One Response

1. paul says:

   March 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM

   The Constitution in its entirety, including all Amendments, was never directed at “citizens,” or “people.” It actually applies to the Government, both Federal and State. It tells the Federal Government what it “can do” in the “original body” (Articles I through VII), and what it “can’t do” in the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) and several other Amendments as well. Amendment 10 to the Constitution says “the powers not delegated to the United States[Federal Government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”. This solidified the premise that if the Constitution, with all of its Amendments, does not specifically provide the Federal Government with the authority to “DO SOMETHING”, than the Federal Government “CAN’T DO IT”. It was specifically designed this way by the Founding Fathers, and their successors, to protect the “rights and prerogatives” of the States and the People, and to guard against Central Government tyranny.
   Obama Czars
   President Obama has at least 30 so called “Czars”, and in aggregate these folks control in access of somewhere around Two-Trillion Dollars. Is this compliant with Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: “…who’s Appointment are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President,…”. Congress has vested no such “power” I’m aware of, and most certainly many of these Czars have the “authority” to qualify as “Officers”. Don’t some of these “titles” make you wonder about the “limits of constitutional authority” in the Executive Branch? How about “Health Czar”; “Information Czar”; “Faith-Based Czar”; “Regulatory Czar”; “Pay Czar”; “Green-Jobs” Czar”; “Climate Czar”; “Car Czar”; or “Urban Affairs Czar”. Where in the Constitution is authority and purview over these areas provided? It certainly isn’t in Article I, II or any of the Amendments. You tell me why this shouldn’t worry me.
   An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, will in my opinion, most certainly be found to be unconstitutional. Yet, the President has already indicated he will sign a Health Bill that contains such a provision. Is that the President behaving within the spirit of his oath under Article II Section 1? Is that the President “preserving, protecting and defending” the Constitution? Until he explains exactly how and why it is constitutional, I don’t think so.
   “Private property” under the ownership and control of the Federal Government
   Is the President of the United States acting constitutionally when he proposes, encourages and signs Law that effectively puts massive amounts of “private property” under the ownership and control of the Federal Government (Big Business, Big Banks, etc.)? Is that in compliance with Article V of the Constitution? I certainly have my “reasonable doubts”…
   Under the president’s authority, is it constitutional when the underlings he has appointed began attempting to exercise control over private sector “business policies and compensation”? Is that in compliance with article V of the Constitution? Not from my seat it’s not!
   In 1996, the Supreme Court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights. Do you think it was the intent of the Supreme Court that this right be extended to non-citizens engaged in Armed Combat against the United States? Is it the spirit of the Constitution for Obama’s Attorney General to grant Citizenship rights to non-citizens; when those non-citizens are captured in Armed Combat against the United States? The President’s responsibility, above all others, is the protection of the CITIZENS of the United States of America. Is his behavior consistent with that responsibility when he provides “Citizenship Rights” to non-citizens under these circumstances? Certainly not in my opinion!
   Full Citizenship protection in our Criminal Court System
   What provision in the Constitution is consistent with granting “full Citizenship protection in our Criminal Court System” to four non-citizens captured while engaged in Armed Combat against the United States? I can’t find it in Article I, II, III or any of the Amendments. Can you? If so, please enlighten me. If not, the President and his Attorney General are “operating outside the authority of the Constitution”.
   A segment of “We-The-People”, the President’ Bosses, have demanded that this President re-verify his eligibility to be President, and the Issue has entered our Court System. Thus far, the President has refused to even respond. Is he compliant with the Constitution when he refuses to comply with article II, Section 1: “no person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution…”? Are we really “unreasonable BIRTHERS” when we believe that it is a serious, fundamental problem when the President can’t or won’t eliminate this doubt by simply producing the proof?
   Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution: “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.” Is not the President of the United States accepting and acting on a Title bestowed by not only one, but multiple Foreign States when he accepts the UN “Title”? I would love to hear an explanation of “how this is not in violation of the Constitution