Executive Orders and Royal Proclamations

[Keith Broaders]

Our Founding Fathers went to war to stop the tyrant King George III. The King had issued a series of Royal Decrees or Proclamations without receiving the consent of the people. The Colonist knew that the King was violating their rights and that the King was going to continue to do so as long as they remained silent. After petitioning the King for many years for a redress of their grievances, the people finally decided to take action. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution it was their intent to prevent the President from abusing their rights like the King had done. They prohibited him from creating his own laws by granting to Congress ALL legislative powers. Congress has allowed the Presidents to circumvent the Constitution by allowing him to make his own laws without the consent of people. Executive Orders are virtually the same as the Royal Proclamations of a King. If you put a dress on a pig, it is still a pig. Executive Orders like Royal Decrees violate the rights of the people. When we allow the President the power to make laws and spend money without our consent he is abusing the rights that he has sworn to protect. As long as "We the People" are silent we will continue to see our Presidents trample on our individual rights and freedom. As for me, I am sick and tired of arrogant, self serving politicians that masquerade as public servants when they are nothing more than puppets for the International Bankers. What is the difference between a King has can violate the rights of the people by Royal Decrees and a President that can do the same with Executive Orders?