OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION DEEP FLAW CONTINUES TODAY
Obama: Constitution Is Living Document
This might be a good time to remember what Mr. Obama thinks about the Constitution.
From his second autobiography, The Audacity Of Hope, pp 52 –54:
So if we all believe in individual liberty and we all believe in these rules of democracy, what is the modern argument between conservatives and liberals really about? If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that much of the time we are arguing about results—the actual decisions that the courts and the legislature make about the profound and difficult issues that help shape our lives. Should we let teachers lead our children in prayer and leave open the possibility that the minority faiths of some children are diminished? Or do we forbid such prayer and force parents of faith to hand over their children to a secular world eight hours a day? Is a university being fair by taking the history of racial discrimination and exclusion into account when filling a limited number of slots in its medical school? Or does fairness demand that universities treat every applicant in a color-blind fashion? More often than not, if a particular procedural rule—the right to filibuster, say, or the Supreme Court’s approach to constitutional interpretation—helps us win the argument and yields the outcome we want, then for that moment at least we think it’s a pretty good rule. If it doesn’t help us win, then we tend not to like it so much
Obama’s Constitution
The rhetoric and the reality.
BY Edward Whelan
Justice John Paul Stevens turns 88 in April, and by January 2009 five other justices will be from 69 to 75 years old. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably–with the benefit of resignations by liberal justices eager for him to be the president who chooses their successors–have the opportunity to appoint two or three Supreme Court justices in his first term, with another two or three in a potential second term. That prospect ought to focus the attention of all Americans who want a Supreme Court that practices judicial restraint and respects the proper realm of representative government. For Obama, if elected, would certainly aim to fill the Supreme Court–and the lower federal courts–with liberal judicial activists. Read More
Rush: Obama bastardizing Constitution
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh reiterated his hope Saturday that the new Democratic administration will fail, rousing conservative activists to fight the “bastardization of the Constitution that the Obama plans are.”
When it came to Iraq, Democrats “hoped George Bush failed,” said Limbaugh, making his first appearance at the Conservative Political Action Convention, “So what is so strange about saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to reconstruct and reform this nation so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?”
“I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed.”
In a 90-minute session, Limbaugh dismissed calls for bipartisan cooperation with President Obama and congressional Democrats. Working with them is tantamount to being co-opted by liberals eager to impose big government across the land, he said. Read More
Obama, the Scourge of the Constitution
By Alan Caruba Thursday, January 14, 2010
Barack Obama taught a University of Chicago Law School course on the U.S. Constitution. In response to inquiries during the campaign, the school released the following statement:
“He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Presumably, he knows something about the Constitution, but that has not prevented him from ignoring parts of it that he finds inconvenient and undermining others.
I cut Obama no slack on his ignorance of the Constitution
Putting aside the controversy over his actual place of birth which would render him ineligible to be President, his latest effort to ignore the Constitution comes in the form of a proposed “financial crisis responsibility fee” to be imposed, according to Fox News, on “roughly 50 firms (that) will be subject to the fees, which will apply only to banks, insurers, and investment houses with assets in excess of $50 billion.”
“Significantly,” noted the Fox article, “the administration will exempt General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the fees even though most of the current TARP deficit is linked to taxpayer bailouts of these firms.” It is worth noting that General Motors and Chrysler owe $66 billion of the total and the insurance conglomerate, AIG, owes about $70 billion. While the government is, for all intents and purposes, owns GM and Chrysler, the real winner in the bailout bonanza is the United Auto Workers.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but among my friends is an attorney and former judge, Lionel Waxman, who writes one of the liveliest blogs on the Internet, “Flashpoint.” As he noted in a recent post, “I cut Obama no slack on his ignorance of the Constitution. He was a law professor for Pete’s sake. He taught the stuff.”
“Here’s where he runs merrily athwart the Constitution,” said Waxman. “The equal protection clause has been ruled as prohibiting singling out some people for different (treatment) by law than others similarly situated. That’s exactly what he is doing. Article 1, Section 10, rules out issuing writs of attainder.”
Here’s a definition: BILL OF ATTAINDER, legislation, punishment.
1. An act of the legislature by which one or more persons are declared to be attainted, and their property confiscated.
2. The Constitution of the United States declares that no state shall pass any bill of attainder.
Wikipedia notes that, during the Revolutionary War, bills of attainder, and ex post facto acts of confiscation, were passed to a wide extent. The evils resulting from them, in times of more cool reflection, were discovered to have far outweighed any imagined good. As a result, the authors of the Constitution ensured that such writs of attainder could not be issued by the federal government.
Waxman advises me that the prohibition against Bills of Attainder did not bind the States at the time of the Revolution. It was not extended to the States until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866, whereupon it was held to be one of the privileges and immunities which the States were then bound not to abridge.
What makes the President’s proposal even more outrageous is that the banks he seeks to punish are guilty of nothing more than obeying federal laws that required them to make loans to borrowers that, under normal banking standards, would never have qualified for them. The law is the Community Reinvestment Act and it is one of the primary causes, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for the implosion of the housing mortgage market.
Adding to the outrage are the exemptions noted above and the fact that the banks in question have all repaid the TARP money they were literally forced to take!
This President wants to punish banks and other financial institutions for obeying the law! He wants to extract monies from them as a means to reducing the present federal debt, elements of which he voted for. There is no talk whatever of returning the unspent “Stimulus” bill funds to the Treasury towards this end.
Obama is becoming the scourge of the Constitution.
His healthcare “reform” bill, major portions of which no one has seen to date, is unconstitutional on several counts, not the least of which is the way it exempts the entire State of Nebraska or extends special provisions to the State of Florida, thus requiring the other States to unfairly pick up the slack.
This is a President who, through his Attorney General, is extending the protection of the U.S. Constitution to admitted enemy combatants! This is an offense to the 9/11 victims and all Americans past and present for whom the document represents hard won freedoms.
At what point will the ruling party in Congress, the Democrats, begin to resist these attacks on the Constitution? At what point will the Republicans take off the gloves? At what point can we expect the President to cease his attacks upon it?
If ever there were grounds for impeachment, these and other actions by the President are mounting evidence for such an action.
Congress, Obama ignore Constitution
By Carroll Cawyer
Why do we need laws? It is obvious that our elected leaders of the majority party conveniently forget the law, even the Constitution, when it gets in their way.
You disagree. Article I, Section 2 (1) of the Constitution says that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen … by the people of the several states …” The District of Columbia is not a state and although the 23rd Amendment provides for residents of the district to vote for presidential elections, it does not permit a vote for a member of Congress. Yet this Congress pushed the Constitution aside and authorized the election of a congressman for the district.
The First Amendment provides for the freedom of religion, speech and the press. These freedoms were specifically provided for freedom of religious and political expression. Yet we see this Congress moving toward “Hate Speech” legislation to prevent religious teachings if it condemns aberrant and distasteful behavior as sin. We have also seen the curtailment of our rights to discussing political elections within a specific time frame of an election. And that is the time frame when most Americans actually begin to pay attention to upcoming elections. It was free religious teaching and political discussion which the Founding Fathers were most concerned about.
The White House has just fired an Independent Inspector General investigating AmeriCorps. Congress gave them special protection, a law passed last year with the support of then Senator Obama, requiring a 30-day notice before firing one of these Inspectors General for cause. This was to remove political pressure from the position and keep them truly independent. However, Inspector General Gerald Walpin conducted an investigation on the misuse of federal funds, by Sacramento Mayor and friend of President Obama, Kevin Johnson when he was the president of the nonprofit Saint Hope using AmeriCorps funds. His investigation found the allegations to be true and upon filing his report he received a phone call from the White House telling him to resign within one hour or he would be fired. He refused to resign and the action is still ongoing.
These are just three examples of those in power believing they are above the law. They must be careful. When leaders ignore the law designed to protect residents from the overbearing tyranny of government, the people will remember that they are the true law and power in this country. Those who shred the Constitution will be swept from power by Constitutional means, including the Second Amendment which was included in the Constitution if ever needed “again” for this specific purpose.
In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council
Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th.
The U.S. Constitution 2.0, The Obama Rewrite
The Obama Administration is developing a new socialist constitution for America to replace the original Constitution written by our Founders. Every single one of these huge bills being rammed through congress is simply another article of the Obama constitution which allows no amendments by Republicans.
The people need to understand that these huge 1000 to 2000 page bills - the 111 Congress agenda - are all parts of one master blueprint for a new socialist government. The master plan has been split up into different component pieces so that the people won’t notice how they will all fit back together until after they become law.
In a building blueprint for example, you have a page for the foundation, a page for the framework, a page for the plumbing, a page for the electrical system, etc. It doesn’t become a building until all of the drawings and diagrams are built and integrated together.
It seems that everyone wants to focus on the details of the Healthcare bill, the Cap & Trade bill, the Stimulus bill, and others that have and will come up. We want to pick apart each bill and say “you can’t have this in there” and “you can’t have that in there,” while overlooking the larger picture. Each bill is simply one page in the overall plan to redesign America into a socialist state.
This is why each and every conglomeration of legislation this congress has been working on all year is critical to the Obama agenda. They must all be passed or the master plan cannot function as designed. No trace of capitalism can remain or the socialist system won’t work.
The old building must be torn down and the lot cleared before the new building can be built, and that is precisely what the Obama is doing now to our economy. The free market economy must be destroyed before the new socialist economy can be installed.
This explains why nothing the Obama has done has promoted free enterprise or helped small businesses. Small businesses contain a huge resource of potential government dependents if the Obama can cause them to become unemployed. Government dependents are good for socialism and they generally vote for Democrats.
The blueprint doesn’t stop at our shores. This is a global blueprint that extends all the way to Geneva; to Copenhagen; to China; to the Mideast; and of course, to the U.N. It’s an open door to a one world government under the pretense of controlling global warming which is another page in the blueprint that uses the same kind of lies and false pretenses that are being applied to the economy and healthcare. There is no end to the lies and deceptions coming from the Obama.
Whether on the global or domestic scale, they are the methods, strategies, and philosophies of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.” The bankers and mortgage brokers became the target. The healthcare providers and insurers became the target. The energy producers are next to be targeted for assassination by the Obama machine gun. The war on drilling has already begun.
There is no energy crisis in this country, but there will be if the Obama has his way with pushing electric cars onto a public that doesn’t want them. All of our electrical energy needs can be easily met with an electric grid powered by nuclear power plants. But if we did that then the government wouldn’t be in control of the grid and GE wouldn‘t stand to profit. To the Obama, nuclear means only bombs, so no new nuclear power plants will be allowed under this administration - at least not in our country, but they’re fine in Iran.
Global socialism can only succeed if nations are willing to unite under a one world government. That means we are not allowed to have enemies, which is why Obama is making nice with Islam and Islamic terrorists. If the Obama can convince them that he is not George Bush, then maybe they will like us. I realize it is insane thinking, but it is the Obama’s thinking.
Somehow he seems to have the idea that we are under threat from, and being attacked by, Islamic radicals because they don’t like us for something that we’ve done. It has nothing to do with their religion, right? So the solution to this problem is to make nice with them and show them that things will be different now with this imitation president.
Attorney General, Eric Holder, had already guaranteed the “successful guilty outcome” of the New York Five trial in an attempt to calm our concerns. So if that’s the case, why have the trial at all if the outcome is already decided? Why not expedite the process with a military tribunal rather than spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on this kangaroo court? The answer is that it will not be the terrorists who are being tried; it will be the Bush administration’s policies and efforts to protect our country that will be on trial.
Why were these five terrorists picked for the New York trial? Two of them, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Waleed bin Attash are two of the three detainees who have been waterboarded, and the other three, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali are claiming to have been subjected to other forms of torture. This is, no doubt, what a large portion of the trial will focus on as well as other methods of the Bush administration to protect our country from attacks - methods that are being repealed by the Obama.
I don’t need to tell you what a threat to our national security this will be when all of our intelligence-gathering methods and interrogation techniques are discussed in open court and made available to the enemy that the Obama doesn’t recognize. This, in addition to the security risks and expense being presented to New York, shows the incompetence and naiveté of this administration.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed wants to die as a martyr. Little does he suspect that among his 72 virgins will likely be Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, and Helen Thomas. The way to become a martyr is to go down fighting for Islam and Allah.
That is exactly what this New York show trial will give him - an international soapbox to espouse his beliefs and hatred. Instead, he should get a military tribunal followed by execution in a sausage machine then fed to the hogs. That is the fate he deserves, not the dignity and respect that Obama wants him to have in a civilian trial as an American citizen which he is not.
The Obama says he wants to show the world how fair our court system is. What foreign country gives a hoot about how fair our domestic court system is? What concerns them is our foreign policy. Whose side is the Obama on? It’s hard to choose between the communists and the Islamics.
The talking heads in Washington and on the news channels are doing their best to mislead the ignorant sheeple by calling what the 911 highjackers did “a crime.” It was not a “crime.” There is no law on the books that says you can’t fly a plane into a building. It was an act of war. Bush understood that; the Obama doesn’t.
And don’t be fooled by the deception coming from this administration that AG, Eric Holder, made the decision to hold civilian trials for terrorists all by himself. This decision came down from the very top of the administration. The Obama is quite content to allow all of the Islamic propaganda that will be featured in the trial to be spread around the globe to demonstrate to the Islamic world how fair and unbiased he is toward Islam. He would like them to think that the rest of us feel the same way… except the conservatives.
When it comes to granting and protecting the so-called rights of terrorists, they say the Constitution must be followed to the letter. But when it comes to the actions of congress and this administration - and protecting the rights of American citizens - the Constitution doesn’t seem to exist. This government is already operating under the new Obama constitution 2.0.
When our country was founded, the Founders spent years of hard work to develop our Constitution which provides the framework for the country and the federal government. Obama’s socialist constitution is already written and will replace the Constitution our Founders provided in a very short period of time if we are unable to stop it.
When Obama said “We are just 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America,” we understood his intentions, but hadn’t seen the plan. Now we are seeing his blueprint coming out of congress under the guise of healthcare, economic recovery, global warming, and other contrived frauds, but it’s only recently that we can see how it all fits together into a new Constitution for a socialist America. In other words, we saw the intent before but not the plan. Now we see the plan - and it’s shocking.
We need to stop bickering over the details in each of these bills in congress and see the larger picture. We need to stop trying to add amendments and repealing others to find some sort of compromise that will allow a bill to pass. This is the most frightening thing that could happen in congress.
No part of this blueprint should be allowed to pass through congress and find its way to the Resolute desk. It’s already too late to stop the Stimulus Bill which was one page of the blueprint. But 85% of that money has yet to be spent and can still be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
Unfortunately, this congress has no intention of doing that as the remainder of the money has already been earmarked, either directly or indirectly, for the election and re-election of more Democrats to congress. Those people will be the tenants who will fill the corporate offices in the socialist building that the Obama has under construction. These piles of legislation must be stopped in congress altogether or the free country we all know and love is finished.
