Upon taking office, each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
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.
If a president works against the Constitution of the United States (COTUS), specifically, if he instructs the DOJ to sue states which have passed local law to pursue and fulfill its obligation to defend its borders as mandated by Article IV, Section 4 of the COTUS …
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
… it raises questions about the president being seen as an enemy of the Constitution.
I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.
Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warned in June of 2010 that in order to find $100 billion in savings, Pentagon leaders, working with the military services, will have to identify “lower-priority programs” that are not going to be part of future budgets.
Already this year, we have seen this president slash NASA’s Constellation program to a mere pittance of its initial mission design resulting in an estimated 20,000 jobs lost in the space exploration sector. In addition, we have seen Obama’s critical thinking lead to banning off-shore oil drilling leading to thousands of more jobs being lost in the industry.
Pulling all of this together and reflecting upon the impact his decisions have on industry, the country’s diminishing lead in space exploration and now demonstrating an overt willingness to work against the Constitution by suing states who have passed laws in pursuit of their Constitutional obligation to defend their borders, we can safely surmise that the president’s policies are placing the country’s overall security into jeopardy and should be viewed as an enemy of the state.
The bill is HR 5175 and its purpose is to restrict political involvement by corporations and individuals engaged in negotiating government contracts. Sounds good. Even better is how Democrats named the proposed Act, “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act.” Who could possibly oppose strengthening democracy? And why would anyone not want light cast upon election spending? Sure seemed good to me.
But there was more behind the label. Prima facie this bill seemed to have potential for abuse. However, as one continues reading the plot thickens. At page 28 it stuck me that this bill was not simply a potential abuse of power it was a fairly straight-forward attempt at limiting free speech.Continue reading →
Bret Baier spars with the an Muhammed Ali-like President Obama
I’ve asked it before and I’m asking it again, why is it that anytime someone says, “let me be perfectly clear,” they proceed to be anything but. In the above interview, Obama reminded me of Muhammad Ali as he verbally danced like a butterfly around questions and attempted to sting like a bee by excoriating Baier for interrupting his long-winded attempts not to answer the questions.
When I first heard talk of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” I scoffed. Really? Even Nancy Pelosi knows you cannot subvert the Constitution. Certainly, the President would refuse to sign an illegally passed law. I could not image any Administration openly supporting the passage of a law that had not been properly voted upon. The House and Senate bills are not the same bill. The Senate rewrote and substantially changed the House bill. According to tradition and my understanding of the Constitution the house must vote upon the Senate version of the bill.
As I listened to the debate I was heavily impacted by the Republican references to Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. It was so obvious this tactic was unconstitutional. However, I notice the quoted text was always abbreviated (as indicated by ellipses.) The researcher I am, I decided to reread the Constitution. Wouldn’t it be ignorant to based my opinion on an excerpt? But hey, most Americans base their opinions on far less – ask any liberal and they tell you what they “feel” is right.
The Constitution Assumes Democracy
Unfortunately, this is where I piss off my conservative friends, but please keep reading, then research it and convince me I’m wrong or that there is a better Article upon which to base a Constitutional challenge.
This article appears to be talking primarily about overriding a Presidential veto. I reread the entire Constitution excluding amendments to find any clear language regarding bills where the Senate substantially changes a House bill. Clearly, over time Congress has established a long history of messing with bills and reconciling the versions into a new bill which is then passed by both houses. But such procedures are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. It seems the details of how to originate a bill and pass a bill is largely left up to Congress. When it says, “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States,” it does not even mention their having voted on that bill.
Scary omission as we have always assumed they vote. Today, we have Congress run by ideologues, who comb through the Constitution looking for loopholes and what they can get away with. I believe the founding fathers took it for granted that common sense would rule Congressional procedure. They assumed any bill presented to the President was the same bill voted for by both houses of Congress, but the fact is, they forgot to spell it out for the idiots of the future. Oops.
The good news may be that the long-standing tradition of both houses voting on the same bill may sway the Supreme Court to nullify the health care law. The bad news is that Article I, Section 5 reads, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” and this will likely be the basis for Pelosi’s defense.
If Republicans were in the majority and the Slaughter Solution were even discussed, the press would be circling like sharks, insinuation dictatorship, ect. It might have even been nicknamed the “Final Solution.” Instead today we see editorials and sycophants in the MSM defending it and claiming it’s commonly done. To that I must exclaim, BULLSHIT.
This is an affront to American political tradition, democracy, and freedom. If we let them get away with this, there will be no bound to how far they will go the next time!
The Idiot quote of the Year
Comes from Nancy Pelosi.
“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
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 United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.
Chronicles of Delusion 