Posts Tagged ‘Constitutional Questions’

Obama’s ineligibility: Don’t vote Republican until they tell the truth

by Lawrence Sellin on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

This is article 120 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

Welcome to America’s post-Constitutional era made possible by the 2008 backroom deals between inside-the-Beltway Democrat and Republican politicians and actively supported by the main stream media (MSM).

Despite years of effort and contributions by many to track and kill Osama bin Laden, we are now no longer permitted to raise Constitutional questions because he happened to be killed on Barack Hussein Obama’s watch.

Here is one egregious example of what we can expect from the MSM.

David Frum wrote a dishonest and, frankly, disgusting article, laced with accusations of racism and directed against anyone who now questions Obama’s Constitutional eligibility:

“Here’s hoping that we have at last seen the end of this ugly insinuation that there is something less than fully American about the black president with the exotic name.”

Apparently, in Frum’s opinion, anyone who supports and defends the Constitution, including those who fought America’s wars, is a racist and un-American and whose valid arguments are not worthy of a hearing.

Only his opinions are worthy, I imagine. What claptrap.

When Obama wins in 2012, the Republicans will only have themselves to blame. They deceived their supporters and, for the sake of political expediency, circumvented the Constitution.

Republicans cannot run a 2012 Presidential campaign based on lies and trying to become the lapdog of the MSM, who, in the end, will always back Democrats.

The Republican leadership has decided to ignore Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the Presidency and campaign against him “on the issues”.

Well, ok then. Good luck.

Obama did not debate policies in 2008, at least not those he ultimately implemented. What makes you think he will do so in 2012?

Obama is already moving to the political center and he will play the “bin Laden card” ad nauseam.

In 2008, Obama ran a campaign consisting of punch lines, sound bites and progressive phrases with all the usual sanctimonious, hypocritical and moralistic trappings.

He won through superb community organizing on a national scale.

The only community to which Republicans reach out reside mostly in country clubs.

Here’s a hint: You won’t win without the political center. So stop alienating us and try showing some backbone.

Obama is a disciple of Chicago-native, Saul Alinsky, a neo-Marxist and community organizer, who wrote: “Rules for Radicals”.

Unlike traditional Marxist revolutionaries, Alinsky preached a philosophy of slow revolution i.e. destroying the system from within.

He also taught that the ends justify the means and to agitate to the point of conflict.

In 2003, Diane Alden summed up well the attitude of Obama Democrats and the weak response from Republicans:

“Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible. That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.”

The Republicans have lost the will to win. They adhere to Marquess of Queensberry rules while Democrats kick them in their political groins.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s ineligibility: Don’t vote Republican until they tell the truth”
Go straight to Post

Obama failing to obey Medicare law?

by John Lott on Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

This is article 5 of 8 in the topic Entitlement Programs

The Obama administration’s statement that this law simply isn’t binding on them is pretty shocking.

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is continuing to press the White House to take on entitlements, this time accusing President Obama of failing to follow a provision of a Medicare law.

Ryan claims the White House owes Congress a plan for shoring up Medicare funding because the federal government is covering more than its targeted share of the program. Ryan points to a provision of the 2003 Medicare law that requires the president to act.

“The president has failed to lead, again, on entitlement reform. By ignoring their legal requirement to submit a plan that would rectify Medicare’s funding imbalance, the Obama administration threatens the sustainability of this critical program for current and future Medicare beneficiaries,” Ryan said Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget brushed off Ryan’s latest criticism, dismissing the law’s requirement as a misleading framework for determining whether Medicare is solvent. She also raised constitutional questions about whether Congress can make such a demand of the executive branch. . . .

Go straight to Post

Whatever Happened to Domestic Tranquility?

by Rev. Michael Bresciani on Monday, February 28th, 2011

This is article 15 of 104 in the topic Preserving America

domestic tranquilityAccording to the framers of the Constitution one of the original intentions of ordaining that revered document was to insure domestic tranquility. The term was used in the preamble to the Constitution and has never been used to adjudicate any constitutional questions.

In this moment in time, where a sitting President has recently announced to the nation that our laws needn’t be enforced, (DOMA – Defense of Marriage Act) it would hardly seem like the time to drag the preamble into the fray and look for some meaning or guidance. Yet, at the moment it may be all we have.

It may be agreed upon that the Constitution does not contemplate the secession of states from the Union but who would have guessed that we would elect a President who would secede from the Constitution. In this day of high perversion, can America deal with this complexity?

Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker may be wrestling with that question as he tries to save his state from bankruptcy. Unions are battling for bargaining rights while Wisconsin’s students are still failing eighth grade reading tests; no tranquility there.

Walker may have to fire a small army of state workers but Democratic Rep’s are still drawing their pay and benefits even as no one in the state of Wisconsin, including law enforcement, can find the little band of recalcitrant absentees.

The news is rife with sound bites, video clips and hurried analysis offered by a thousand different experts, but any calm, reasonable, meaningful or contemplative assessment of what’s happening is relegated to the backwaters of the internet and a few good news magazines. On the street there is little contemplation going on but only something akin to thuggery and even violence. No tranquility there.

In between all this ruckus, Hillary Clinton pops into the news cycle from time to time (If they can find time) to announce the latest efforts of the State Department to form a cohesive foreign policy stance to deal with the explosive demonstrations erupting across the Middle East like wildfires in a windstorm. No tranquility there.

Perhaps the last thing Americans want to hear at the moment is that by listening to all the voices they are probably not hearing anything. The author of the book of Ecclesiastes said there was a time for everything. It is understood that there is also a time to listen and a time to hear, unfortunately the two are not the same and in a time of conflict very few can be counted upon to discern the difference.

Jesus said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 6: 12) How do you tell a nation that has nursed moral relativism for more than a generation that truth is not after all, the slightest bit relative?

How do you tell a generation that while they see themselves as “progressives” they are not progressing at all but may be in full reverse?

Click to continue reading “Whatever Happened to Domestic Tranquility?”
Go straight to Post

Judge gives green light to Obamacare lawsuits

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, October 14th, 2010

This is article 108 of 699 in the topic Healthcare

Three cheers. There’s a long road ahead, but the first obstacle has been overcome. Florida judge Roger Vinson ruled this afternoon that 20 lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate can continue:

ABC News’ Ariane de Vogue reports: In a blow to the Obama administration, a federal judge in Florida today issued a ruling allowing parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the recently passed health care legislation to proceed.

The two parts of the law that will proceed to trial are expansion of Medicaid and the individual mandate that requires qualifying individuals to obtain health insurance by 2014.

Of all the challenges to the health care law, this is one of the most interesting because of the numbers of states that have signed on. At issue today were mostly procedural issues not the core constitutional questions. The office of Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida who issued today’s ruling, said the trial is scheduled to start in early December.

You can find the order and analysis here.

Constitutional law scholar Randy Barnett weighs in on the significance of the Florida ruling as well as a similar ruling in Virginia:

In denying the government’s motion to dismiss the challenge to the individual health insurance mandate, Judge Vinson ruled that “the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.” This is because of the unprecedented nature of the government’s claim of power. As Judge Vinson explained, all previous commerce clause cases involved the regulation of “voluntary undertaking[s]” or activity. But “in this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake.”

This decision now join’s District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling in Virginia refusing to dismiss the challenge to the individual mandate. In both Virginia and Florida we now move to a decision on the merits. Given how well both judges understood the constitutional novelty of imposing economic mandates on the people, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic that they will find the individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional. But, however the district courts rule on this case, their reception of the arguments made by the state attorneys general foretell that the ultimate decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Vinson derides the “Alice in Wonderland” reasoning of the Obamacare mandate’s defenders.

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin