by:

President Obama’s Executive Order, Increased Minimum Wage, Federal Contracts and The NSA

In the State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr Obama’s concurrent pronouncements were a double-stealth of hyperbolic effect, far superseding political rhetoric. Unilaterally proposing to increase minimum wage to new federal workers while imposing his executive-order as a divergence to his resolution, bypassing Congress or a legislation. Rather than address the political dichotomy in Washington, Mr Obama has augmented his power by circumventing his political rivalries. A notion questionable to the constitutionality of such merits, and the irony of Democratic equality.

The executive-order push was first propelled by progressive democratic lawmakers in Congress, a jarring “unprecedented” law changing effort to hike minimum wages from $7.25 to $10.10. The President’s 167th myriad of executive-orders fall short to that of his predecessors, such as President George W. Bush, who issued 291, while Clinton issued 364. Workers employed under future government contracts will be covered and insured under the new minimum wage requirement.

The President adamantly addressed a joint session of Congress, explicitly stating the variety of areas he plans to use his executive actions if the Republican dominated House rejects his legislation. Such as; retirement security, climate change, and energy transformation; a pledge he poses as imminent. 21 states have minimum wages above standard federal minimum wage, and advocates hope that this chain-tandem of proposals will serve as a trajectory to other States. One of many perennial issues Democrats have lobbied in the past.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a Federal Statute enacted in 1938, to establish a minimum wage and on hours worked, and to provide fair labor standards. Obama claims the wage increase would offset decades of inflation and create an economic ripple that would permeate the lives of many workers and families. Republican opponents fear it would proliferate layoffs and suppress hiring.

Disregarding the NSA violating the Fourth Amendment and infringing on civil liberty seems like a political shenanigan. Use your executive power to dismantle and mobilize the National Security Agency, and embark on a constitutional reform, the one first implemented by our Founding-Fathers.

“Check and Balance,” was the equilibrium of the Three Branches of Government, the compulsory measures our preceding Founding-Fathers took to protect the nation from tyranny and despotism. A syndrome now immune to separation of powers. May i ponder on Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution?

(All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives) One of the numerous sections the President has eroded.

Ironically; Article II, Section 1, (The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows),

This serves as a manipulative pipeline. However; no constitutional provision explicitly permits an executive order, other than the vaguely inexplicable grant of executive power. The exploitation of vagueness and ambiguity in language has always been a rhetorical play on semantics amongst politicians, journalist, musicians, public-speakers and writers etc…

Below 5% of Americans get paid below minimum wage, that’s a minuscule of the population when parred in the bigger spectrum of things. Primarily the NSA’s insatiable quest to aggregate American citizens personal data, and not to mention their new-found infatuation for leaky iphone Apps like the pervasively downloaded Angry Bird; a game that transmit users info across multiple internet platforms. A flaw the inexorable NSA exploited.

Equate the former with the latter and you’ll see where the executive-order seems far more imperative. Obama’s talks about riding shotgun; then get off your intransigent high-horses and dismantle the tyrannical-inertia that’s growing in the Country. Embark on paramount issues thats detrimental to the revitalization of the public’s trust. That’s a justifiable pretext that will promulgate you into history, and it’ll give you the opportunity to fix the discrepancy between your initial fad that withered into the cold desert air, and your pretentious oblivion to the castration of the Constitution.

Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st, Writer, Journalist & Lecturer Please Visit Official Website www.mrpregnant.com Appeared on over 20 different Cable & TV Networks.
Connect with him on Facebook mrpregnant Twitter mrpregnant and Linkedin mrpregnant

Print Friendly

3 Responses to “A Conglomeration of Political Discrepancy”

  1. ymbhweorfnes

    As a Brit who voted for the faux promise of Tony Blair, just to see everything turn into dust and our country’s sovereignty given over to the repressive European Union, I would urge all in the US to stand up to anyone who undermines their constitution and freedoms.

    Once your liberty has been eroded it is almost impossible to get it back.

    Here in the UK a new “People’s Army” grassroots political movement has grown to fight for the return of our sovereignty, liberty and democracy. Called the UK Independence Party, it is set to win the European elections on 22nd May 2014.

    We have been mercilessly attacked by the establishment, but each time our vote share goes up. It is possible to take on the ruling political classes, you need a very thick skin and the strongest resolve of your life – but liberty is worth the fight.

    Reply
    • Atelston Fitzgerald Holder 1st

      The irony of these clamoring bigots are the very said proponents of intolerance; a syndrome alive and flourishing in “America.” Rhetoric has predicated multiple ambiguities in the constitution, to the point where the vagueness is subjective. Like the “Clippers Owner” Constitutional & State right violated. And an NBA Constitution that’s in stark contrast to the State Constitution and the US Constitution of the land. (Thank You for the response)

      Reply
      • ymbhweorfnes

        It appears to me that those who most purport to be “liberal” are the most illiberal of all and will seek to close down fair and honest debate. No wonder people no longer have faith in the political system and disengage. However, this plays into the hands of the elite as fewer people taking part in politics gives them a louder voice.

        This is a dangerous juncture because it eases the ability to eat away at the people’s freedoms. However, from this seemingly hopeless position it takes but one honest and forthright leader to emerge and the people will re-engage locally at the grassroots level. Yes, it is a hard path to tread but have the courage of your convictions and you will succeed.

        “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win” – Mahatma Ghandi.

        Reply

Leave a comment

  • (will not be published)