Obama Presidency Most Lawless in History

The Obama government is the most lawless government in American History. When the fifty-five delegates to the Philadelphia Convention debated and crafted the U.S. Constitution their intention was to write the rules for the operation of the federal government. Their task was to preserve the principles of government identified in the Declaration of Independence, while at the same time, drawing up a plan that would provide the new government with the powers necessary for carrying out their legal functions and preserve the sovereignty of the participating states. A crucial goal of the Constitution was to limit the power and scope of the federal government and prevent it from encroaching on the legitimate powers of the states.

Article VI of the Constitution established the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land”. More specifically, it established the Constitution as the supreme law governing the operations and scope of the federal government. Only to the extent that the government is in compliance with the Constitution can it make any claim to being a government “of laws and not of men”.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to clarify portions of the Constitution and give emphasis to its limited powers. The limit on the powers of the federal government was given further emphasis in the Tenth Amendment. From the beginning, many power-hungry elected officials, tried to expand their powers beyond those granted. For the first hundred years Presidents and the Supreme Court were somewhat effective in defending the integrity of the Constitution. However, in the presidential elections of 1892 and 1896 conscious decisions were made by all the major political parties to begin testing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

The most important proposed departures from the original plan was to allow the federal government to collect a graduated income tax, and elect Senators by popular vote rather than by appointment of the state legislators as the Constitution required. The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments ratified in 1913 during the “progressive era” opened the floodgates, allowing for the wholesale violation of the Constitution. The sixteenth Amendment allowed for a direct income tax on individuals, making it possible for socialists and progressives in government to engage in income redistribution through a graduated income tax. The Seventeenth Amendment shifts the election of Senators from the state legislatures to the general population of each state, effectively neutralizing the Tenth Amendment placing the real government power in the hands of political “bosses” of the Parties in power.

Since that time the powers of the federal government and violations of the Constitution have increased exponentially to the point that it is questionable whether we are any longer a Constitutional Republic. Every administration since 1896 has violated the Constitution, both Democrats and Republicans. However, none have so blatantly refused to acknowledge the authority of the Constitution as Barack Obama, beginning with the first sentence of the first Article.

Article 1.1.1 “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This clause makes it clear that the Executive and Judicial Branches do not have the power to legislate or make laws. Yet, most of the laws enforced by the federal government today that infringe on our liberties originate in the Executive and Judicial Branches and not in the Legislature. The legitimate functions of the various departments in the Executive Branch are to implement the laws and policies established by the Legislative Branch. The Treasury Department, State Department, Interior Department, Justice Department, and Defense Departments exist under the “necessary and proper clause” of the enumerated powers section. Others are unconstitutional because they do not relate to the limited powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Today we have a plethora of Executive Branch bureaucracies, reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, making laws affecting every aspect of our personal and business life. These bureaucracies are headed by “Secretaries” who are illegally authorized by Congress to make laws at their discretion. This is a double violation of the Constitution; (1) Most are unconstitutional because their jurisdictions are not authorized by the Constitution; (2) Congress does not have the authority to delegate its legislative powers to another branch of government.

President Obama has taken this egregious violation of the Constitution to a new height by appointing Czars over the various bureaucracies who answer directly to the President, and have the authority to “dictate” to the Secretaries and department officials the “rules” to be made and enforced by the full power of the federal government. Department Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate and are accountable to it. The Czars are appointed directly by the President and are not confirmed by or accountable to Congress. This situation cannot be allowed to continue if we are to maintain any fragment of our liberty in the future. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to cut funding for these unconstitutional departments until they are forced out of existence.

****

Article 1.3.6 “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

This clause makes the Vice President the Chief Executive Officer of the Senate. The phrase, “but shall have no vote” has been interpreted by Senate Political Parties to turn the office of President of the Senate into a ceremonial position with no executive authority. Contrary to the belief of Vice President Biden, The Constitution places the office of Vice President in the Legislative Branch not the Executive; its position in the line of Presidential succession not withstanding. As a matter of fact, Presiding over the Senate is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution. The office of Majority Leader, an unconstitutional office created by the Senate in 1921, has been allowed to usurp the authority of the Vice President with impunity for almost a hundred years. The Senate is the primary check on the Executive Branch of government. This departure from the Constitution upsets that balance of power in favor of the Executive Branch. There is no historical or Constitutional justification for the office of Majority Leader in its present form.

****

Article 1.7.1:  “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;”

1.7.2:  “but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

This clause gives the House of Representatives the “power of the purse” since revenue can only be raised to fund the legitimate functions of government and all revenue bills must specify the purposes for which the revenue is to be allocated.

Article 1.9.7:  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Since budgets, revenue and allocations are inseparably linked, budgets are to originate in the House although the Senate may propose amendments. The President can make budget recommendations to Congress under Section 2 of the Constitution.

Article 2.3.1:  “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”

The undisciplined and often unconstitutional methods of budgeting, allocating funds and raising revenue are a primary culprit in our present financial crisis.

Congressional authority for taxing and spending is further explained in section eight, Article I.

Article 1.8.1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

1.8.2:  but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1.8.3:  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Here Congress is given the power to tax and spend for three specific purposes; pay debts, provide for the general welfare and common defense. This is followed by a list of sixteen specific items for which revenue may be raised and spent, clarifying the general phrases “general welfare” and “common defense”.

****

One of the ways Party leaders ensure their choice of candidates for President and Vice President is to manipulate primary dates in violation of Article II of the Constitution. When we cast our votes in a primary election, we are actually voting for an Elector, and only indirectly for the candidate that Elector is pledged to support in the Electoral College. By manipulating the dates on which primaries are held, party leaders are able to influence the outcome through the power of suggestion, with support building for candidates who appear to have the most popular appeal. Article II, Section 1, clause 16, was included in the Constitution specifically to prevent prior voting by one state from influencing the votes in other states.

Article 2.1.16:  “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

This clause is a single compound sentence broken only by a semicolon. The rules of English indicates that the Framers intended for the “time of choosing the Electors” and the “day on which they shall give their votes” to be on the same day respectively. The primary system and the primary dates are the creation of Political Parties and not the Constitution. The current primary system often results in candidates being chosen that do not represent the real choice of the voters.

****

Article3.2.9:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

This clause gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases in which a state is one of the parties involved. However, due to the number of cases involving states because of the federal government’s overstepping of its Constitution role, for efficiency, cases involving states are handled in the same way any other federal lawsuit is handled; they are first heard in district courts, then appealed to the appellate courts, and eventually to the Supreme Court. We currently have several cases involving states winding their way through the court system; involving immigration, Obama care, and several other matters. Meanwhile the Constitutional issues these cases relate to continue unabated. The Constitution does not give either Congress or the Supreme Court the authority delegate these cases to a lower court.

****

One of the functions of the Executive Branch is to enforce the federal laws through the Justice Department.

Article 2.3.4:  [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The Obama Justice Department picks and chooses the laws it will enforce and ignores those the President disagrees with.  The most obvious laws that Obama refuses to enforce are immigration laws.

4.4.1 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

4.4.2 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.

By any definition, the yearly influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. amounts to an invasion. Although “invasion” does not necessarily need to involve a foreign military, there have been several instances where foreign military have invaded U.S. territory while the Justice Department does nothing. There have been many instances where armed criminals have invaded our territory and committed murder and kidnapping, again with only a cursory response from the federal government. Example, instead of supplying protection to the State of Arizona when requested, and as the Constitution Demands, the Justice Department brought suit against the state for attempting to enforce the law themselves.

These are just some of the illegal acts committed by the federal government against the original Constitution. When we add violations of the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, the list becomes too long to discuss in detail in a blog post. They would include violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, expression and assembly; the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right of self-defense; Amendment Four protecting against illegal searches and seizures; and Amendment Five, the double-jeopardy Amendment. Last and most important is the constant and continuing violation of Amendment Ten.

Amendment 10-0:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Advertisements

9 responses to “Obama Presidency Most Lawless in History

  1. Did you sleep through the 8 years of the George Bush administration?
    You have made a few assertions but provided little to no evidence to back them up in support of your claim that Obama is the most lawless president in history. I think that I will keep a copy of this post and if I have some spare time it might be fun to rebut it. A good constitutional debate is always fun.

  2. Good essay, Jerry. Really. But I can’t help but get my edge in on this one. Where did our Founders go wrong on Article V that we have to set-aside the states involvement?

    • Good shot, Sam. I don’t think the Founders did go wrong on Article V. Don’t forget that it was the threat of the states calling for a second Convention under Article V that caused the first Congress to propose the Bill of Rights. I just think that accumulating, over two centuries, all the times Article V Conventions have been called for by various states and then using a questionable interpretation of the Constitution to demand a rewrite of it, in order to satisfy a bunch of progressives doesn’t makes much sense. By demanding an Amendment Convention they are the ones that believes the Founders missed something or went wrong to begin with. If you want Health Care, Abortion and Gay Marriage to be a Constitutional right, keep pushing for another convention. I guarantee you those are the types of Amendment that would come out of it.

  3. Daniel, I can only speak for myself, but who said Bush was better. We have only one politico in Washington with two sets of groups that take turns messing up the Constitution like a revolving door. That’s why we now have the Conservative Party. (http://www.conservativeparyusa.com) that has no interest in rehabilitating either one of them.

  4. Sam, thanks for your comment above concerning my essay. I linked your comment to Daniel to your website in case he would like to check it out.
    Since my last comment, I had to run an errand. While I was driving around with a faulty air conditioner in Chicago’s 95 degree heat, I was thinking about your question, “Where did the Founders go wrong?” That is an excellent question, and one I have been trying to get an answer to from FOAVC for the past two years. What is wrong with the Constitution written by the Founders that is serious enough to risk the destruction of it in order to try and fix it? What types of Amendments do you think we need? If you can answer those questions satisfactorily for me, I will enthusiastically join you in your quest for a new Convention.

  5. Jerry, I don’t know why your last comment isn’t showing here. But in response to your comment sent at 12:43 AM. With that little rant you would qualify for a diagnosis of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
    I don’t claim that Obama is the ultimate source of everything that transpires in the Executive Branch. The Constitution does. Go re-read the first line of Article II, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”. So yes, he is the ultimate authority of everything that transpires within the executive branch. As Truman said, the buck stops here.
    Yes I did cite the constitutional authority that the Congress has to establish the departments to which you are objecting. You just have your blinders on because you choose not to see that provision which gives Congress the authority to raise money to pay for the common defense an privide for the general Welfare (Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph). I get that you think that provision is way to broad for your liking. But it is there and you don’t get to exclude the parts you don’t like. But here is what I don’t get. If you are in disagreement with these various federal agencies that the czars, advise the President on (not preside over), but they have been established by an act of Congress, why do you transfer your blame of violating the Constitution on the President and not place it on the Congress who created them?

  6. Daniel, I understand you are an admirer of the President and that’s okay, but please take the time to understand the Constitution. The future of our country depends on an understanding of it by as many citizens as possible, Including you. Obviously you are not interested in my opinion, and that to is okay, because my opinions are really not any more valuable than yours. Here is what James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had to say about “providing for the general welfare”. If you can’t accept their opinions then you and I have nothing further to discuss.

    James Madison
    “…It has been urged and echoed, that the power ’to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged necessary for the common defense or general welfare…” “…No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objection, than their stooping to such misconstruction…” “…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a stronger pause than a semicolon?”…. “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” James Madison, Federalist #41

    Thomas Jefferson
    “…To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S.” that is to say ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare‘.” “For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.  They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.  In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

    “To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.  It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased…” Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, February 15, 1791

  7. Jerry, whether I like Obama or not, is beside the point. You have tried to make the argument that he is the “most lawless in history” because he has special advisors (aka czars) to provide him advise on the functions that occur in the executive branch over departments that have been set up by legislative action. We both know that the “general Welfare” provision is in Article I, which establishes the legislative branch and its powers. But you keep attempting to shift your objections to actions taken by the legislative branch on to the executive branch. Obviously, I think this opinion is wrong and doesn’t justify your “most lawless” argument.
    On the “general Welfare” provision, I understand the arguments that both Madison and Jefferson were making for a strict interptation of Article I, Section 8. It is interesting that you picked this Jefferson quote because Jeffeson’s letter to Washington was in opposition to Hamilton’s proposal for establishing a national bank. Notwithstanding Madison’s argument in Federalist #41, and Jefferson own strong objections he lost his argument and Washington sided with Hamilton. So from the very beginning we have had a disagreement between the founders over “enumerated powers”. When Jefferson’s letter is put in context with what actually happened it proves my point. You are arguing for a strict interpretation that some founders favored and argued for, but has never existed. It is a little hyperbolic to suggest that the future of the country depends on as many citizens as possible understanding (your meaning of) the constitution. I understand the Constitution and I also understand that it has never been applied under your strict version of “enumerated powers”. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. If you can’t accept reality over fantasy then maybe there is nothing further to discuss.

  8. Jerry, I think it’s tie between FDR and Obama as most lawless. Obama is most assuredly the most divisive! This country hasn’t been so divided since the civil war!