Throwing the Constitution Out With the Bath Water

The oath of office prescribed by the U.S. Constitution for Presidents states as follows:  "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."   Notice it does NOT say "protect my political agenda", but "protect the Constitution."

The more I follow what is coming out of the Obama Administration, I think BHO himself must believe that the flubbed oath by Chief Justice John Roberts at the inauguration was a license to ignore the oath altogether, because BHO and the Congressional Democrats, in the rash of orders, legislation, and other actions taken in the last six months, has discarded the Constitution as if it were nothing more than a piece of greasy paper from the fast-food trash.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically lists the powers assigned to the Federal government.  Article I, Section 9 specifically lists those powers prohibited to the Fedral government.   Article I, Section 10 specifically lists those powers prohibited to the states.  Then, to wrap things up, the Tenth Amendment states that all powers not specifically assigned by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.  BHO claims to have been a Constitutional law professor, and should know this.  Apparently he doesn't - what the *&^%$# was he teaching?

The BHO health care proposal is a great example.  Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has any right, or power, to make the most intimate and personal decisions any of us make, those of choosing our physician and deciding the course of our health care and medical treatment?  I'll save you some time - it does not say this anywhere, in any form or fashion.

The concept of “socialized medicine”, a term that President Obama tries to avoid even while he tries to force the country in that direction through his so-called “reforms”, is named that for a reason – “socialized” = “socialist.”  This step by the Federal government, inserting itself into one of the most personal decisions we get to make in a free society, is unquestionably un-Constitutional.

 

Likewise, "Cap & Trade" is well outside the scope of Federal Constitutional authority.  This legislation, designed openly to drive up the cost of energy to force us to make certain choices about our homes and automobiles, is but the latest example of BHO meddling in our personal lives.  He buys the myth of global warming, and thus wants to force all of us to buy tiny electric cars, and put solar cells on our roofs, or else he will tax us into bankruptcy.  As I have demonstrated in this blog before, there is no "energy shortage" if we will just use what we already have in place and available.  BHO, I like trees and all, but you cannot under the Constitution make me hug one.

 

The government take-over of GM and Chrysler is another thing you will not find in the Constitution.  The "commerce clause" in Article I, Section 8, is the victim here; it says the Federal government may regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the several states, and with Indian tribes.  This does not allow BHO to tell me what car I can buy, nor who will be the CEO of GM, nor what foreign company can buy Chrysler.  Merely because a car made by Chrysler in Michigan now resides in my garage does not ipso facto mean the Feds have carte blanche right to regulate everything to do with the auto industry.

 

(Didja see that?  A Latin phrase and a French phrase cheek-by-jowl!  This blatant abuse of the Constitution really gets me amped up!)

 

Americans have been trained to the Federal trough for a dangerously long period of time.  We line up and joyfully accept road money, schools money, Federal benefits, and so on by the bucketsful.  What we don't see is the fine print, all the strings and conditions attached to that money by the Feds.  Now, we are getting bitten by an unprecedented course of Federal intervention in our lives, intervention for which they have no legal or Constitutional authority whatsoever.

 

What is the solution, when BHO is President, and Congress has a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats?  Short of a wholesale change at the next elections, Acorn's gerry-mandering and voter fraud notwithstanding, our only defense is to resort to Court challenges, and the hope that BHO doesn't get to change any of the conservative seats on the Supreme Court before those cases get there. 

 

The Court today rejected the Second Circuit's ruling in the Ricci case, in which prospective Justice Sotomayor has thus been reversed.  You may recall that Ricci involved a qualification test in the Hartford, Connecticut Fire Department, that was tossed out by the city because not enough minorities scored well wnough to get promotions.  The Supreme Court today ruled that was not a reasonable basis to discard the test.  But, more on Ricci later.

 

The point here, in this discussion, is that the Supreme Court is still in a position where it might just throw out these socialist pieces of BHO's agenda as un-Constitutional.  There is ample precedent in the rejection of much of FDR's "New Deal", which used some socialist principles to address the financial collapse of the Great Depression.  Where BHO has "czars", FDR had "dictators", running private industry with the heavy hand of government.  BHO may say "it worked before", but in truth we will never know how much it worked because our economy came under the massive influence of World War II, not just social legislation.  I doubt we want to have the global war economic stimulus this time around, do we?

 

There is, however, a significant difference between FDR's programs, and BHO's.  FDR tried many devices to put people back to work.  He gave the unemployed and down-on-their-luck something positive to do.  BHO?  All he wants to do is tell us what doctor to choose, what car to buy, how we should outfit our homes, and sooner or later what we can eat, who we can marry, and how many children we can have.  And then tax us into bankruptcy on all of this.

 

Americans these days tend to want to make fun of conservatives, sort of kicking us while we are down.  Too bad, because I fear the dire warnings about where BHO wants to take this country are falling largely on deaf ears.  Too many people will only "get it" when it is too late and we have to drive away from our foreclosed homes in our electric putt-putt cars, penniless after we've spent our last dime to pay the tax bill.

 

UPDATE:  More information on cap & trade: 

 

The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don’t, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.  Once the national code exists, the states will have to comply or have their own codes overridden by the national one.  If the latter occurs, the states will be docked/fined either cash or the ubiquitous "carbon credits", which amounts to a new kind of security that can be bought, sold, or traded.

 

Friends, this is boldly, blatantly un-Constitutional for the Federal government to override state and local building codes.  I cannot be more clear on this.

 

Comments

[Jackie]

I'm willing to be the plaintiff. When do we file?

[Alice C. Linsley]

I hear ya, brother!