{"id":12658,"date":"2025-03-11T15:10:12","date_gmt":"2025-03-11T15:10:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/bidens-final-acts-democracy-in-peril-or-political-theater\/"},"modified":"2025-03-11T15:10:12","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T15:10:12","slug":"bidens-final-acts-democracy-in-peril-or-political-theater","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/bidens-final-acts-democracy-in-peril-or-political-theater\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden’s Final Acts: Democracy in Peril or Political Theater?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a bold move that has sent shockwaves through Washington's power corridors, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is challenging the constitutional validity of former President Biden's last executive actions. Bailey's demand for a DOJ investigation into whether Biden's “cognitive decline allowed unelected staff to push through radical policy without his knowing approval” strikes at the heart of our democratic process.<\/p>\n

As libertarians, we should be deeply concerned about the possibility of unelected bureaucrats wielding presidential power from the shadows. If Bailey's suspicions prove correct, we're looking at nothing less than a constitutional crisis \u2013 one where the administrative state may have effectively staged a soft coup against democratic governance.<\/p>\n

The evidence Bailey cites is compelling. Reports that Democratic leaders, including former VP Harris and Senator Schumer, created an unprecedented barrier around Biden raise serious questions. Speaker Johnson's account of being blocked from meeting directly with Biden suggests an administration desperately trying to maintain a fa\u00e7ade of competence while the real decisions happened elsewhere.<\/p>\n

This isn't merely partisan<\/a> theater. The fundamental question transcends political tribes: who was actually governing America during Biden's final weeks in office? If it wasn't the elected president making informed decisions, then every executive order, pardon, and policy directive from that period stands on constitutionally quicksand.<\/p>\n

Bailey's letter to DOJ Inspector General Horowitz correctly points out that these actions would be “null and void” if authorized by staffers rather than a cognitively aware president. The implications are staggering \u2013 potentially invalidating dozens of far-reaching executive actions that affect millions of Americans.<\/p>\n

The timing of Biden's flurry of executive orders and pardons has always seemed suspicious to those paying attention. The administration's hard left turn in its final days appeared calculated to entrench progressive policies before the Trump administration could reverse them. Was this Biden's authentic political will or bureaucratic entrenchment by unelected staffers?<\/p>\n

For those of us committed to limited government and constitutional order, the answer matters tremendously. A president's subordinates executing power without his informed consent represents exactly the kind of unaccountable governance the Founders warned against.<\/p>\n

Regardless of one's political affiliation, all Americans should demand transparency about who was truly making decisions in the Oval Office. Democracy requires that power flows from the people through their elected representatives \u2013 not through anonymous staffers exploiting a compromised executive.<\/p>\n

Bailey's demand for investigation may be dismissed by some as political posturing, but the questions he raises deserve serious consideration. If we care about constitutional governance, we must know whether Biden's signature on those final documents represented his conscious will or merely a rubber stamp applied by handlers.<\/p>\n

The truth about Biden's final acts as president isn't just about one administration's legacy \u2013 it's about preserving the integrity of the presidency itself.<\/p>\n