"Those obstructionist Republicans -- they won't let President Obama get things done!"
This common cry from the Left...blaming the lack of progress in our nation on Republicans who won't just go along with President Obama's agenda...because it would so totally work if we just let him do it!
Let's set aside for a moment the fact that a) President Obama had two years in his first term with no opposition and got to pass 100% of his agenda and it didn't solve our nation's problems and b) the American people purposely elected divided government and deal with the crux of the issue -- the Founding Fathers intended government to move slowly.
This is why new laws must pass through both the House and Senate (both at the committee level and then at a full body vote), and in the latter body can be stopped in it's tracks by a filibuster requiring a 60 vote super-majority to break. Then, the President must sign the bill to make it a law. If the President vetoes the law it requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate to override the veto. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL just click here for a more appropriate explanation.)
It was SUPPOSED to be hard to pass a new law. The President isn't supposed to get his laws passed immediately because the President says so. Actually, many of our founders didn't even believe the President should set the agenda AT ALL but rather that this right fell to Congress. For this reason, the first six Presidents of the United States only used the veto 8 times over the course of a total of 40 years (this included John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams who did not use the veto AT ALL). These six Presidents made all their vetoes on Constitutional grounds ONLY...believing that the bills past were Unconstitutional. It wasn't until President Andrew Jackson did we see Presidents veto duly passed bills because they simply opposed them. (In fact, the first 14 Presidents only exercised the veto 19 times in the first 68 years of the Constitution.)
The point of this lovely history lesson? The Founders WERE NOT worried about "getting things done." They recognized that if the nation rams through laws it's very possible the nation ends up with unenforceable, impossible laws that end up causing more problems than they solve -- if they solve any at all (see: Obamacare).
Furthermore, the system of checks and balances created in the Constitution actual means there will be deadlock to ensure that the American people actually WANT the laws put into place rather than one party ramming through their agenda. If there wasn't the system of checks and balances there would be an upheaval of our society's laws each time the balance of power shifted in Washington.
In addition, allowing the party in power to just "get stuff done" and ram through their agenda would lead to the tyranny of the majority. If the majority decided to vote away the rights of men to wear red shirts, then that would become the law of the land until a new majority voted to change that law. After all, that would be letting that party "get things done" right? Outlawing red shirts on men is in fact a thing that got done.
No party has a right to ram through their agenda, regardless of whether or not they claim that it would so totally work. That is not how the Constitution was written and how our nation was founded. Liberals can whine and moan about poor President Obama being obstructed and stopped from getting things done, that's the way the Constitution was written. Liberals should feel free to deal with it.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: The Supreme Court Says...
This one comes from yet another conversation with my Twitter friend "Jeff." This time our debate was on abortion. This was his final response:
"Jeff" has just demonstrated a class liberal rhetorical fallacy: The Supreme Court said X, ergo X is a fact.
For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.
Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue. Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong. Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States.
If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865 and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.
The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.
 |
| This is not "Jeff's" real Twitter page although it is his real tweet. @UpstateMetFan is my Twitter handle, not "Jeff's" |
For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.
Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue. Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong. Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States.
If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865 and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.
The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Monday, June 6, 2011
Freedom of Religion Doesn't Mean Freedom FROM Religion
Recently a high school student and his family sued a school district to restrict references to God and prayer from a high school graduation ceremony. As a Christian and as a Constitutionalist, stories like this are highly frustrating to me. Liberals have tried, with unfortunate success, to convince America that people have a right to never hear anything that ever upsets them in the slightest. This, in a nutshell, is the true definition of political correctness. I don’t know about you, but I’ve quite frankly had just about enough of this baloney.
Here’s the truth: we have Freedom OF Religion, and not Freedom FROM Religion. It’s an important distinction. As Americans, we have freedom to practice our faith. The only exception is if PHYSICAL harm is being done to another human being. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means people can’t legally sacrifice another person on an altar in the name of practicing my religion. It does not mean I can’t say “God bless you” to an atheist when they sneeze.) Furthermore, the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution was never meant to keep God out of all government circles. It was designed to prevent the United States from having a declared state religion (which we do not have).
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1)
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, here’s a quick history lesson: Before the United States was a nation, we were colonies of Great Britain. Great Britain, both then and now had an official state religion, the Anglican Church. The Founders did not want the United States to fall into that trap, hence the first part of the First Amendment, which prohibits the United States from becoming a Methodist nation, or a Lutheran nation, or a Baptist nation. That was the historical intention of that part of the First Amendment.
However, the Founders also put a second statement about religion. The Founders also made sure that there would be nothing to stop people from freely practicing their religion. Notice it does not say “private exercise thereof.” It says Congress shall make NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The United States government may not stop people from practicing their religion. Got it?
Yet Liberals and atheists of all political leanings have combined to demand that they never have to hear anything about other people’s religions and now what the law to protect their ears from having to hear our free speech. With all due respect to you atheists, if you don’t want to hear the free expression of my faith, don’t listen to me. Don’t read Biblical Conservatism (for crying out loud, it’s in the name of the blog). You do not have a right to stop my expression of my faith, or for that matter, anyone else’s expression of their faith. Not in private, not in public, not at all. Period.
Liberals would rather have us believe that the most disgusting pornography on the planet is protected speech under the Constitution, while saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for this meal you have provided us and for your blessings on our lives. Amen,” is not protected speech. Sorry Liberals, but you’re wrong (quite frankly, on both counts). For the record, I recognize that I legally do not have the right to stop the pornography industry, provided all involved are consenting adults. That said, the Founders intended to protect free expression of religious faith, all political speech, and assembly in protest when they ratified the First Amendment. The Constitution protects my right to pray in public, to talk about Jesus in public, to quote the Bible in public. I have that right.
You have two choices in such situations. First and foremost, you can leave. You don’t have to stay and here my free speech. You have every right to avoid hearing my speech (as I avoid viewing the aforementioned pornography because it highly offends me). No one is forcing you to stay and listen.
Secondly, you can counter my speech with speech of your own. You are more than welcome to enter into a discussion with me on our differences of faith or our differences of political opinion. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. I believe in the Arena of Ideas. You present your ideas, I’ll present mine.
Unfortunately for Liberals, their ideas rarely stand up in a debate. They end up being Unconstitutional, just plain whiny, or both combined (see: demanding people of faith never speak their faith out loud). Not only do you have a legal right to stop people from expressing their faith, you also are being incredibly hypocritical. Liberals claim to be open minded but never want to be open minded about anything they don’t like. As William F. Buckley famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views.”
So Liberals, and atheists of all political bents, please hear me: Get over yourselves. We have the right to express our faith. You have a right to not listen. You have a right to debate with us. You do not have a right to silence our constitutionally protected religious speech. Get over it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Emphasis Added)
Here’s the truth: we have Freedom OF Religion, and not Freedom FROM Religion. It’s an important distinction. As Americans, we have freedom to practice our faith. The only exception is if PHYSICAL harm is being done to another human being. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means people can’t legally sacrifice another person on an altar in the name of practicing my religion. It does not mean I can’t say “God bless you” to an atheist when they sneeze.) Furthermore, the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution was never meant to keep God out of all government circles. It was designed to prevent the United States from having a declared state religion (which we do not have).
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1)
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, here’s a quick history lesson: Before the United States was a nation, we were colonies of Great Britain. Great Britain, both then and now had an official state religion, the Anglican Church. The Founders did not want the United States to fall into that trap, hence the first part of the First Amendment, which prohibits the United States from becoming a Methodist nation, or a Lutheran nation, or a Baptist nation. That was the historical intention of that part of the First Amendment.
However, the Founders also put a second statement about religion. The Founders also made sure that there would be nothing to stop people from freely practicing their religion. Notice it does not say “private exercise thereof.” It says Congress shall make NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The United States government may not stop people from practicing their religion. Got it?
Yet Liberals and atheists of all political leanings have combined to demand that they never have to hear anything about other people’s religions and now what the law to protect their ears from having to hear our free speech. With all due respect to you atheists, if you don’t want to hear the free expression of my faith, don’t listen to me. Don’t read Biblical Conservatism (for crying out loud, it’s in the name of the blog). You do not have a right to stop my expression of my faith, or for that matter, anyone else’s expression of their faith. Not in private, not in public, not at all. Period.
Liberals would rather have us believe that the most disgusting pornography on the planet is protected speech under the Constitution, while saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for this meal you have provided us and for your blessings on our lives. Amen,” is not protected speech. Sorry Liberals, but you’re wrong (quite frankly, on both counts). For the record, I recognize that I legally do not have the right to stop the pornography industry, provided all involved are consenting adults. That said, the Founders intended to protect free expression of religious faith, all political speech, and assembly in protest when they ratified the First Amendment. The Constitution protects my right to pray in public, to talk about Jesus in public, to quote the Bible in public. I have that right.
You have two choices in such situations. First and foremost, you can leave. You don’t have to stay and here my free speech. You have every right to avoid hearing my speech (as I avoid viewing the aforementioned pornography because it highly offends me). No one is forcing you to stay and listen.
Secondly, you can counter my speech with speech of your own. You are more than welcome to enter into a discussion with me on our differences of faith or our differences of political opinion. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. I believe in the Arena of Ideas. You present your ideas, I’ll present mine.
Unfortunately for Liberals, their ideas rarely stand up in a debate. They end up being Unconstitutional, just plain whiny, or both combined (see: demanding people of faith never speak their faith out loud). Not only do you have a legal right to stop people from expressing their faith, you also are being incredibly hypocritical. Liberals claim to be open minded but never want to be open minded about anything they don’t like. As William F. Buckley famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views.”
So Liberals, and atheists of all political bents, please hear me: Get over yourselves. We have the right to express our faith. You have a right to not listen. You have a right to debate with us. You do not have a right to silence our constitutionally protected religious speech. Get over it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Emphasis Added)
Monday, March 21, 2011
On Libya, Obama Goes to UN but Bypasses Congress?
Saturday, President Obama announced that the United States would join a coalition of nations to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. I'll be honest, I haven't had time to do sufficient research to offer my final opinion on the no-fly zone itself or it's enforcement by the United States, so I won't take a position as of yet on that. Also, if you read my blog on Friday, you know what I think about President Obama's announcing that we wouldn't send ground troops. (1) However, regardless of you personally feel about the military action that the United States is undertaking, it must be noted that President Obama has ONCE AGAIN egregiously ignored the Constitution of the United States, and that is unacceptable.
To be sure, the President was absolutely certain to go the United Nations to gain the "international support" he spent years blasting President George W. Bush for not obtaining before actions in Iraq (since apparently Italy, Poland and Great Britain don't qualify as international support by Obama's definition). Yet he neglected to follow the Constitution of the United States! The Constitution of the United States Article I Section 8 SPECIFICALLY gives the right to declare war to Congress.
(Congress shall have the power) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. (2)
That means the President is Constitutionally required to obtain Congressional approval (via either declaration of war or by authorization via a War Powers Act). For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means the President can't just go to war. Congress has to agree with him before starting military action.
But wait, Chris, isn't the President the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military? Correct. President is indeed the highest rank in the United States Military. But let's see what the Constitution says about this aspect of the Presidency:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (3)
All this says is "the President is Commander in Chief." It doesn't say he can use the military at his pleasure. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution makes that clear. The President MUST obtain the approval of Congress to utilize the United States military! Period.
Yet our President doesn't seem to think this is true. Ignoring the fact that the President sat on his hands until after France, of all countries, took the lead. France, the nation whose battle flag is all white, took the lead while the rest of the world sat there, waiting for America to lead Then, Mr. Obama agreed to support the international coalition in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the action, and with the proper authorization from Congress, he is within his rights to do so. The problem is that the President needed to get a War Powers Resolution from Congress and he has shown absolutely zero intent to do so.
Anyone know where the "the President shall utilize the United States Military with the approval of the United Nations" section of the Constitution is located? What? It's not there? Darn right. This President has once again failed the Constitutional requirements of his office. He has refused to enforce a law which was duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President and he has been declared to be in contempt of court over his deep water drilling moratorium. He has broken the law three times, all three of which are a violation of the United States Constitution.
Once again, the President of the United States has shown blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, all the while yielding the sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations. The President has blatant disregard for the powers that lawfully belong to him. To Barrack Obama, the Constitution seems to be a hurdle to be overcome so that he can do whatever he deems worth doing. This has been proven repeatedly.
I've said this before and I will say it again. The President has committed legitimate impeachable offenses and I believe it is time for the House of Representatives to draw up Articles of Impeachment against him. Nobody is above the law, not even the President. The Constitution is the law of our land, not the President's personal desires. Once again, I do not suggest impeachment without great consideration, especially in light of the fact that many of my counterparts on the left threw that word around like it was their job while George W. Bush was President. I believe that impeachment is to be used in the rarest of circumstances when the law has been broken. I also believe that the President has once again disregarded the Constitution of the United States, failing his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." For this reason, I say again, the President should be impeached.
ADDENDUM:
President Obama just sent this letter to Congress
In this letter, President Obama did in fact contact Congress to inform them of his reasoning for committing our nation to combat in Libya. Technically he is living within the standards of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
HOWEVER, precedent exists that each military action requires a fresh War Powers Resolution by Congress. That precedent exists since 1973 that Presidents obtain a fresh War Powers Resolution from Congress in such an instance, as was fulfilled by both President Reagan with Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and President Clinton with Operation Desert Fox in Iraq. President George H.W. Bush in Operation Desert Storm and President George W. Bush in Operation Iraqi Freedom, for all intents and purposes, had full declarations of war.
What each of these Presidents have done, which Obama has not done, is seek the official approval of Congress. Obama has not. I must maintain that the President failing to consult Congress as the Constitution requires is an impeachable offense. For the third time, President Obama has failed his Oath of Office.
I must also maintain that the President subordinating the United States to the United Nations on this matter is inexcusable. Making this identical action two to three weeks ago would have likely helped tip the scales in the favor of the Libyan Rebels. Now it may be too little, too late. The President needs to lead, or get out of the way so that America can have a strong leader in the White House!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Obama's Foreign Policy Weakness Shows on Libya
(2) United States Constitution, Article I Section 8 (Line 11)
(3) United States Constitution, Article II Section 2 (Line 1)
To be sure, the President was absolutely certain to go the United Nations to gain the "international support" he spent years blasting President George W. Bush for not obtaining before actions in Iraq (since apparently Italy, Poland and Great Britain don't qualify as international support by Obama's definition). Yet he neglected to follow the Constitution of the United States! The Constitution of the United States Article I Section 8 SPECIFICALLY gives the right to declare war to Congress.
(Congress shall have the power) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. (2)
That means the President is Constitutionally required to obtain Congressional approval (via either declaration of war or by authorization via a War Powers Act). For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means the President can't just go to war. Congress has to agree with him before starting military action.
But wait, Chris, isn't the President the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military? Correct. President is indeed the highest rank in the United States Military. But let's see what the Constitution says about this aspect of the Presidency:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (3)
All this says is "the President is Commander in Chief." It doesn't say he can use the military at his pleasure. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution makes that clear. The President MUST obtain the approval of Congress to utilize the United States military! Period.
Yet our President doesn't seem to think this is true. Ignoring the fact that the President sat on his hands until after France, of all countries, took the lead. France, the nation whose battle flag is all white, took the lead while the rest of the world sat there, waiting for America to lead Then, Mr. Obama agreed to support the international coalition in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the action, and with the proper authorization from Congress, he is within his rights to do so. The problem is that the President needed to get a War Powers Resolution from Congress and he has shown absolutely zero intent to do so.
Anyone know where the "the President shall utilize the United States Military with the approval of the United Nations" section of the Constitution is located? What? It's not there? Darn right. This President has once again failed the Constitutional requirements of his office. He has refused to enforce a law which was duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President and he has been declared to be in contempt of court over his deep water drilling moratorium. He has broken the law three times, all three of which are a violation of the United States Constitution.
Once again, the President of the United States has shown blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, all the while yielding the sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations. The President has blatant disregard for the powers that lawfully belong to him. To Barrack Obama, the Constitution seems to be a hurdle to be overcome so that he can do whatever he deems worth doing. This has been proven repeatedly.
I've said this before and I will say it again. The President has committed legitimate impeachable offenses and I believe it is time for the House of Representatives to draw up Articles of Impeachment against him. Nobody is above the law, not even the President. The Constitution is the law of our land, not the President's personal desires. Once again, I do not suggest impeachment without great consideration, especially in light of the fact that many of my counterparts on the left threw that word around like it was their job while George W. Bush was President. I believe that impeachment is to be used in the rarest of circumstances when the law has been broken. I also believe that the President has once again disregarded the Constitution of the United States, failing his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." For this reason, I say again, the President should be impeached.
ADDENDUM:
President Obama just sent this letter to Congress
In this letter, President Obama did in fact contact Congress to inform them of his reasoning for committing our nation to combat in Libya. Technically he is living within the standards of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
HOWEVER, precedent exists that each military action requires a fresh War Powers Resolution by Congress. That precedent exists since 1973 that Presidents obtain a fresh War Powers Resolution from Congress in such an instance, as was fulfilled by both President Reagan with Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and President Clinton with Operation Desert Fox in Iraq. President George H.W. Bush in Operation Desert Storm and President George W. Bush in Operation Iraqi Freedom, for all intents and purposes, had full declarations of war.
What each of these Presidents have done, which Obama has not done, is seek the official approval of Congress. Obama has not. I must maintain that the President failing to consult Congress as the Constitution requires is an impeachable offense. For the third time, President Obama has failed his Oath of Office.
I must also maintain that the President subordinating the United States to the United Nations on this matter is inexcusable. Making this identical action two to three weeks ago would have likely helped tip the scales in the favor of the Libyan Rebels. Now it may be too little, too late. The President needs to lead, or get out of the way so that America can have a strong leader in the White House!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Obama's Foreign Policy Weakness Shows on Libya
(2) United States Constitution, Article I Section 8 (Line 11)
(3) United States Constitution, Article II Section 2 (Line 1)
Monday, February 28, 2011
Rule of Law Applies to Liberals Too: That Means You, Mr. Obama
It's happening everywhere. Wisconsin Democrats are choosing to leave the State Senate rather than vote on an issue which the voters have already spoken on. The President of the United States is ignoring a court ruling against his signature healthcare law because he doesn't like what it says. The President also deciding NOT to enforce a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, because he does not approve of it. Judicial activism has failed, so now it's apparently time to ignore the law altogether!
I for one am sick and tired of this. Law abiding citizens everywhere are tired of it too. My friends, this is what it looks like when liberals are out of power. Liberals believe that power and enactment of their agenda is their sole right and privelege. Guess what, IT'S NOT! (Note, I am talking about liberals in elected office, not the well meaning individuals you we all encounter daily. Those people have good intentions and good hearts.)
The Constitution of the United States is the law of the land. The requirements of law listed within apply to ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. Got it?
I've dealt with the issues of Obama's ignoring the ruling of Obamacare (1) and of Wisconsin Democrats (2). So let's talk about Obama's latest act of lawlessness: Declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and then stating that the Justice Department would not defend it. On February 15th, I asked if President Obama believed that he was ABOVE the Judicial Branch (which he is not). Today, I'm becoming convinced it's far, far worse. Obama seems to believe HE IS the Judicial Branch!
Lets make one thing very clear. The President of the United States DOES NOT have the power to declare a law unconstitutional! That right belongs to the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch. The President's job, above all else, is to enforce all laws of the United States. Every single darn one of them. Listed in Article II of the Constitution of the United States (3) is the Presidential Oath of Office:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The President of the United States is required to fulfill the laws of the Constitution of the United States. Article I Section 7 (4) states that if the House of Representatives and the Senate both pass a law and it is presented to the President of the United States and that President signs that bill into law, that law is now the law of the land until it is repealed or altered.
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means that President Obama is required by law to enforce all laws of the United States. Period. Regardless of his feelings, regardless of the polls, regardless of anything else, the President MUST enforce this law. As President, he has the right to send a bill repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and, due to longstanding legal precedent (that's "things that have been done for years and years" for those of you from Palm Beach County), Congress will, in fact, send that bill through the legislative process. (5)
Let me borrow an analogy from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (6) to explain this in another way. Imagine that Sarah Palin is elected President of the United States in 2012 and takes office on January 20, 2013 (for the record, I devotely hope this happens). Let's say that at some point during her presidency, President Palin states that she believes that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and therefore it will not be defended by the Federal Government in any court of law.
What do you think the Drive-By Media would do? You don't have to be a prophet to figure out that they would cry for President Palin to be impeached and removed from office. As well they should, because the President does not have the right to declare a law void. I don't care where that President is conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. It does not matter. The President is not the arbitor of the constitutionality of laws!
I suspect this will not be the last time I make this statement, but Mr. President, who do you think you are? Enforce the laws. Regardless of whether or not you like them or even think they are constitutional. THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB!
I say what I said a week ago: MR. PRESIDENT, OBEY THE LAW OR YOU SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Arrogance of Obama: Who Do You Think You Are, Mr. President?
(2) Dear Wisconsin Unions: We had a Discussion - It Was Called an Election
(3) United States Constitution, Article II (the Executive Branch)
(4) United States Constitution, Article I (the Legislative Branch)
(5) For the record, any citizen of the United States can technically send a bill to Congress. If a member of the House of Representatives in the case of fiscal bills, or a member of either the House of Representatives or the Senate in the case of all other bills, is willing to sponsor said bill in their chamber, that bill can legally be considered by that house of Congress. For those of you from Palm Beach County, I'm sorry, I don't know how to word that more simply.
(6) "Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment" - Newsmax
I for one am sick and tired of this. Law abiding citizens everywhere are tired of it too. My friends, this is what it looks like when liberals are out of power. Liberals believe that power and enactment of their agenda is their sole right and privelege. Guess what, IT'S NOT! (Note, I am talking about liberals in elected office, not the well meaning individuals you we all encounter daily. Those people have good intentions and good hearts.)
The Constitution of the United States is the law of the land. The requirements of law listed within apply to ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. Got it?
I've dealt with the issues of Obama's ignoring the ruling of Obamacare (1) and of Wisconsin Democrats (2). So let's talk about Obama's latest act of lawlessness: Declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and then stating that the Justice Department would not defend it. On February 15th, I asked if President Obama believed that he was ABOVE the Judicial Branch (which he is not). Today, I'm becoming convinced it's far, far worse. Obama seems to believe HE IS the Judicial Branch!
Lets make one thing very clear. The President of the United States DOES NOT have the power to declare a law unconstitutional! That right belongs to the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch. The President's job, above all else, is to enforce all laws of the United States. Every single darn one of them. Listed in Article II of the Constitution of the United States (3) is the Presidential Oath of Office:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The President of the United States is required to fulfill the laws of the Constitution of the United States. Article I Section 7 (4) states that if the House of Representatives and the Senate both pass a law and it is presented to the President of the United States and that President signs that bill into law, that law is now the law of the land until it is repealed or altered.
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means that President Obama is required by law to enforce all laws of the United States. Period. Regardless of his feelings, regardless of the polls, regardless of anything else, the President MUST enforce this law. As President, he has the right to send a bill repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and, due to longstanding legal precedent (that's "things that have been done for years and years" for those of you from Palm Beach County), Congress will, in fact, send that bill through the legislative process. (5)
Let me borrow an analogy from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (6) to explain this in another way. Imagine that Sarah Palin is elected President of the United States in 2012 and takes office on January 20, 2013 (for the record, I devotely hope this happens). Let's say that at some point during her presidency, President Palin states that she believes that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and therefore it will not be defended by the Federal Government in any court of law.
What do you think the Drive-By Media would do? You don't have to be a prophet to figure out that they would cry for President Palin to be impeached and removed from office. As well they should, because the President does not have the right to declare a law void. I don't care where that President is conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. It does not matter. The President is not the arbitor of the constitutionality of laws!
I suspect this will not be the last time I make this statement, but Mr. President, who do you think you are? Enforce the laws. Regardless of whether or not you like them or even think they are constitutional. THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB!
I say what I said a week ago: MR. PRESIDENT, OBEY THE LAW OR YOU SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Arrogance of Obama: Who Do You Think You Are, Mr. President?
(2) Dear Wisconsin Unions: We had a Discussion - It Was Called an Election
(3) United States Constitution, Article II (the Executive Branch)
(4) United States Constitution, Article I (the Legislative Branch)
(5) For the record, any citizen of the United States can technically send a bill to Congress. If a member of the House of Representatives in the case of fiscal bills, or a member of either the House of Representatives or the Senate in the case of all other bills, is willing to sponsor said bill in their chamber, that bill can legally be considered by that house of Congress. For those of you from Palm Beach County, I'm sorry, I don't know how to word that more simply.
(6) "Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment" - Newsmax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)