Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

The Real Obama: Absolute power

Details

  • Description

    How the president has ignored the principles of our founders

  • Duration 8:34
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

Had -- the -- -- the president continues as we bring you another edition of the real Obama now in this installment.

We shine a spotlight on an executive order that the White House was hoping that you would never learn about now the president signed the national defense resource -- preparedness.

Executive order late Friday afternoon and since that time.

Now the measure has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media.

Now the order essentially gives -- president of the United States absolute power over any and all American resources.

During both times of peace and national crisis.

-- this includes but is not limited to food and livestock water plants energy -- -- -- transportation and construction materials.

And gives the -- government the ability to quote.

Control -- general distribution of any material including applicable services in these civilian market.

-- white house Press Secretary Jay Carney laughed off a question about the document at today's briefing let's take a look.

There's -- -- -- -- just this gives executive branch.

-- -- energy food water and even peacetime or wartime.

There are some conservative blogs are pushing the notion that -- see -- what else preparing for war with the wrong.

Can you explain what that's exactly what -- Well I cannot explain that reaction to it I think it was a fairly.

Standard and routine.

Not a piece of business.

Not everybody's laughing about this executive order in fact some have suggested this would give the president of the United States the authority to declare basically martial law.

Starting times of peace and to be shore.

This is simply the latest string of actions taken by the administration that -- the basic principles of our constitution joining me now.

And tonight's edition of the real apology secular -- from the American Center for Law and Justice.

And Fox News contributor Lanny Davis -- welcome back.

I love -- about it Sean how are you all right that this well let's get a little history here.

This was actually signed -- similar national defense resource of preparedness by Bill Clinton.

You have similar executive order signed by Dwight Eisenhower George W.

Bush.

But there's a different there are some things that changed in this that I think it has brought I think legitimate criticism and concern could you go through that.

I think you're absolutely right that it made the idea of this act is nothing new at some presence of had a since the 1950s.

-- what is different about this one that different than any the other one is the definition of national defense.

It's incorporated what's called the Stafford act and I -- -- get overly technical.

But this gives the president much broader authority than any of the previous -- in fact -- letting me remember this.

The previous sexting -- incorporation of the Stafford act which is civilian.

Civil situation.

Where you the president would have unlimited authority to subject to court the checks and balances we can't we can't ignore checks and balances here.

But the definition of national defense is broader -- -- it is -- ever been.

Under any of these previous executive orders and I think that's the most significant aspect of this might elect presidents getting -- from the left and the right the left -- preparation for the warning Iran not by the president's doing it's a potential war with Iran and concerned about the energy and resources of our country -- -- court's conservatives are saying this is unchecked power.

There's a balance here but the one thing that's very different -- is the fact that the national defense.

Definition is different than it is ever made it a much broader than -- Atlanta -- -- with the this -- very specific section then Jake correct me if I'm wrong is 801.

-- you're an expert in media nobody is as good as you.

If you -- to at least something that you don't want people to find in your in the White House when he releases.

Late on a Friday afternoon hoping nobody pays attention to it but -- -- festivities.

Hey it's at least things at 10 o'clock on July 3 that was a really good that's because I got it.

The next day here you JD and being years ago myself that I want to compliment Sean Hannity for the first time in a long time -- not being slanted in describing this is a.

Bipartisan.

Act that actually goes back to Franklin Roosevelt.

Not just the nineteen and he changed -- with the way we've got to that part -- you know you waste somebody's time time.

We thought we got here like we complement -- -- The second planet like they shouldn't at this second -- I make aside from Sean Hannity being a good guy.

Is that this is really not a significant risk to America I don't know why he made those changes to answer your question.

But there's no risk here because every president needs authority in times of emergencies such as a nuclear attack or something that is another 9/11 and this authorities been on the books and President Obama.

Won't misuse -- the real question is why are the extremes on the left and the right so quick.

To jump beyond the facts and look at the worst possible interpretation.

And it's not included -- and you look at some of these -- -- -- It says that because of the way the president's active for example.

We have a very specific process for recess appointments and with the national labor board appointments the president remembered -- go through that process that's right but.

This isn't the conservatives like myself -- I think would argue.

Yeah the health care mandate is not constitutional.

The Cato Institute actually -- the top ten instances.

Where the president is pretty much -- there's -- -- -- the constitution.

And so and there is -- suspicion jail continuity of.

Yeah yeah there's a bit I think that the biggest problem here is context it is it document dump in the sense that it comes in late on a Friday evening that's an interesting this situation.

Its second is the context of the other situations you talk about the attorney general fast and furious situation.

Then the attorney general said he was concerned about what the NYPD was doing which was clearly within the law and I think that they're -- For a justice is now backed -- on that wisely but you look at the contacts and then the definitional aspect and and I think the definition is the problem.

I don't believe -- I agree that the president could get away with this because number one you've got to congress you've got an active media that's why we're here tonight.

But you've got to ask yourself why this overly broad definition of national -- why incorporate the Stafford act which is.

Talks about Florida national interest and and tsunamis and -- situations which the president would have control over under normal source but why give to expand it.

In the form this executive order that's the concern of course executive orders have been challenged before -- -- the that I didn't think I noticed in the national defense issue that's the biggest photo I had and I.

What this is you know what Woodrow Wilson progressives like -- -- planning what what one of the things we conservatives have a problem is -- you guys believe in this concept that the constitution.

Is a -- living breathing document and so you can ignore issues like checks and balances and separation of powers like in the case a recess appointments.

So I think we're looking at this differently and that is that in in this particular case does -- give a president pretty much.

And impunity to do whatever they want.

And -- change the definition considering the president has thumbed his nose at the constitution in the past.

First first of all my point of -- he hasn't thumbed his nose and if the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

That the Supreme Court decide that.

Not GA and -- -- mr.

justice Hannity.

But most importantly this isn't what we.

The paranoia.

On the left and the right that's going on in America and polarizing this country so badly.

Jane I yet -- a conservative and myself as a liberal -- able to exchange views in the civil away.

Which Sean Hannity is a civil moderator what's going on on the Twitter and the Internet is lunacy if you read some of these comments kids not -- Analyzing this Connelly it's completely -- people that I -- nobody is mentioning Ronald Reagan and nobody is I'm only saying that it's the extreme.

Interpretation.

That causes the polarization is I know.

-- -- the president should never contributed to this by same Republicans want dirty air and water want kids and also dozen -- and her impending end in themselves he never contributed -- this.

At all I don't like rhetoric I don't like the extreme rhetoric sometimes I think the president has gone too far and so has the Republican.

Congress and when there was a Republican -- they were recess appointments -- so let's I don't even problem helping not recess appointments while they were in session.

That never get this whole -- was once you know I don't go to war.

The general who has won this as she was one senator holding the floor and that he wasn't -- -- a very -- -- -- -- -- recess appointments only when their recess and they're not the reason is one senator.

And coming up as a possible that the president.

Load More