1970s the Democrats may have been more justified to complain of Richard Nixon and his “imperial presidency” (indeed, that was the title of a 1973 book by Harvard history professor and JFK acolyte Arthur Schlesinger), because Mr. Nixon issued an average of 58 orders p.a. [per annum] Yet those same Democrats failed to note that JFK, in his short tenure at the White House, issued 22% more orders (71 p.a.) than did Nixon. If Nixon was dangerously imperial, was JFK positively monarchical?
[...]
No specific provision in the U.S. Constitution and no statute explicitly permits or governs executive orders, and on these grounds alone the “strict” constitutionalists insist that none are ever warranted. But even John Locke defended the principle of executive “prerogative,” in 1690, as long as it violated no rights. There’s also a grant of “executive power” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as a requirement” (in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5) that the executive branch “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Executive orders are valid so long as they don’t violate other provisions and rights.
[...]
Is Barack Obama an imperial president?
by Linda Feldmann, Staff writer csmonitor.com -- Jan 26, 2014
[...]
In the process, Obama's claims of executive authority have infuriated opponents, while emboldening supporters to demand more on a range of issues, from immigration and gay rights to the minimum wage and Guantánamo Bay prison camp.
To critics, Obama is the ultimate "imperial president," willfully violating the Constitution to further his goals, having failed to convince Congress of the merits of his arguments. To others, he is exercising legitimate executive authority in the face of an intransigent Congress and in keeping with the practices of past presidents.
The course of Obama's final three years in office, in which he has promised continuing assertive use of executive action, will be shaped by this debate.
[...]
If the current President is acting like an Imperial Leader --
What does that make our current Congress?
An unruly mob of perpetual slackers?