Democracy Denied: The Obama Chart

=
(www.ObamaChart.com)

The ABOVE chart shows ( OBAMA’S MODE OF

OPERANDI) how it has become standard
procedure in the Obama administration not
to take no for an answer. When Obama's
radical agenda is rejected by Congress and
the American people, he goes around the
democratic process to do what he wants
anyway.
Mouse over each box for details. Its an interactive chart @
http://americansforprosperity.org/obamachart.php

Glenn Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano discuss

the ObamaChart on FOX News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=xO5p49T6zr8

http://americansforprosperity.org/obamachart.php
You can also download the PDF here.
================================

The Obama Chart… Circumventing the

Constitution
Posted by courage On April - 17 - 2010

=
The founding fathers displayed great wisdom in
creating our republic. They knew, from first hand
experience, how absolute control corrupts and
enslaves a population, depriving the citizenry of
freedom. They established a system of checks and
balances to assure that our representative
government would not be overtly powerful in any of
the three branches of government. One can only
wonder, what they would have thought of the
following chart and how the administration is using
all means available to circumvent the Constitutional
protections granted to the people.

=====

Phil Kerpen explains the Obama chart

precisely…
President Obama’s Agenda By Other
Means
By Phil Kerpen

After the bitter, partisan, bare-knuckled way President

Obama and Democratic leadership forced through their
health care legislation, it is likely that the atmosphere on
Capitol Hill is so poisoned that no other significant laws
will make it through Congress this year.
That sounds like good news to taxpayers reeling from the
bailouts, the stimulus, and the health care law.
Unfortunately, President Obama appears committed to
achieving his agenda by other means, and he may do so in
several major policy areas if Congress fails to stop him.
The latest evidence is President Obama’s decision
Saturday night to circumvent the democratic process with
the recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National
Labor Relations Board. Becker is the former associate
general counsel of the Service Employees International
Union and has written that “employers should be
stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their
employees’ election of representatives.”
This personnel move could be a precursor to backdoor
implementation of parts of the astonishingly ill-named
Employee Free Choice Act. Under EFCA, workers would
lose the protection of secret ballots for union organizing
elections. EFCA also takes the “bargaining” out of
collective bargaining by empowering a federal bureaucrat
to set contract terms for wages, benefits, and working
conditions without so much as a vote of the workers.
EFCA has only 40 co-sponsors in the Senate, and any
hope of getting all 60 Democrats to push it through this
year ended with Scott Brown’s election. Knowing the
stakes, the Senate rejected Becker’s nomination on Feb. 9,
with Democrats Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln joining
Republicans and voting no. The recess appointment is
therefore a double bypass of Congress and an affront to
the American people, the democratic process, and, most
of all, the workers who may now be forced into unions
against their will.
The administration is also bypassing Congress on global
warming. Although the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade
bill passed the House on a narrow 219-212 margin, the
Senate has not taken it up. Despite efforts of South
Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham to revive it, there are
likely more than enough skittish Democratic senators to
counterbalance Graham and a handful of other
Republicans and sustain a filibuster.
Yet the administration, under the direction of White
House Climate Czar Carol Browner (who was not subject
to Senate confirmation), is now working on implementing
its global warming agenda at the Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA’s proposed regulations are
sweeping in scope. They would regulate just about
everything with a motor, in many cases requiring
complete redesigns and operational changes. They would
regulate large commercial buildings and many smaller
facilities that produce carbon dioxide. The agency even
recently suggested it could implement cap-and-trade itself
without a vote of Congress.
Another Obama bypass is regulating the Internet under
the slogan of “net neutrality.” The president notably said,
“I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to
network neutrality.” That apparently includes not taking
a back seat to Congress, the American people, or the
democratic process, because his effort is proceeding apace
despite near-zero support in Congress. The Markey-
Eshoo net neutrality bill has only 21 co-sponsors. It has
not even been introduced in the Senate, where last
Congress it attracted only 11 co-sponsors, including then-
Senator Obama.
Facing failure in Congress, Obama turned to the Federal
Communication Commission and its chairman Julius
Genachowski, a close friend of Obama’s who has visited
the White House about 50 times. The FCC is attempting
net neutrality rule making based on a shaky legal theory
that may be struck down in a pending court decision. At
that point, the Commission may, absurdly, declare the
Internet a market failure and reclassify it under Title II
of the Federal Communications Act, which would reduce
Internet Service Providers to old-fashioned government-
regulated utilities and give the government total
regulatory control of the Internet.
Like health care, the communications system is about
one-sixth of the U.S. economy. But unlike health care, this
Washington takeover may require just three votes at the
Federal Communications Commission, a much easier lift
than 216 in the House and 60 in the Senate.
These are some of the highest-profile examples in a
pattern of sidestepping Congress that will only get worse
in the aftermath of health care. Fortunately, there are
legislative vehicles in Congress to stop all of these power
grabs, and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s resolution
to stop the EPA’s global warming regulations may have a
Senate vote as soon as May. That vote – and sponsorship
of legislation to stop the FCC and NLRB – will show the
public which members of Congress want to stand up for
the democratic process, and which find it convenient to
outsource their legislative heavy lifting to the
administration. Voters must hold the latter responsible in
November.
Elections are important, both the primaries and the
general in November. We, through the wisdom of the
founding fathers, have been granted the ability to govern
our individual lives.. the statement of our autonomy is
branded through the election ballot. The individual who
votes strictly according to party lines ignores the liberty
we each share as American citizens. For far too many
years we have trusted our elected officials and happily
went about our daily lives, that time is now over. Vote
with conscious, vote with dignity and vote with
information about the candidate. And pray that
Congress has the fortitude to defund and nullify each of
the blatant power grabs of this administration or our
freedom may be lost.
http://blog.couragetosee.com/?p=1195

http://www.philkerpen.com/?q=view/storiesfacebook

Listen to Phil Kerpan Explain the Chart:

http://kerpen.dl.hipcast.com/deluge/2b47286d-e68e-
a910-caf7-3881ec1874a8.mp3

Click here for the feed and to subscribe or click here to listen! Also

Home : Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, an opinion
columnist on FOXNews.com, and chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition.

http://www.philkerpen.com/?q=view/storiesfacebook
================================

January 19, 2011

The top 10 violations of the

Constitution by Obama and
the 111th Congress
Published: 12/27/2010 | Updated: 1:18 PM 12/31/2010
By Paul Skousen

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in

the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and
government, so let us tie the second down with
the chains of the Constitution so the second will
not become the legalized version of the first.”
Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have
failed to contain the federal government.
By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard
of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh
by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my
top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length.

#10. — 9/11 Responders Relief Fund: We love

and honor those who put themselves in harm’s way for
our security. However, giving the 9/11 first responders
money after the fact violates the Constitution. Article
1.8 gives Congress the right to expend funds for
all the purposes itemized, provided it is done for
the general welfare, NOT for individuals or
preferred groups. The states may reward heroes if
they so choose.
#9. — Checks and Balances Failure: The
Chairmanship of the UN Security Council: Where was
Congress when President Obama became the chairman of
the powerful UN Security Council in 2009? The normal
monthly rotation for that chair goes to the U.S.
ambassador to the U.N. because Article 1.9 of the
Constitution forbids the president (and all other
office-holders) from accepting any present,
foreign office or title from a foreign country or
a foreign potentate unless it is specifically
authorized by Congress. The Founders wanted to
prevent deal-making, corruption, and foreign influence
from affecting America’s internal affairs.

#8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to

stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some
web traffic and prevent providers from showing
favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate
the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This
violates the property rights of Internet providers and
interferes in the market’s free choice of which services
receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the
FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass
laws, especially those disguised as regulations.
#7. – Czars: The moniker for appointees who report
to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie
resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article
2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint
managers, but those managers may not have
any regulatory, legislative or law-making
powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative
branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet
members without having to go through a vetting process
or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet
members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political
decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1.

#6. — Cap and Trade: The Clean Energy and

Security Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions be
reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42
percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 84 percent below
2005 levels by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an
estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average
$1,870 per family. Once again, had the chains of Article
1.8 not been broken, America would be spared such
tomfoolery. Cap and trade masked in any disguise
whatsoever cannot be justified as a general welfare
activity.
#5. — Cash for Clunkers: The government
offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers
for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program
quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2
billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the
program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put
many people into additional debt by encouraging them to
purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought
during these hard economic times. The government
has zero authority to selectively give individuals
tax money for purchases of vehicles, according
to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense.
NEXT: The top 4 violations of the Constitution since
Obama took office

#4. — TARP Funding: The original 2008 act

authorized $700 billion to bail out banks and other
institutions. The government has no business rescuing
private financial institutions from bad judgment and
risky ventures. Article 1.8 excludes permission for
Congress to grant financial aid or loans to
private companies. Any use of Treasury funds must
go toward the general welfare, not to specific groups.

#3. — Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being

invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow
of violent illegals into its sovereign territory, a derelict
federal government turned around and sued. At issue was
the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it
upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal
immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave
local authorities the power to enforce federal
responsibilities. The federal government claims the right
to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out
that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of
border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should
haul the federal government before the Supreme Court
for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the
U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more
than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by
definition, an invasion.

#2. — Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion

stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to
come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed
money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre
doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up
with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing
government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally
take money out of the economy that could be
used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed
money — with interest due.
And the worst violation of the Constitution
over the past two years is =====>

#1. — Health Care Reform: Health care reform

was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of
American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required
all Americans to have health insurance whether they
wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge
Henry E. Hudson said that the government has
no power “to compel an individual to
involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by
purchasing a commodity in the private market.”
The string of constitutional violations supporting the
judge’s rejection is long and shocking:
For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article
1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled
because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate
interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate
commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state
lines.
Language in the bill says the health care law may
NOT be changed or amended by anyone once signed
into law. This violates the role of Congress. Article
1.1 makes it clear that only Congress is authorized
to make law, meaning it has every right to alter, amend
and change the health care law. To restrict Congress is to
change its constitutional duty. The 111th Congress must
think it can change the Constitution without amending it
— a violation of Article 5, which outlines the
amendment process.
The health care bill
also violates the 10th
Amendment because it coerces states into
complying with a new national program that
reaches far into state jurisdiction.
So, what do you do when you’re navigating through a
blizzard of political white-out where visibility is reduced
to zero, the road is slick and slippery, and disaster is
strewn about in all directions? You come to a complete
stop — and put on the chains.
Paul B. Skousen is a former analyst for the CIA, an intelligence officer in
the Reagan White House, and staffer for Senator Orrin Hatch. He has
interviewed on Fox News and was featured by Paul Harvey’s The Rest of
the Story about smuggling Oliver North’s shredded secrets from the White
House. He is a journalist and published author, and the son of W. Cleon
Skousen, author of The Five Thousand Year Leap. He is a national
Constitution Coach and senior editor with PowerThink Publishing, LLC.
Website: www.powerthink.com. Email: paul@powerthink.com.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/27/the-top-10-violations-of-
the-constitution-by-obama-and-the-111th-congress/

===============================

Article III of the U.S. Constitution

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they intended

to signify the importance and power of each branch of
government in the order that the powers are granted. The
Founders saw the legislative branch as the most
powerful of the three with the executive being
weaker and the judicial branch being the
weakest. It was the intention of the Founders for the
judicial branch to serve as a final backstop against
oversteps of government power.
The construction of the judicial branch is loose. Section 1
of Article 3 explicitly creates a Supreme Court,
but leaves Congress with the authority to create
an inferior court system. Further, the Constitution
does not mandate a specific number of justices to serve on
the Supreme Court. Theoretically, there could be only a
single member of the Supreme Court, or many more than
the current number of nine.
Section 2 of Article 3 grants the Supreme Court its
powers which are limited to all cases that arise under the
Constitution, the laws of the United States or between two
or more states, and to cases that involve maritime or
international jurisdiction.
It wasn’t until 1803 that the Supreme Court had the
power of judicial review, which was a product of the
landmark case Marbury v. Madison. Judicial
review simply means that the Supreme
Court can overturn a law that they rule
is in direct violation of the Constitution.
This is a very powerful check against the
legislative branch.
The Supreme Court can be a tool to stop bad
legislation that is in direct conflict with the
Constitution or it can be a weapon to enforce
questionable legislation. In the 1930’s, President
Franklin Roosevelt attempted to increase the number of
justices on the Supreme Court to ensure that none of the
legislation or policies he supported were overturned. This
court-packing scheme never happened in the end but the
attempt to control the Supreme Court sent a chilling
message to the Court about their independence.
Today, the Judicial Branch is viewed as a way to enforce
or overturn laws passed by Congress. Currently, there
are major court cases that could make their way through
the judicial system and into the Supreme Court regarding
the recently passed ObamaCare. There is a high
likelihood that the Supreme Court could
overturn ObamaCare on the basis that it
is in direct conflict with the Constitution
—which many states Attorneys General are arguing in
federal court.
In Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is leading a
case against ObamaCare that argues that the law
passed by Congress and signed by the
President is in violation of the Constitution
and a law in Virginia that bans an
individual mandate on Health Care
purchasing. Specifically, Attorney General Cuccinelli
argues that the individual mandate requiring
U.S. citizens to purchase Health Care is in
direct violation of the Commerce Clause
and Virginia state law. Cuccinelli said on the
matter, “If the individual mandate is found to be
unconstitutional, as Virginia says it is, the whole bill falls.
The whole thing.”
While the case brought forth by Cucinelli is still in federal
district court, it could soon hit the Supreme Court, where
the judicial branch could overturn the law passed in the
legislative branch—checks and balances at work.
There are many critics on both sides of the aisle that say
the Supreme Court has been an activist court for one
ideology or another. For instance, conservatives argue
that Roe v. Wade was a liberal activist court decision in
favor of abortion. And liberals argue that in the District
of Columbia v. Heller decision that the Supreme Court
was guilty of judicial activism in favor of conservatives
that supported gun rights. In the past 18 months, Obama
has already chosen two new members for the Supreme
Court replacing liberal justices. Should a conservative
justice leave the Court during Obama’s tenure, the
Article I provisions for Senate confirmation of Supreme
Court justices will be headline news all over the world.
While many people pay less attention to the Supreme
Court than the other two branches of the federal
government, the power that lies in the Court is no small
matter. The Founders vision that a Supreme Court
could be the last hope to stop an
overbearing legislature or executive branch
is as true today as it was in 1789.
Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com.

http://netrightdaily.com/2010/09/article-iii-of-the-u-s-
constitution/
===================
Morning Bell: The Obama Experts vs. the
Rule of Law
Posted October 4th, 2010 at 9:17am in Enterprise and Free Markets, First Principles,

Last week President Barack Obama’s most recently

minted czar, Special Advisor to the President for the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Elizabeth
Warren, spoke to 400 bankers at the swanky Mandarin
Oriental Hotel in Washington, DC. Her message,
according to The Washington Post: “Behave, play nice,
and we’ll get along just fine.” Specifically, Warren
promised to take a more “principles-based approach” to
regulation, rather than clearly articulating “thou shalt
not” rules that banks could rely on. For this Progressive
White House, an enlightened expert, like Warren, given
broad new powers by an unaccountably vague statute is
exactly what the federal government needs to enforce
order on our complex modern world. For our Founding
Fathers, however, everything about Warren, from the
way she attained her new powers to the way she plans to
use them, is antithetical to our nation’s First Principles
and the United States Constitution.
Look again at Warren’s title. She is not the director of the
CFPB nor does she even work for it. For her to actually
head the agency, President Obama would have to submit
her name to the Senate to meet the Constitution’s “advice
and consent” requirement. But President Obama did
not want that transparency. Instead he
decided to subvert the Constitution by
making her his “special advisor” that would lead a
team of “about 30 or 40 people at the Department of
Treasury” to set up the CFPB. Yale Constitutional law
professor Bruce Ackerman described Obama’s
Warren chicanery as “another milestone down
the path toward an imperial presidency.”
But Warren’s appointment is just the
beginning of her assault on the Constitution.
Her rejection of rules-based governing, cited
above, is also a rejection of our nation’s
First Principles. Hillsdale College Ronald Pestritto
explains:
The Founders understood that there are two fundamental
ways in which government can exercise its authority. The
first is a system of arbitrary rule, where the government
decides how to act on an ad hoc basis, leaving decisions
up to the whim of whatever official or officials happen to
be in charge; the second way is to implement a system
grounded in the rule of law, where legal rules are made in
advance and published, binding both government and
citizens and allowing the latter to know exactly what they
have to do or not to do in order to avoid the coercive
authority of the former.
To be fair, Warren is hardly the only example of the
Obama administration’s assault on the Rule of Law in
favor of the arbitrary rule of government experts. In fact,
the entire progressive movement is based on
discarding the separation of powers at the core
of the U.S. Constitution in favor of empowering
the Administrative State. Progressive movement
founder President Woodrow Wilson
wrote in 1891:
“Give us administrative elasticity and
discretion, free us from the idea that checks
and balances are to be carried down
through all stages of organization.”
Freeing themselves from the “checks and balances”
supplied in the Constitution is exactly what the Obama
administration has been doing since day one. Just
consider the “outrageous and illegal” takeover
of Chrysler, the shakedown of BP, the
assertion that President Obama can rewrite
our nation’s immigration laws simply by not
enforcing them, the refusal to enforce anti-
voting fraud laws, and Obamacare czar
Kathleen Sebelius’ threats insurance
companies. The pattern is clear: this administration
audaciously believes that their experts are always right
and that the Constitution is just a barrier to their
effective administration of the country. This is not what
our Founders intended. This must be stopped.
Quick Hits:
• According to the Association of
American Medical Colleges, Obamacare
will worsen the nation’s doctor shortage
by more than 20,000 physicians by 2015.
• According to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), the Obama tax hikes will
hinder spending and constrain economic
recovery.
• Upcoming regulations from the Obama
EPA on petroleum refiners,
manufacturers, coal mines and farmers
will hit states like Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Virginia the hardest.
• Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said he
anticipates the Tea Party movement will
be “a long-term force in this country.”
• Tomorrow at 4 PM, The Skeptical
Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg
will be screening Cool It at The Heritage
 Foundation followed by questions and
discussion.
Tags: Administrative State, CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, Morning Bell, progressive movement,
progressives, red tape rising, separation of powers, U.S. Constitution,
Woodrow Wilson

Author: Conn Carroll

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/04/morning-bell-the-
obama-experts-vs-the-rule-of-law/

===================
Does Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Acceptance Violate the Constitution?
Posted December 10th, 2009 at 5:24pm in American Leadership, First Principles

Does Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance violate the

Constitution?
Interesting question. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S.
Constitution says that:

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.
An emolument is a prize arising from office or
employment, usually in the form of compensation
or perquisites. By everyone’s admission,
President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize
for nothing already accomplished but only
because he showed potential as the new President
of the United States. The awardee receives a
framed diploma, a nifty medal and a document
confirming the prize amount – now $1.4 million.
On top of that, the Prize is given by a five-member
commission chosen by the parliament of Norway, the
legislative body of a foreign state. Even if that state is not
acting in its official capacity, as Ronald Rotunda and
Peter Pham pointed out in their column on this issue in
The Washington Post, the emoluments ban still applies (a
point confirmed by President Clinton’s Office of Legal
Counsel in 1993).
The original purpose of the emoluments clause was to
prevent undue foreign meddling in our affairs—as
pointed out in our own The Heritage Guide to the
Constitution by Robert Delahunty:
“Wary, however, of the possibility that such gestures
might unduly influence American officials in their
dealings with foreign states, the Framers institutionalized
the practice of requiring the consent of Congress before
one could accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or
Title, of any kind whatever, from … [a] foreign State.”
This seems to me to be a pretty clear case in which the
award, an emolument, should have been consented to by
Congress.
But let’s follow the money for a moment.
According to the U.S. Code [Title 5, Part III, Subpart F,
Chapter 73, Subchapter IV, Section 7342], on the Receipt
and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations], if
Congress did not consent to the acceptance of the gift,
“the decoration is deemed to have been accepted on
behalf of the United States, shall become the property of
the United States, and shall be deposited by the employee,
within sixty days of acceptance, with the employing
agency for official use.”
This means that the financial award—and anything else
worth more than a minimal gift amount—does not belong
to President Obama, but is the property of the United
States, to be appropriately disposed of by the
administrator of General Services (according to the same
code).
Theodore Roosevelt, conscious of this dilemma, not only
waited to receive the prize until after he left the
presidency but turned over the money to a committee,
including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Commerce and Labor, to be used for the basis of an
appropriate foundation in the United States. (Hat tip: J.P.
Freire at the Washington Examiner.)
So, Mr. President, don’t spend that money just yet!
You’ve got sixty days to get it to the rightful owners,
namely, us. Should we pay down the debt? A tax cut?
Maybe just use it to cover the cost of the trip.
Tags: Barack Obama, constitution, emoluments, First Principles, matt spalding, Nobel Prize

Author: Matt Spalding

• Leave a Comment ( 61)

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/10/does-obama
%E2%80%99s-nobel-peace-prize-acceptance-violate-the-
constitution/

===================

Obama, Anti-Constitution
17 09 2009

For someone who studied law at Harvard U’s Law School and
whose specialty is Constitutional Law, it is curious to say the
least that, 8 months into his presidency, Barry Soetoro Barack
Hussein Obama Jr. is violating the U.S. Constitution at every
turn.
Here are two examples:
1. ObamaCare
Here are excerpts from an op-ed by Anthony Gregory in the
Christian Science Monitor. Gregory is a research analyst at the
Independent Institute and the author of a forthcoming book on
habeas corpus:
The Constitution created a federal government limited to its
enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is
spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit:
“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.”
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement
in healthcare – yet Congress may soon require everyone in
America to buy insurance.
Then there is the privacy issue. In Griswold v. Connecticut
(1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
(1992) the court found reproductive freedom to be guaranteed
as an implicit right to privacy. In Casey, the court reasoned that
abortion entailed “the most intimate and personal choices a
person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy,” and that such choices are “central to
the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment.”
Why wouldn’t this apply to the right to decide whether to buy
health insurance?
Other constitutional concerns emerge. The mass collection of
medical data likely to occur under proposed reforms threatens
the Fourth Amendment‘s “right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Making it a crime
not to buy insurance, and then forcing people to show they have
not bought it, arguably clashes with the Fifth Amendment‘s
protection against self-incrimination.
The Ninth Amendment reserves to individuals all rights not
expressly denied by the Constitution. Nothing in the document
curtails our right not to purchase health insurance. And being
forced to fill out forms to apply for insurance is in tension with
the 13th Amendment‘s prohibition of “involuntary servitude.”

2. Obama Chairing the UN Security Council

The chairmanship of the United Nations’ 15-member Security
Council (SC) rotates every month among the member countries.
The United States gets the gavel for the month of September
2009.
The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to
the UN Susan Rice be the chair. But Obama decided he would
be the one instead, and will lead the SC’s summit-level session
on Sept. 24.
This is unprecedented because in the history of the UN, no
President of the United States had ever been chair of the SC.
This is also in violation of Art. 1, Section 9 of the U.S.
Constitution, which says:
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.
Being a specialist in Constitutional Law, Obama obviously
knows all this. So why?
This blogger points to what is on the agenda for the SC session
on Sept. 24. Quoting the Financial Times:
Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship
between the US and the United Nations this month when he
becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member
Security Council.
The topic for the summit-level session of the council on
September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear
disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now
wants to see addressed at a multinational level.
UN officials also hope a climate change debate on September 22
will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at
Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible
meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister,
and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr.
Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a
timetable for Middle East peace.
Here is what the UN Security Council does. Picture Obama as
the Chair of this committee with this power.
Under the UN Charter, the functions and powers of the Security
Council are:
 • to maintain international peace and security in accordance
with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
• to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to
international friction;
• to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the
terms of settlement;
• to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to
regulate armaments;
• to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of
aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
• to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other
measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop
aggression;
• to take military action against an aggressor;
• to recommend the admission of new Members;
• to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations
in “strategic areas”;
• to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of
the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to
elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
~Eowyn

http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/obama-anti-
constitution/
=====
Opinion

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance?

Nothing in the Constitution allows the individual
mandate he proposes.

By Anthony Gregory / September 14, 2009

Oakland, Calif.

Many liberals lambasted the Bush administration on detention

policy and warrantless surveillance, often arguing that they
violated the Constitution. Now the Obama administration is
pushing ahead with plans to require every American to
purchase health insurance.
Doesn't that also violate the Constitution?
The Constitution created a federal government limited to its
enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is
spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit:
"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."
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement
in healthcare – yet Congress may soon require everyone in
America to buy insurance.
Admittedly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the language
empowering Congress to "regulate Commerce ... among the
several States" applies to an ever-broadening range of activity.
The "commerce" clause was originally intended to prohibit
interstate tariffs, a supposed problem under the Articles of
Confederation.
Ironically, consumers today cannot freely buy health insurance
from across state lines. If there's any legitimate application of
the "commerce" clause, it would be to overturn such
restrictions. But the framers never gave Congress the general
power to regulate industry.
In the 1935 case Schecter v. United States, involving farming
regulations, the court unanimously struck down parts of the
National Industrial Recovery Act for overstepping Congress's
commerce power. Liberal Justice Louis Brandeis informed one
of President Franklin Roosevelt's aides to "tell the president
that we're not going to let this government centralize
everything."
The next year, the court ruled in Butler v. United States that
elements of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which inflated
food prices by restricting supply, violated the 10th Amendment.
After FDR threatened to pack the court with additional judges
friendly to the New Deal, the court lost its spine. In 1937, it
upheld the National Labor Relations Act – which greatly
expanded the power of labor unions and greatly diminished the
freedom of contract – under the "commerce" clause.
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the justices even upheld the
conviction of a man for growing too much wheat on his farm.
The court reasoned that even wheat grown solely for private
consumption ultimately had an impact on the economy, turning
the "commerce" clause into a regulatory rubber stamp.
The "commerce" clause is now interpreted very broadly.
Although in United States v. Lopez (1995) the court struck down
a firearms law that exceeded Congress's commerce power, it
ruled 10 years later in Gonzales v. Raich that federal drug
policy overrode California's medical marijuana laws, despite the
10th Amendment.
=
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented: "If the Federal
Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants
for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce,
but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate
commerce), then Congress' Article I powers … have no
meaningful limits." Indeed, practically nothing is beyond the
pale anymore.
Then there is the privacy issue. In Griswold v. Connecticut
(1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
(1992) the court found reproductive freedom to be guaranteed
as an implicit right to privacy. In Casey, the court reasoned that
abortion entailed "the most intimate and personal choices a
person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy," and that such choices are "central to
the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment."
Why wouldn't this apply to the right to decide whether to buy
health insurance?
Other constitutional concerns emerge. The mass collection of
medical data likely to occur under proposed reforms threatens
the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Making it a crime
not to buy insurance, and then forcing people to show they have
not bought it, arguably clashes with the Fifth Amendment's
protection against self-incrimination.
The Ninth Amendment reserves to individuals all rights not
expressly denied by the Constitution. Nothing in the document
curtails our right not to purchase health insurance. And being
forced to fill out forms to apply for insurance is in tension with
the 13th Amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude."
The quality we could expect from government care may also
raise constitutional questions. In early August, a federal panel
ordered California to release 40,000 inmates because the health
services were so strained, causing one unnecessary prisoner
death per week, so as to render the treatment
"unconstitutional." If we all become captive consumers under
federal mandate, could we not similarly argue that any
shoddiness in our mandated health services is an
unconstitutional burden?
Those who find such constitutional arguments unconvincing are
often quick to invoke them against policies they oppose.
Similarly, some of today's critics of President Obama and
national healthcare brandish the Constitution as a holy
document, but were silent when President George W.Bush
trampled its many limitations on executive power, and even
signed an expansion of Medicare.
A newfound, consistent, and lasting respect for the Constitution,
across the ideological spectrum, would renew the health of our
republic like nothing else.
Anthony Gregory is a research analyst at the Independent Institute and the author of a forthcoming
book on habeas corpus.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0914/p09s01-
coop.html

====================
 Rush Limbaugh: 'We have an increasingly
lawless president'
Radio host says Obama in 'abject panic' over judge's
voiding of health-care law
Posted: February 01, 2011
1:10 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

PALM BEACH, Fla. – Radiohost Rush Limbaugh is warning that the Obama
administration might continue to force implementation of its health-care
law that was ruled unconstitutional yesterday, saying, "We have an
increasingly lawless president."

"We do know that this regime violated and ignored a federal court
order on their drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. So we have an
increasingly lawless president," Limbaugh said on his program this
afternoon.

Asking himself rhetorically if he meant to say that, he repeated himself,

saying that yes, he does: "We have an increasingly lawless president."

Limbaugh said the Obama administration is "saying they'll continue to

implement this law. ... For the gazillionth time, the judge did not say
that they can continue to implement it while it's appealed."

"I think there is abject panic over this ruling," he continued. "This is
the linchpin. This is the foundation of the new America. They were
hoping to sneak in this ability [that] the federal government mandate
people have something."

("What you see is a lawless, statist mentality, in this case

unconstitutional behavior if the regime does not comply with the court,
plain and simple. They cannot. This law has been voided. It has been
ruled unconstitutional."

In a blog post on the White House website, Assistant to the President

and Deputy Senior Adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote that the case is "is a
plain case of judicial overreaching."

"We don't believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we
are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared
constitutional by the courts," she added.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=258509

*===================
Obama Administration Violates 11th
Amendment In Arizona Lawsuit
Posted on July 7, 2010 by Patriot

Along with various other acts of high treason and

violations of the Constitution. The 11th amendment
reads:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any suit in law or
equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of
the United States by Citizens of another State, or
by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
The founding fathers were worried about foreign lobbies
buying off politicians and using their power against the
states. The Federal regime is obviously working for
someone other than we the people and the States.
By suing Arizona over a law that mirrors the Federal law
they are in essence suing them on behalf of Mexico and
it’s citizens. There’s no reasonable explanation why our
own government would disregard it’s own laws and then
on top of that actively stop states from enforcing the same
laws.
It’s also treason to allow violent crime to spill into
Arizona and other border states. We have plenty of
troops to secure foreign nation half a world away yet for
some reason we can’t protect our own borders.
Obama’s treason also extends to his mysterious
blocking of states and communities trying to protect
themselves and clean up the oil spill in the Gulf.
He’s also blocking foreign aid to clean up the oil as
well yet the US does nothing but give supposed
foreign aid.
This entire administration is an Obamanation and they
should all be arrested and brought up on charges of high
treason. Our Federal government is quite obviously a
criminal organization that no longer works for we the
people and they don’t even try to hide it anymore. This
video explains the various Constitutional violations and
illegal activities of the Obama administration in a clear
and concise manner you can research for yourself.
Especially those of you who are in love with the so called
liberal Barry Soetero who is in fact a corrupt corporatist
who has proven he doesn’t care about you or the
environment.
The part about the 11th amendment comes at about 4:30
minutes in to the video if you don’t want to watch the
laundry list of government crimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=kKkmiqsZRd8&feature=player_embedded

http://legalinvestigations.com/blog/?p=260

===================
Obama Medicare Chief Nominee, Berwick,
a Violation of the Constitution?
By Lee G. Brown

Many American citizens, myself included, have a feeling

of helplessness as we watch President Obama appoint
Czar after Czar. Not only do we question the
qualifications of the appointees that he has put forth, we
question their intentions. Many of these appointees have
quietly assumed their new responsibilities, which may
very well be to the detriment of the United States.
Fortunately we have been able to identify some of these
questionable characters early enough, so that we were
spared from the significant damage they might have been
able to reek upon our country.
Van Jones was appointed as the "Green Energy" Czar.
Jones resigned, shortly thereafter, under public pressure,
as a result of his connection with 9/11 conspiracy
opinions, along with other questionable views. Nancy
Killefer was appointed to a newly created post of "Chief
Performance Officer", to monitor spending... she later
withdrew, under public pressure, due to tax issues. Tom
Daschle was put forth to head up the "Health and Human
Services", only to be shamed into withdrawing over his
tax troubles. Scott Polakoff, former "Bank Regulator"
for the Treasury, was forced to leave his post over shady
financial deals. Governor Bill Richardson, was to take the
position of "Commerce Secretary", only to be forced to
resign over questions of "trading favors with donors".
Is it any surprise that we now have yet another
questionable appointee before us... one appointed during
recess no less. Sir/Dr. Donald Berwick has been appointed
to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid programs. There is
significant concern over previous statements made by
Sir/Dr. Berwick. Senator (WY) John Barrasso stated, "I
called on the president to nominate someone. He waited
until after the bill was signed into law to nominate
someone, and then he puts someone in who has been
knighted by the queen in England because of what his
thoughts are toward the British health care system." He
made this statement in an interview with Fox News on July
7th. I don't know if Senator Barrasso is aware of
the following paragraph found in our U.S.
Constitution... Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8...
"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."
Though President Obama is certainly bending the Article
II, Section 2, Paragraph 3... "The President shall have
Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the
Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which
shall expire at the End of their next Session."... to his
favor, by intentionally waiting until Congress is in recess,
he has the argument that he is within his Rights. This
method, of intentionally postponing appointments, stinks!
It is akin to working loopholes and smells of corruption. I
know it has been done before, many times, but it doesn't
make it right. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) said, "I'm
troubled that, rather than going through the standard
nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess-appointed."
The Heritage Foundation stated "Don Berwick is not
being scrutinized for political reasons, but rather
due to his beliefs. Dr. Berwick has gone on the
record-several times-as a passionate supporter of
socialized medicine, including the cost-
containment decisions that come with it. Whether
to allow the government to ration or allow
individuals to make their health choices isn't
even a question for Berwick-he claims that "The
decision is not whether or not we will ration care-
the decision is whether we will ration with our
eyes open."
So, Senators... if you are truly concerned, and this man is
truly dangerous to our freedoms and health... then use the
Constitution to put a stop to this appointment. He needs
Congressional approval to have Knighthood, does he not?
Or, will you simply complain, and do nothing, like so
many times before?

By Lee G. Brown of PublicExaminer.com

http://www.publicexaminer.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?

expert=Lee_G._Brown

http://ezinearticles.com/?Obama-Medicare-Chief-
Nominee,-Berwick,-a-Violation-of-the-Constitution?
&id=4629141

===================

November 19, 2010 · 3:00 PM

Obama and the GM Scam…Our Economy
Can’t Afford More GM “Success” Stories
I wrote earlier today about the Obama GM lie. Obama
stood in front of the American people and read his lie off
the teleprompter. The Taxpayers, who bailed out
GM, will not make a profit off the GM
bailout. Obama continues to lie and the numbers prove
this. Even Obama supporting points these facts out.
Reuters
The Heritage Foundation has a great article about this
scam and I’m going to post it here for all to read.
From Heritage.org:
Celebrating the company’s Wednesday initial public
offering, President Barack Obama last night called his
government takeover of General Motors a “success
story.” “American taxpayers are now positioned to
recover more than my administration invested in
GM,” he said. Left unsaid is the fact that if the Obama
Administration keeps selling their GM stock at the IPO
price,the U.S. taxpayer will lose $10 billion on the deal,
and that does not include the loans GM still owes, cash
for clunkers, the Chevy Volt subsidies, or the millions of
unseen costs the unprecedented intervention has inflicted
on our economy.

The IPO price is $33 dollars. In

order for the
taxpayers to “recover more than my (Obama)
administration invested” that price would need to be
around $51 dollars. Someone should explain to Obama
that $33 > $51.
No matter what you hear from the President’s defenders,
always remember that it did not have to be this way. As
late as April 30, GM’s bondholders were willing to take a
58 percent equity stake in the company in exchange for
canceling their $27 billion in unsecured GM bonds. But
under their deal, the federal government would have had
no control over this new company, while the United Auto
Workers union would have received a minority share of
the company and the taxpayers would have been
protected as a secured creditor. An even better outcome
would have been for the federal government not to have
supplied taxpayer cash at all and let all creditors take
their lumps from an unbiased bankruptcy judge. But
President Obama just couldn’t keep his government out
of it.
So he publicly bullied the GM bondholders into accepting
a much worse deal. Under the White House plan, the
federal government was awarded a 60 percent stake of
GM, the Canadian government got 12.5 percent, and
GM’s unions got 17.5 percent while the bondholders
walked away with just 10 percent. Defenders of the
bailout say all this was worthwhile because the effects of a
failure of GM would have been catastrophic. But that
ignores both the deal the bondholders first offered the
unions and the possibility of an expedited—but non-
political—bankruptcy proceeding.
Before this week, taxpayers put $49.5 billion into GM and
held a majority stake in the company. The IPO allowed
the Treasury to sell about a quarter of this at $33 per
share, raising $13.6 billion. That leaves taxpayers, post-
IPO, with $35.9 billion “invested” and about a 37 percent
stake in the company. At $33 per share, that leaves
taxpayers still almost $10 billion in the hole. The shares
would have to jump to $51 for taxpayers to break even, a
price level considered by most analysts to be unlikely.
But perhaps the biggest danger of all is the prospect of
the GM “success” being used to justify future bailouts of
other firms. That would be the true catastrophe. As
George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux
wrote:
The chief economic case against the bailout was not that
huge infusions of taxpayer funds and special exemptions
from bankruptcy rules could not make G.M. and
Chrysler profitable. Of course they could. Instead, the
heart of the case against the bailout is that it saps the life-
blood of entrepreneurial capitalism. The bailout
reinforces the debilitating precedent of protecting firms
deemed “too big to fail.” Capital and other resources are
thus kept glued by politics to familiar lines of production,
thus impeding entrepreneurial initiative that would have
otherwise redeployed these resources into newer, more-
dynamic, and more productive industries. The “success”
of the bailout is all too easy to engineer and to see. The
cost of the bailout—the industries, the jobs, and the
outputs that are never created—is impossible to see, but
nevertheless real.
The legal and political chicanery used by the White
House to produce the GM “success” story is also exactly
why the United States fell from the ranks of the
economically “free,” as measured by The Heritage
Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom this year.
From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler,
from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to
subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness
creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is
a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it
should be.
 http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/obama-and-the-
gm-scam-our-economy-can%E2%80%99t-afford-more-gm-
%E2%80%9Csuccess%E2%80%9D-stories/

===================

Does Anyone Have the Right to Violate U.S.

Immigration Law?
President Obama has submitted his administrations legal
dispute with Arizona over immigration to the U.N.’s
Human Rights Council. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called
that move “downright offensive.” Her characterization is
correct, albeit somewhat mild. It is highly offensive
that the administration would submit a
constitutional argument over federalism and federal
preemption to an international body for review
especially when that body includes dictatorial
tyrannies such as Cuba and China that violate
human rights routinely and with prejudice. It is
another sign that President Obama holds our
constitutional system of government in low regard and
has little interest in upholding American sovereignty.
There is no universal right to violate a country’s
immigration laws with impunity. It is no violation of
human rights to enforce border security and basic
immigration requirements. Indeed, the United States has
some of the most open and permissive immigration laws
in the world. Many of those criticizing Arizona, including
Mexico, have much stricter and harsher immigration
laws; their treatment of immigrants may justify human
rights claims, but ours certainly do not.
The Justice Departments lawsuit against Arizona makes
no human rights claims. It is insulting and provocative to
include this dubious legal filing in the official “Report of
the United States” to the United Nations. But it is
certainly no surprise, given the administrations
implementation of a de facto amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens in our country, and its
reluctance to enforce deportation orders and take other
steps needed to get this situation under control.
In the Universal Periodic Review, the administration
asserts that “President Obama remains firmly committed
to fixing our broken immigration system.” Yet the only
“fixes” he seems committed to are not enforcing federal
laws he disagrees with; preventing states from enforcing
their laws if it brings attention to his administrations
failure to enforce federal law; and extending amnesty to
those who have broken our laws and thereby shown utter
contempt for the basic principle that guarantees all our
rights and freedoms: adherence to the rule of law.
← Previous
Next →
Other Questions

http://www.askheritage.org/does-anyone-have-the-right-
to-violate-u-s-immigration-law/

=================================
Could health care reform violate the U.S.
Constitution?
March 11th, 2010
06:54 PM ET

While the debate over health care has at times bordered

on the absurd, some opponents of the bills passed by the
Democratic-led Congress have raised questions of
fundamental importance to American democracy -
namely, whether some of the proposals are
constitutional.
While the arguments have hinged on a variety of
components of the bills, the most oft-repeated concern
relates to the individual mandate. Because the individual
mandate is part of all three health care proposals, those
passed by the House and the Senate and the one proposed
by President Barack Obama, this challenge is potentially
the most serious.
As wrangling over the fate of health care reform
continues, the CNN Fact Desk takes a look at the concern
that a provision of the health care bill violate the
governing document of the United States.

Fact Check: What are the arguments concerning the

constitutionality of the individual mandate? Do they have
any validity?
– The individual mandate would require people to have a
certain level of health insurance coverage. This mandate
would be enforced by charging those who do not obtain
coverage around 2 percent of their annual household
income as a penalty.

– Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argues the individual

mandate is an unconstitutional congressional action:
"The question is not whether Congress can
regulate the sale of health insurance, but whether
Congress may require the purchase of it," Hatch
told the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank,
in December.

– Republican Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and

John Ensign of Nevada pushed a vote on this issue late
last year, arguing the individual mandate is not
among the enumerated powers granted to
Congress under the Constitution. The point-of-
order vote, which could have held up the individual
mandate, failed 60-39.

– Cornell University constitutional law scholar Michael

Dorf weighed in on the issue of enumerated powers,
arguing that the courts have often upheld congressional
actions outside of those specifically spelled out in the
Constitution. These actions have been held constitutional
when they are considered "necessary and proper" for
carrying out those duties which are specifically spelled
out.

– A Congressional Research Service report spelled out a

number of different constitutional justifications for the
individual mandate as well as some constitutional
challenges. "It appears Congresses may have the ability
to enact an [individual mandate] as part of its taxing and
spending power, or its power to regulate interstate
commerce," they write. However, they add that
challenges could be raised under two amendments to the
Constitution.

– A challenge could be raised under the Fifth

Amendment's Due Process Clause, but the CRS
report casts doubt on the success of such a
challenge. Additionally a challenge could be
raised under the religious protections offered by
the First Amendment's "Establishment" and
"Free Exercise" clauses. This challenge could be
overcome by allowing certain tailored exemptions
to the individual mandate on religious grounds,
the report notes.

– A valid challenge to the individual mandate

could eventually be heard by the Supreme Court.
However, such a challenge would not be heard
for several years, since lower state and federal
courts would get first crack at any lawsuits.
Bottom Line:
While the ultimate test of the constitutionality of the
individual mandate lies with the Supreme Court, these
arguments are serious enough to have prompted a robust
discussion. Given that some version of the individual
mandate is present in all three health care proposals
should the health care reform package become law, the
individual mandate is likely to be a part of the debate on
these issues for quite some time.
– CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears contributed to this report.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/11/could-health-care-
reform-violate-the-u-s-constitution/?replytocom=1243

================================
 Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void
Posted January 31st, 2011 at 4:10pm in Rule of Law with 30 comments
Today’s decision by Judge Vinson is another stinging
defeat for the administration in its defense of Obamacare.
Defenders of the health care bill had tried to paint any
legal challenge as “frivolous.” When then-Speaker Pelosi
was asked by a reporter “where specifically does the
Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an
individual health insurance mandate,” Pelosi responded
incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” To
wit, Judge Vinson offered a serious response, striking
down not only the mandate, but the whole of the health
care bill.
In a 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson dissects the two
major claims at issue in this case: whether Obamacare
violates the spending clause, particularly the coercion
principles announced in South Dakota v. Dole, and
whether the mandate to purchase health insurance
violates the Commerce Clause.
On the first claim, Judge Vinson sided with the
administration. In the second, he offered a detailed
analysis of the law which reads like a treatise. Rather
than picking and choosing his cases, as many proponents
of Obamacare like to do, he went through all of the
relevant case law at length before concluding that the
mandate violated the Commerce Clause. He correctly
observed that “it would be a radical departure from
existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate
inactivity under the Commerce Clause.” He then
concluded that “the individual mandate and the
remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together
in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The
individual mandate cannot be severed.” As such, he
appropriately struck down the entire law. Today’s
decision should be a major source of concern for the
Obama administration for at least five reasons.
First, the parties involved. This case involves a majority
of the states (26), and the National Federation of
Independent Business. If not completely unprecedented,
the very fact that more than half the states marched into
federal court on behalf of themselves and their citizens to
challenge an unconstitutional federal program falls into
the category of “beyond any recent memory.” The sheer
magnitude of the parties involved guarantees that the
courts on appeal will pay particular attention to this case.
Second, the case creates a very bad trend for the
administration. Those courts which have taken the time
to more fully develop the record in the case, and to have
more briefing and hearings (Virginia and Florida), have
ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. This is important
because, contrary to the White House spin, litigation is
not a scoreboard. It is not enough to say that you have
won some and lost some. Some district court wins
“count” more, because they are more indicative of what is
likely to come next. Here, the cases the administration
has lost have been better developed, have significant and
sophisticated parties, and are in a better position for
appeal than the more cursory cases that they have won at
more preliminary stages.
Third, the case strikes down the whole of Obamacare
based on the unconstitutionality of the mandate. The
administration has tried to have it both ways on this one,
with the President and key proponents arguing how
essential the mandate is, while the Justice Department
arguing at times that it was absolutely essential, and at
times that it was severable. If the DOJ really wanted to
keep the bill severable, perhaps they should not have
argued in court that removing the mandate while
maintaining the remaining requirements of the bill would
“inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into
extinction.” Those who would falsely accuse the Judge of
overstepping his bounds must recognize both the
standards for severability, which he properly applied,
and the damning concession made on this point by the
Justice Department.
The fourth problem for the Obama DOJ: Judge Vinson’s
decision is thorough, well-reasoned, and likely will be
very persuasive to appellate judges, and eventually
Justices, who review the case. He was judicious, ruling
against the states on the spending clause claim and for
them on the Commerce Clause. The most important
document in any appeal is the decision below, and Judge
Vinson’s will give the court of appeals much to consider.
Put simply, Vinson has just made the Obama DOJ’s job
much more difficult.
The fifth problem, the Judge granted declaratory relief to
the parties, which includes 26 states. Because the entire
act was struck down, the future requirements to expand
Medicaid programs will be suspended, at least as to these
26 states, and these states will be relieved of their
obligation to make plans for such expansion in the
immediate future. At a time when many states face
insolvency, the removal of this burden is welcome news.
The Obama administration, rather than fight the relief
for these 26 states, should extend it to all 50 until the case
is finally resolved.
Tags: Obamacare

Author: Robert Alt

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=51281

http://www.heritage.org/search?query=obamacare+is+unconstitutional

================================
Federal Judge Rules Obamacare
Unconstitutional
4:34 PM, Jan 31, 2011 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

A district court judge in Virginia ruled in December that the

individual mandate in the national health care law is
unconstitutional. Despite the lack of a "severability clause,"
that judge ruled that the rest of Obamacare was
 constitutional (whether or not Obamacare would be
functional without the mandate is another question).
Now a district court judge in Florida named Roger Vinson
has ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and
thus so is the entire law. Here's
Vinson on why the
entire act is unconstitutional if one part of
it is unconstitutional:

First, the Act does not contain a “severability

clause,” which is commonly included in legislation to
provide that if any part or provision is held invalid,
then the rest of the statute will not be affected.
Although it is true that the absence of such a clause,
in and of itself, “does not raise a presumption
against severability,” [New York, supra, 505 U.S. at
186], that is not the same thing as saying that its
absence is irrelevant to the analysis. In INS v.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 77 L. Ed. 2d
317 (1983), for example, the Supreme Court
concluded that it did not have to embark on the
“elusive inquiry” of whether Congress intended the
unconstitutional provision in that case to be
severable from the rest of the statute because
Congress included a severability clause with
language that was plain and unambiguous. See id. at
931-32. And, in Alaska Airlines, Inc., supra, 480 U.S.
at 686, the Court similarly held that the severability
analysis is “eased” when there is a severability
clause in the statute, such that only “strong
evidence” can overcome it. By necessary implication,
the evidence against severability need not be as
strong to overcome the general presumption when
there is no such clause.
The lack of a severability clause in this case is
significant because one had been included in an
earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the
bill that subsequently became law. “Where Congress
includes [particular] language in an earlier version
of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be
presumed that the [omitted provision] was not
intended.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-
24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other
words, the severability clause was intentionally left
out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is
further significant because the individual mandate
was controversial all during the progress of the
legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well
aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as
noted earlier, even before the Act became law,
several states had passed statutes declaring the
individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting
to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’
own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that
the challenges might well have legal merit as it was
“unclear” if the individual mandate had “solid
constitutional foundation.” See CRS Analysis,
supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’
failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or,
more accurately, its decision to not include one that
had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong
evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not
operate as intended without the individual mandate.
Allahpundit notes that a Democratic aide said the omission of the
severability clause was just an "oversight."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/federal-judge-
rules-obamacare-unconstitutional_537782.html

==Federal Judge Roger Vinson on

severability:
“In the final analysis, this Act has been
analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that
seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate
pieces, but one essential piece (the individual
mandate) is defective and must be removed. It
cannot function as originally designed. There are
simply too many moving parts in the Act and too
many provisions dependent (directly and
indirectly) on the individual mandate and other
health insurance provisions — which, as noted,
were the chief engines that drove the entire
legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out
the proper from the improper, and the able-to-
stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone.
Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be
particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that
any statute that might conceivably be left over
after this analysis is complete would plainly not
serve Congress’ main purpose and primary
objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after
all, called “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence
Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing
Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch,
needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the
watchmaker.
If Congress intends to implement health care
reform — and there would appear to be
widespread agreement across the political
spectrum that reform is needed — it should do a
comprehensive examination of the Act and make
a legislative determination as to which of its
hundreds of provisions and sections will work as
intended without the individual mandate, and
which will not. It is Congress that should
consider and decide these quintessentially
legislative questions, and not the courts…
Because the individual mandate is
unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act
must be declared void. This has been a difficult
decision to reach, and I am aware that it will
have indeterminable implications. At a time when
there is virtually unanimous agreement that
health care reform is needed in this country, it is
hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled
“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act.”

PDF IS AT: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/31/federal-judge-rules-obamacare-is-
unconstitutional-in-its-entirety/

===================

Lawmakers question whether Obama

violated law by backing pro-abortion
Kenyan constitution
By Amanda Carey - The Daily Caller | Published: 3:48 PM 07/09/2010 | Updated: 3:51 PM
07/09/2010
Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen of Florida and Chris Smith of New Jersey are
calling for a probe to investigate whether Obama
administration officials are violating federal law by using
taxpayer money to lobby for a new constitution in Kenya
that supports and legalizes abortion.
“The U.S. is spending taxpayer money on Kenya’s
constitutional referendum,” Issa told The Daily Caller.
“The underlying concern is that U.S. funds and efforts
are being used to interfere in Kenya’s internal debate
over abortion, which is part of the debate over the new
constitution. There is evidence that U.S. funds are
supporting groups and events with a pro-abortion agenda
and that funds have been spent to advance a specific
outcome on the referendum. If so, this would violate
federal law.”
Article 26 of the proposed Kenyan constitution states that
abortion is allowed if “in the opinion of a trained health
professional, there is need for emergency treatment or the
life or health of the mother is in danger or if permitted by
any other written law.”
In a letter sent to Inspectors General of the U.S.
Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the lawmakers
voiced their concerns.
“The Obama administration’s advocacy in support of
Kenya’s proposed constitution may constitute a serious
violation of the Siljander Amendment and, as such, may
be subject to civil and criminal penalties …” the letter
reads.
Passed in 2006, the Siljander Amendment prohibits the
use of federal funds for abortions, stating that “none of
the funds made available under this Act may be used to
lobby for or against abortion and violations are subject to
civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency
Act.”
According to the lawmakers’ letter, the criminal penalties
the Obama administration officials could face include a
fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to two
years. Civil punishment would include suspension of duty
without pay or termination.
Despite the clear language in the law, at least two
government officials have come dangerously close to
violating it. Last month in a speech in Kenya, Vice
President Joe Biden promised prosperity if the country
adopted the new constitution.
In his address, Biden offered incentives — including
increased U.S. aid — to Kenyans on behalf of the Obama
administration.
“The United States strongly supports the process of
constitutional reform … Dare to reach for transformative
change, the kind of change that might come around only
once in a lifetime,” said Biden during that speech. “If you
make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private
investment will come in like you’ve never seen,” he added.
In the second instance, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya
Michael Ranneberger told Kenyan officials that the U.S.
was prepared to shell out $2 million to support the
process of adopting a new constitution and the
“implementation of the reform agenda,” according to
FOX News.
For Issa, Smith and Ros-Lehtinen, that incentivizing is no
different then lobbying for a pro-choice constitution. Nor
is advocating for a “reform agenda” acceptable if it really
means “legalized abortions.”
According to Jeff Sagnip, a spokesman for Smith, the $2
million promised by Rannegberger is only the beginning.
While waiting on final reports, it looks like at least $11
million has been funneled through the State Department
to lobby for the Kenyan constitution, Sagnip told TheDC.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/09/lawmakers-question-whether-obama-
violated-law-by-backing-pro-abortion-kenyan-constitution/

===================

Constitutional scholar says Obama violated

the Nobility Clause in accepting Nobel
Peace Prize
Oslo : Norway | Dec 14, 2009
By JesseParsons1983

Barack Obama

Jim Brown reports:

"A constitutional scholar says...Obama's acceptance of
the Nobel Peace Prize may be a violation of the U.S.
Constitution because he received the award without the
consent of Congress. Last Thursday, Barack Obama
accepted the Nobel Peace Prize Oslo, Norway...[Matthew]
Spalding, director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for
American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, says since
the award is technically the property of the United States,
Obama has under 60 days to turn the award over to the
appropriate authorities for proper disposal."

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4809242-constitutional-
scholar-says-obama-violated-the-nobility-clause-in-accepting-nobel-
peace-prize

===================

Does Guantánamo Violate The US

Constitution?
Posted by theliepolitic on Jan 25th, 2009

In November, before Obama’s election, we presented an article

calling attention to how obviously naïve and dangerous it was to
consider the release or US trial of all prisoners at Guantánamo
Bay. On Thursday, President Obama signed an executive order
to shut down Guantánamo within a year.
The recklessness of Obama’s apparent plan came home to roost
once again. According to the New York Times, another detainee
released from Guantánamo, and a Saudi no less, has become a
leading operative of Al Qaeda.

We think this a brilliant move. Obama is saying he is

strengthening our fight against Al Qaeda. In reality, he supports
strengthening Al Qaeda’s ranks by releasing murderers and
terrorists to better target America and Israel.
If these men that we bring to trial are found not guilty, shall we
release them onto the streets of New York? Or do we export
them to our allies in the Middle East?
In response to our first article, radicals and liberals chimed in,
referencing the Constitution. Their arguments were weak, but
what shocked us was they appeared more concerned with the
rights of terrorists that would kill Americans than the safety of
fellow Americans. This is truly a sad statement about the liberal
thought process.
Of course, our Constitution clearly applies to all US citizens and
non-citizens living within US borders. However, at our option,
we can deport someone instead of trying them if they are not a
citizen. The Constitution even applies to foreigners in some
instances with respect to US law, but it does not apply to war
criminals. There are separate guidelines for prisoners of war,
including the Geneva Conventions.

The reasons due process and the right to a trial are not afforded
prisoners of war are simple. It is not possible to follow civilian
guidelines in war conditions, and the soldiers are not police or
lawyers. Imagine if a man had just shot one of your fellow
soldiers dead, but before you could respond, you were required
to acquire a warrant for his arrest. Shall we, as liberal judges
have stated, allow terrorists to murder Americans and our allies
at will and then sue us because we did not give them due
process?
In response to Obama’s plan to free Muslim extremists, we
present a suggestion for dealing with all potential terrorists
going forward. We believe our solution will mitigate the
problem quite effectively. We suggest immediate execution of
any suspected terrorist within range of the US Military.
If we are humane and capture terrorists, we are much worse off
than if we execute them. If we execute a terrorist, he has no
rights, but capture him, and the liberals and radical element in
the US will embrace him as a brother.
Obama, in his endorsement of providing release or trial to those
at Guantánamo, is supporting terrorism, not America. He is
valuing the rights of war criminals over those of Americans.
http://theliepolitic.com/2009/01/does-guantanamo-violate-the-
us-constitution/

===================

"The great enemy of the truth is very

often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived
and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent,
persuasive and unrealistic." John F.
Kennedy
Saturday, September 18, 2010

OBAMA'S "SELLING OUT OF

AMERICA": HIS UNITED NATIONS
MOMENT

President Obama loves a juicy world stage to insult

America, undermine it's values and integrity and advance
his progressive/socialist agenda for America. An
underrated highlight to one of President Obama’s many
efforts to sell out America occurred on March 31, 2009,
two months into his administration, when his
administration decided to seek a seat on the United
Nation’s new, so-called, Human Rights Council. This
Council is comprised of human rights violators, advances
a collectivist worldview and provides special protections
to Islamic law. The Obama administration’s decision to
join forces with this Council is a policy reversal of
President Bush’s administration when it was named the
Commission on Human Rights and was dominated by
human rights abusers who used their influence to block
scrutiny or criticism. Its 2006 successor, this newly
renamed Human Rights Council that the Obama
administration decided to join, has policies proven to be
as dismal a champion of human rights as its predecessor.

The Obama administration decided to join a Council and

take a seat at the table with the likes of human rights
violators such as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Russia
with the sole purpose to advance it’s progressive/socialist
policies through an organization, the United Nations, that
supports his collectivist worldview. The Bush
administration had very valid, humane reasons for not
seeking a seat on this disingenuous Human Rights
Council. Brett D. Schaefer, of the Heritage Foundation,
outlines in his May 2008 memo entitled “The U.S. Is Right
to Shun the U.N. Human Rights Council” the Bush
administration’s reasoning for taking the high road on
international human rights by not participating on this
Council, opposite to the Obama administration's
decision. Among those reasons are:
 Human Rights Violators on the Council:
despite well-known and extensively documented
histories of repression and violation of basic
human rights, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan,
Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan,
Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia were
elected to seats on the Council in its first two
years of operation.
 Ignoring Iran and Uzbekistan Human
Rights Violations: the Council decided to
discontinue consideration of the human rights
violations in Iran and Uzbekistan and to
eliminate the focus on Belarus and Cuba,
despite extensive evidence of ongoing human
rights violations in all of those countries.
 Singling out Israel: like its predecessor the
Commission, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council
has repeatedly singled out Israel for
condemnation. The Council has focused on
criticizing Israel, condemning it in 19 separate
resolutions and decisions, while ignoring human
rights abuses committed by Hamas and
Hezbollah. No other country—not even noted
human rights violators like Burma, China,
Cuba, Iran, North Korea, or Sudan—has
received a fraction of the criticism or attention
that the Council has focused on Israel.
 Intimidation Rules: the Council adopted
new rules and procedures, including a new
“Code of Conduct,” to intimidate independent
experts.
Despite the anti-human rights agenda of this
Council, one of the most startling and troubling
policies of this Obama-embraced United
Nations Council is its special protection clauses
for Islam. A United Nations resolution was
circulated by Islamic states which would define
any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human
rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices,
and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia
law. This resolution is entitled "Combating
Defamation of Religions” and it mentions ONLY
Islam.
According to UN Watch
"this resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to
free speech everywhere. It would ban any
perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a
"serious affront to human dignity" and a
violation of religious freedom, and would
pressure U.N. member states, at the "local,
national, regional and international levels", to
erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and
constitutional systems." It's an Orwellian text
that distorts the meaning of human rights, free
speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant
step backwards for liberty and democracy
worldwide."

But, of course, sharia law gives no quarter to the

international legal definition of defamation when it comes
to protecting any challenge to the Islamic faith.
Unfortunately, on March 25, 2010, this resolution to
protect any challenge solely to Islam was passed by the
United Nations Human Rights Council.

Based on this Council’s flagrant anti-human rights

members and agenda, one would think American’s would
be disheartened enough to have the Obama
administration decide to join forces with such a Council
that emboldens offenders of human rights and that
supports Islamic fundamentalism. But there is more. The
Obama administration will take advantage of every
possible opportunity in it's mission to insult America. The
administration has again sold out America by attacking
American values and sovereignty. In another sequel to his
“Apologize for America” tour President Obama has
disgracefully singled out America by issuing a 29 page
human rights report of the United States of America on
August 20, 2010, delivered to the Council by Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton ,stating that “America's human
rights record is less than perfect”, and by less than perfect
the Obama administration means high unemployment
rates, hate crime, poverty, poor housing, lack of access to
health care and discriminatory hiring practices affecting
blacks, Latinos, Muslims, South Asians, Native
Americans and gays and lesbians in the United States.

These intellectually dishonest human rights violations

presented to this Council by Mrs. Clinton and raised by
the Obama administration attacking America have
nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement of
international human rights laws. They are another piece
of the puzzle for an Obama-led socialist civil society
riddled with rights redistribution initiatives. The Obama
administration has flagrantly ignored (nor apparently
understands) the U.S. Constitution as seen through its
policies. Within this dishonest report to the Council by
Mrs. Clinton on behalf of the Obama administration
where do we find these so-called American human rights
“violations” required in the American Bill of Rights?

This dubiously named Human Rights Council has a

collectivist worldview agenda aligned with the Obama
administration’s agenda for “changing” America. This
Council has little concern for ensuring the enforcement of
international laws pertaining to human rights. A closer
study of this is outlined by Roger Pilon of the Cato
Institute (also see his podcast below on this subject) when
he writes,
"Take the report's contention that "work remains
to meet our goal of ensuring equality before the
law" — a human right, to be sure. The supposed
evidence is that unemployment is higher among
blacks and Hispanics; there are racial and ethnic
disparities in home ownership rates; and "whites
are twice as likely as Native Americans to have a
college degree." But those are socio-economic
inequalities owing to many factors, not
inequalities before the law."
The Obama administration doesn’t stop with simply
insulting America at-large with its remarks to the
Council, but singled out one of our country’s states,
Arizona, as an example of human rights violators. Mrs.
Clinton's report to this Council also included an attack
criticizing Arizona’s immigration law (S.B. 1070) as an
example of a human rights issue that is “being addressed”
by the federal government through court action. This
shameful display by the Obama administration to
admonish Arizona through an international forum for its
efforts to simply enforce American immigration laws that
are not being enforced by the Obama administration is
even beyond the pale for an administration that has
repeatedly shown its disdain for American values and
sovereignty.

Arizona governor Jan Brewer responded to this

disgraceful attack on American sovereignty by writing a
letter to Mrs. Clinton expressing her concern and
indignation at the offensive and hypocritical treatment of
Arizona in her report. In her letter to Mrs. Clinton the
governor castigated and dressed down the Secretary by
writing to her the following,
“Simply put, it is downright offensive that the
U.S. State Department included the State of
Arizona and S.B. 1070 in a report to the United
Nations Council on Human Rights, whose
members include such renowned human rights
“champions” as Cuba and Libya. Apparently, the
federal government is trying to make an
international human rights case out of S.B. 1070
on the heels of already filing a federal court case
against the State of Arizona. The idea of our own
American government submitting the duly
enacted laws of a State of the United States to
“review” by the United Nations is
internationalism run amok and
unconstitutional.”
By taking a seat with the collectivist United Nations
Human Rights Council the Obama administration has
joined forces with a socialist group of human rights
violators as another means to advance his
administration’s progressive/socialist agenda, curry favor
with his political base and provide his administration
another opportunity to insult and apologize for America.
Another selling out moment by the Obama
administration. A moment for those who love America for
which we would all like to have a “do over”.

Roger Pilon is the founder and director of the Cato Institute's Center for
Constitutional Studies, which has become an important force in the national
debate over constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy. He is the
publisher of the Cato Supreme Court Review and is an adjunct professor of
government at Georgetown University through The Fund for American Studies.
Prior to joining Cato, Pilon held five senior posts in the Reagan administration,
including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover
Institution.

http://www.politicalpolicy.net/2010/09/obamas-selling-
out-of-america-his.html

===================

Obama Will Rule By “Executive Order”

After November Election
October 12, 2010

in Election,Featured Image,Obama,Politics,Republican party,corruption

Anyone who does not recognize we are already in
a “constitutional” crisis with the Obama
administration is naive indeed. If we do not have
a successful election in 3 weeks to take back the
House and (hopefully) the Senate, we will be
Venezuela. The president is circumventing
Congress now and will have a mandate to do so
(in his view) if the election leaves us with one-
party rule. Let this article be your inspiration
and your warning.
By Ben Johnson at the Floyd Report:

This week, political commentators were paying a great

deal of attention to one of the Los Angeles Times’ stories
about Barack Obama’s plans for a Republican takeover
of Congress. Unfortunately, they are focusing on the
wrong one. Most commentators spent the morning
quoting the president’s remarks on a black radio
program that a GOP-dominated Congress will result in
“hand-to-hand combat.” The reality is most of the action
will take place behind their backs and over their heads.
All indications are, if Obama cannot get his legislative
agenda enacted by Congress, he will impose it by decree.
The evidence comes buried elsewhere in today’s L.A.
Times in a piece by Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons
under the hum-drum headline, “Obama Reshapes
Administration for a Fresh Strategy.” The story makes
clear the “fresh strategy” borders on government by
executive fiat. It begins, “As President Obama remakes
his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the
second half of his term: to advance his agenda through
executive actions he can take on his own, rather than
pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.”
This rule by divine right of kings is confirmed by no less
an Obama insider than David Axelrod, who said, “It’s
fair to say that the next phase is going to be less about
legislative action than it is about managing the change
that we’ve brought.” The Times states candidly:
So the best arena for Obama to execute his plans may be
his own branch of government. That means more
executive orders, more use of the bully pulpit, and more
deployment of his ample regulatory powers and the wide-
ranging rulemaking authority of his Cabinet members.
(Emphases added.)
Nicholas and Parsons note how the president has replaced
the few appointees with ties to Capitol Hill in place of
Chicago insiders. They specifically state the “the
Environmental Protection Agency is determined to use its
regulatory power…to begin lowering [carbon] emissions,
in the absence of congressional action.” In 2007, the
Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA could
regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air
Act, although the act did not have these “pollutants” in
mind. Seizing on this ruling, an anonymous insider who
“was not authorized to speak publicly” told the Times,
“The ambition is to get a reasonable start” on
implementing his extremist vision.
The plan fulfills a threat Obama made earlier this year.
The Associated Press reported in June, “The Obama
administration says it would prefer that Congress enact
climate change legislation, but has used the threat of EPA
regulations to goad lawmakers into action.” Within the
last week, Congressional Republicans have called the
regulations job-killers, and Democratic Senator Jay
Rockefeller of West Virginia has sponsored a two-year
freeze on certain EPA regulations. Now it looks as though
the president will run roughshod over Rockefeller, the
Republicans, and the will of the American people.
More concerning than the aims to which Obama plans to
use unfettered executive fiat power is the circumvention
of Congress, and the Constitution, in the first place.
William Galston of the Brookings Institution took the
LAT Obama will employ this strategy even if Republicans
do not take back either House of Congress. “Whether or
not the Republicans take over majorities in one or both
houses, the margins will be so much narrower that the
strategy of putting together a Democratic bill and picking
off a handful of Republicans to push it over the top won’t
be viable anymore,” he said.
Rather than triangulate, repackage his radicalism, or
take an electoral chastening, Obama plans to ram his
agenda down the American people’s throats “by any
means necessary.”
What will this agenda look like? In part, it is already in
place. On illegal immigration, the president has already
excluded Congress, several states, and the overwhelming
majority of the American people to aggressively promote
an Open Borders agenda. A U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services draft memo that surfaced this
summer contemplated ways to enact “meaningful
immigration reform absent legislative action.” Shortly
thereafter, an ICE draft memo appeared, instructing all
law enforcement – including any “state, local, or tribal
officer” – that no one “should not issue detainers against
an alien charged only with a traffic-related
misdemeanor.” Traffic stops have been one of the most
fruitful ways of finding and deporting illegal aliens and
make up the heart of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, allowing state
and local law enforcement agencies to exercise their
federally delegated power in arresting illegal immigrants.
When the Obama administration is not making law, it is
busy ignoring it. The New York Times reported that the
government simply stopped deporting young illegal aliens
this summer – an exemption that applies to 726,000
people – because they may be eligible for the DREAM
Act, which Congress has not yet passed (and probably
never will). The administration began dismissing virtually
all cases against illegals who had not committed any
violent crime, letting a potential 17,000 illegals off-the-
hook. Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland
Security seems to have let a Congressionally mandated
program to assure visa recipients leave the country slide –
although overstays are the entry point for 40-45 percent
of all illegal immigrants in the United States. That is how
six of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country. Although
Congress supports enforcement, the administration has
simply shut down their requests.
Obama has unilaterally decided not to apply equal rights
to disenfranchised white voters, dropping all such
lawsuits targeting minority organizations. DoJ appointee
Julie Fernandez said, “the Obama administration was
only interested in bringing…cases that would provide
political equality for racial and language minority
voters.” Two former, high-ranking DoJ voting rights
lawyers have testified the racist arrangement is an official
government policy.
The Obama administration has already begun to
entertain aspects of the Green Left’s agenda, a trend it
will increase in the second half of its first (and, we hope,
only) term. The EPA considered, then rejected, banning
fishing gear and traditional bullets this summer. Obama
has taken steps toward nationalizing millions of acres of
land in the American West. In July, the president
established the National Ocean Council, staffed with 27
members, by decree. Rep. Sam Farr boasted at the time,
“We already have a Clean Air Act and a Clean Water
Act. With today’s executive order, President Obama in
effect creates a Clean Ocean Act.” Some have written this
panel will implement the never-ratified UN Law of the
Sea Treaty (LOST).
The danger is not merely that the president will enact
legislation with the stroke of a pen, like Caesar. It
appears likely he will accelerate his trend to pre-empt
domestic political questions before the United Nations. I
was the first reporter to discover that Obama hauled
Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council this
summer over the state’s aforementioned immigration law.
Last week, the UN’s Global Migration Group issued a
new report blasting opponents of Open Borders and
welfare for illegal aliens as “xenophobes and racists.”
Now, the Justice Department has solicited 11 Latin
American nations to weigh in on its lawsuit stating the
Arizona law violates the U.S. Constitution – as though
any of the parties would know or care. Arizona Governor
Jan Brewer called the foreign intervention “incredibly
offensive,” adding, “American sovereignty begins in the
U.S. Constitution and at the border.”
The Obama administration has already rendered one of
these moot and is now working to undermine the other.
He has appointed two Supreme Court justices who
believe in supplanting the U.S. Constitution with foreign
law.
Obama used the same UN report to push a far-Left
agenda (including card-check union organization,
bilingual ballots, universal preschool, and gays in the
military) under the guise of “human rights.” He likewise
extended benefits to the same-sex “partners” of some
federal employees in advance of a Congressional bill to do
the same.
Where does the president derive these dictatorial powers?
Simple: he claims them. Article II of the U.S. Constitution
delegates to the president only the powers to act as
commander-in-chief of the military, grant pardons, make
treaties (which must be approved by the Senate), appoint
ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, and give the
State of the Union address.
And, if necessary, the “right” to be impeached.
If a system of unelected, sometimes unconfirmed czars
does not violate the Constitution, the assumption of
imperial powers by the executive branch should.
Barack Obama is dedicated to use whatever time he has
in office forcing as much of his agenda on the United
States – and so transforming the economic and electoral
make-up of our nation – that his radical vision can be
foisted upon Americans as a fait accompli.
Many Americans believed the velvet words of hope and
change during the 2008 campaign. If the thuggishness of
the past two years has not convinced them of his
disregard for popular will, the U.S. Constitution, and the
rule of law, two years of radical, royal decrees may.
If Congressional Republicans do their jobs in 2011,
Obama may not fill out two more years in office.

http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/10/obama-will-rule-by-
executive-order-after-november-election/

===================
================================

Obama's Push for Copenhagen Deal

Could Violate Constitution, Critics
Say
Published December 16, 2009

| FOXNews.com
President Barack Obama walks along the Colonnade at the White House in Washington, Tuesday,
Dec. 15, 2009. (AP)

President Obama's mission to save the planet from global

warming could end up trampling on the U.S. Constitution,
critics say.
When Obama arrives in Copenhagen Friday, he is hoping to cut
a deal on a new global-warming agreement. Even though the
conference is not likely to produce a legally binding deal, critics
say if the president signs an international climate treaty
pledging reductions in carbon emissions, he will violate the
Constitution.
"President Obama cannot bind the American people to job
killing international agreements on climate change without the
advice and consent of the United States Senate," former
Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote Wednesday at
the conservative Web site Human Events.
The Constitution states that the president cannot sign treaties
without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.
But with climate change legislation stuck in the Senate after the
House passed its version earlier this year, the White House is
flirting with the possibility of taking action without Congress.
Last week, on the day the climate summit opened in Denmark,
the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases including
carbon dioxide are a danger to human health -- a finding that
could pave the way for massive new regulations under the Clean
Air Act for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical
plants.
While administration officials have said they would prefer
Congress take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions,
Republicans fear the EPA, buoyed by its latest finding, is
prepared to act unilaterally.
Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, co-author of the
House climate change bill, told Fox News that the Obama
administration has the power to act without Congress through
the EPA.
"It's no longer a question of legislation or no legislation," he
told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "It is now a question of
legislation or regulation. The EPA can act.
"And so this is now something which is going to happen. And
the only question now is whether or not, as you say, command
and control of the EPA is going to be the way in which we solve
the problem, or legislation that allows us to protect trade-
intensive, energy-intensive industries, to protect consumers."
But Gingrich warned of an uprising if the Obama
administration takes action through the EPA.
"Similarly, he can't bypass the peoples' representatives in
Congress by having the EPA pursue the same goals through
bureaucratic totalitarianism," he wrote.
"This message to the president is also a message to Congress.
Should the Obama administration act unilaterally and subvert
the Constitution, the American people will rightfully rise up in
opposition."
Global leaders were expected to arrive before Friday's summit
finale to sign a political outline of a global warming treaty that
would set limits on carbon dioxide pollution by the United
States, China and India, as well as extend emissions targets for
the 37 countries regulated under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which
was never ratified by the U.S.
So far, negotiations in Copenhagen have been rocky. The
Obama administration is looking to strike a loose agreement on
guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions, with a binding treaty to
follow sometime in the future.
But Obama has received one warning from a member of his
party on signing a treaty. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., told Obama in
a letter late last month not to commit the U.S. to any binding
climate standards in Copenhagen without congressional
support.
"As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific
legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by
the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf
of our country," he wrote.
Webb's office could not be reached for further comment.
The Center for Biological Diversity Climate Law Institute,
however, argues the Supreme Court has given the president the
legal authority to bypass Congress and bind the country
internationally through an "executive agreement" and that
Congress itself has given the president specific authority to
negotiate international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
In a report, the institute also claims that Obama could "make
an international commitment grounded in his power -- and
indeed, his duty -- to enforce existing U.S. environmental laws,"
such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered
Species Act.
"In short, any one of these sources of authority would allow
President Obama to make a binding, meaningful commitment to
the international community," the institute wrote in the report,
titled "Yes He Can: President Obama's Power to Make an
International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for
Congress."
"Together, these congressional enactments and environmental
statutes give President Obama a very strong hand -- strong
enough to do what the science demands, and not just what a
divided and rancorous Congress might someday allow."
But others framed Obama's trip to Copenhagen in very
different terms.
"Who will President Obama heed?" Vince Haley, vice president
of policy at American Solutions for Winning the Future, wrote
in an opinion article published in FoxNews.com. "The American
people and our constitutional system of checks and balances, or
the collection of dictators, tyrants, and most undemocratic
heads of government convened by the United Nations in
Copenhagen this week?
"They are tempting the American president to do what he wants
to do and what they mostly do: ignore the will of their own
people and sign a political agreement based on an
unconstitutional sham."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/obamas-push-copenhagen-deal-violate-

constitution-critics-say#ixzz1BUPROglU

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/obamas-push-copenhagen-
deal-violate-constitution-critics-say/

================================

TSA’s Airport Checkpoints Violate 4th

Amendment… But Team Obama &
 Statist Government Doesn’t Really Care
(video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on November 17, 2010

Upside-down world of Team Obama:

Arizona is being sued by the federal government for
implementing an illegal immigration law that mirrors federal
law but is barely acknowledged, and a former TSA honcho
admits in the interview video below that the Homeland Security
pat-downs and full body scans do violate American citizens’
Fourth Amendment rights as provided in the Constitution.
But he says, essentially, so what?
They’re doing it FOR THE CHILDREN.
Didn’t they use that same phony emotional ruse when pushing
ObamaCare?
Similar dismantling of the Constitution in the name of
“security” could be just around the corner.
Neuter or ignore one amendment and the statist weasels in
Washington have set a precedent. Unconstitutional, yes, but
that’s how gradualism takes root.
And how freedom-robbing by a government escalates. Which is
PRECISELY what our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent.
Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams,
and that whole crew of incredibly wicked-smart, anti-tyranny,
pro-self-governing Founding Fathers are rolling over in their
graves with anguish so often these days, it’s surprising we
haven’t had a noted increase in earthquakes.
Former Asst TSA Admin – Airport Checkpoints Violate 4th Amendment |
November 2010

Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up

Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Old Ben must have had a crystal ball…
Additional reading:
Chuck DeVore, Big Government: TSA Needs to “Get a Grip”… of a Different Sort
Michelle Malkin: TSA: Touching sensitive areas
Nice Deb: Don’t Touch My Junk Demotivator
The Powers That Be: The TSA: Life Imitates Airplane II
The Lonely Conservative: TSA Gone Wild – Pats Down Screaming 3 Year Old
Gateway Pundit: Former Top TSA Official: “Nobody Likes Having Their 4th
Amendment Rights Violated… We’re Going to Have to Do It” (Video) and
Awful… 3 Year-Old Girl Accosted By TSA Airport Screeners (Video)
Another Black Conservative: From groping to probing, TSA to investigate John
Tyner (The Don’t Touch My Junk dude)
Frugal Café Blog Zone: Background Info on Crying 3-Year-Old Girl Who
Wouldn’t Let TSA Pat Her Down, Plus the “Don’t Touch My Junk” Man &
Napolitano Says “More to Come” for Muslim Women (video) and Thanksgiving
Crisis: Backlash Growing Against TSA’s Invasive Pat-Downs & Body Scanners at
Airports, “Opt-Out Day” Looming, Muslim Women Exempt? (video) and DHS on
the Hot Seat: Invasive Groping at Airports by TSA Employees Escalating, Pilots
Revolt Against Being Scanned Because of Radiation (video)
Right Network: Citizen to TSAndroid: “If you touch my junk I’ll have you
arrested.”
DBKP – Death By 1000 Papercuts: Angry Over Airport Full Body Scans? On the
Horizon, Red Flag Tests
Pundit & Pundette: Airline searches, as ineffective as they are invasive
AFP: ‘Naked’ scanners at US airports may be dangerous: scientists
The Jawa Report: CAIR Pushes To Exempt Muslims From Airport Body Scans
AND Pat Downs
CNN, Growing backlash against TSA body scanners, pat-downs:
Washington Post: Revolt against TSA: Ban the body scanner?
Death and Taxes: Revolt Against TSA: Airline Industry Spawns New Folk Hero
Sign On San Diego: Commercial airline pilot refuses full body scan
CNS News: Muslim Group Advises Women Wearing Hijabs to Allow TSA
‘Enhanced Pat Downs’ Only on Head and Neck Area

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-
blogzone/2010/11/17/tsas-airport-checkpoints-violate-4th-amendment-but-team-
obama-statist-government-doesnt-really-care-video/

================================
Obama’s “National Emergency” Violates
the Constitution
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 26, 2009

Drew Zahn, writing

for WorldNetDaily, takes issue with Infowars
declaring Obama’s “national emergency” amounts to martial
law. “An article by Kurt Nimmo of InfoWars took the worry a
step further, wondering if the White House’s declaration
engaged certain measures of the National Emergencies Act,”
writes Zahn. “But even if there really is a plot to manipulate the
H1N1 virus scare into enforcing a sweeping expansion of federal
power, today’s ‘national emergency’ falls far short of martial
law.”
Zahn writes that the laws enacted by the president’s
proclamation merely clear administrative hurdles for processing
of Medicare payments and that the provisions of the National
Emergencies Act cited by Obama in his proclamation limit the
power his administration can take. He then cites Section 301
that forbids the president from taking up any powers of the
National Emergencies Act except those listed in the
proclamation of emergency. The list deals with Medicare,
Medicaid, HIPAA privacy regulations, and other bureaucratic
functions of the department of Health and Human Services.
Infowars noted that Obama’s “national emergency” is likely a
scare tactic designed to stampede people into getting the
vaccine. The National Emergencies Act, however, is part of a
larger framework designed specifically for the implementation
of martial law. The law allows the president to revoke the right
of habeas corpus under Article 1, Section 9. It also grants
special powers to the executive in times of national emergency
and underscores the threat the executive poses to the civil
liberties of Americans, regardless of the stipulations in Section
301.
Revoking the right of habeas corpus is unconstitutional. So is
declaring a national emergency without congressional approval.
The Constitution declares, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion
or invasion the public safety may require it.”
It may be argued that Obama is invoking the Constitution for
the sake of “public safety,” that is until you look at the facts —
the H1N1 “pandemic” does not threaten the safety of most
Americans. It is far less deadly than seasonal flu. When was the
last time a president declared a national emergency over
seasonal flu?
A state of emergency (regardless of the pretext) allows Obama
to do a number of things. As Dr. Harold C. Relyea, a specialist
in national government with the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress, has written, “when
the President formally declares a national emergency, he may
seize property, organize and control the means of production,
seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute
martial law, seize and control all transportation and
communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise,
restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of
United States citizens.”
Obama’s declaration, however, is incidental because the United
States has been under a state of emergency since September 14,
2001. Bush extended this “emergency” (against a bogus terrorist
threat) on August 28, 2008.
“Will President Obama allow the state of national emergency,
first declared by President George W. Bush on 9/14/01 and re-
declared seven times, to remain in effect?” asked Peter Dale
Scott and Dan Hamburg on February 10, 2009.
On September 10 of this year, Obama reinstituted the national
State of Emergency.
As Infowars noted on the weekend, once a National Emergency
is declared the president has full authority to supersede
Congress and the Constitution under the John Warner Act of
2007, passed by Congress and signed into law Oct 17, 2006.
Warner expands the power of the president during national
emergencies, specifically section 1076.

• Only the American people, through their

representatives in Congress, can declare a
national emergency.
Obama’s national emergency declaration — regardless of its
emphasis on the bureaucratic functioning of HHS and Medicare
— is simply another example of how the executive now functions
as a dictatorship.
The declaration needs to be considered in a larger context of
authoritarian laws and presidential directives that violate both
the letter and the spirit of the law.
The USA Patriot Act allows “sneek and peek” searches without
notification, the collection of information (medical, financial,
and even library records) without showing probable cause.
Roving “John Doe” wiretaps violate the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Executive Order 13438 allows the president and the Secretary of
the Treasury to confiscate the assets of “certain persons” who
oppose the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq (First, Fourth
and Fifth Amendments violated).
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, mentioned above,
gives the president the authority to declare martial law and take
control of National Guard troops without state governor
authorization. If applied, Warner would x-out the entire
Constitution and Bill of Rights. It would also violate Posse
Comitatus.
NSP 51 and HSPD 20 (the National Security and Homeland
Security Presidential Directive) allow the president to declare a
“national emergency” for any reason without congressional
approval. These directives would result in the suspension of
constitutional government and the militarization of justice and
law enforcement. NSPD 51 supersedes the National Emergency
Act and supposed congressional oversight. If applied, the
Constitution would be null and void.
The Military Commissions Act trashes habeas corpus and
allows the government to detain anyone (including U.S. citizens)
by declaring them enemy combatants. It also allows torture and
provides immunity for military and intelligence officials. The
act violates the Sixth and Fourth Amendments, Article 1 Section
9, Clause 2 (covering habeas corpus) of the Constitution. It also
violates the Geneva Convention.
Finally, the long-standing FISA (Foreign Intelligence and
Surveillance Act) allows the Obama administration to spy on
any American without court approval. It provides a meaningless
and phony court review and secret procedures and a worthless
report to Congress.
Obama’s “national emergency” in response to a pandemic that
is nothing for the sort is another example of the executive
wantonly violating the Constitution. It does not matter if the
details of the so-called emergency declaration concern the
bureaucratic operation of government. It is a violation of the
principles our founders had in mind when they formulated our
(now mostly moribund) constitutional republic.
Only the American people, through their representatives in Congress,
can declare a national emergency.

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-national-emergency-violates-the-
constitution/

==================================
=
The Kenya Connection: Obama’s….Efforts
In Africa May Violate Federal Law
Posted on July 19, 2010 by admin

(From The Washington Times Editorial Page – July 16, 2010)

He not be heavy, he be my brutha!

The Kenyan president wants a new constitution, one that opens

the door to abortion on demand. President Obama is willing to
use U.S. taxpayer dollars to persuade voters to approve the
updated governing document, which would loosen regulations
designed to protect the unborn, establish Muslim family courts
and create a right to homosexual marriage. It’s not unusual that
Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki would see enactment of the
provisions as a “government project,” but Mr. Obama is on
shaky legal ground when he commits U.S. government resources
to it.
On Aug. 4, Kenya‘s 12.3 million registered voters will be asked a
simple question: “Do you approve the proposed new
constitution?” It is doubtful that many will have the opportunity
to read the entire 206-page document, which was created by a
committee of experts whose consultants and office equipment
were bankrolled with $580,381 in grants from the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID). Section 26 of the
proposal explicitly allows a “trained health professional” to
snuff the life of an unborn baby at any stage of a pregnancy. “It
is a radical departure from existing law,” Rep. Christopher H.
Smith, New Jersey Republican, told The Washington Times.
Under the Siljander Amendment, a provision of federal
appropriations law, it is illegal to use foreign aid to “lobby for
or against abortion.” The U.S. Embassy in Nairobi on Friday
told the Associated Press that it had suspended or terminated
nine grants, but it denied directly funding the referendum’s Yes
campaign. Officials obviously were feeling congressional heat,
asMr. Smith had obtained documents from USAID‘s inspector
general that identified $632,479.99 in federal grants whose
explicit and direct purpose was rounding up affirmative votes.
For example, USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives provided
$56,953.33 to the Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance for “one of a
series of activities that aim to contribute to an
‘overrepresentation’ of the YES voters at the next referendum.”
Broader grants that add up to $23 million went to groups whose
activities USAID variously described as “polling,”
“communications,” “voter registration,” “roadshows” and
“advocacy targeting policy makers.” That means U.S. taxpayers
paid the salaries of community organizers in Kenya for the
purpose of changing the country’s stance on abortion.
”Do you know what kind of political campaign you can run
with $23 million in Kenya, where you can buy even more with
the dollar?” Mr. Smith asked. “If a foreign country came into
New Jersey for a referendum and dropped $23 million for an
outcome that I found antithetical to everything I believe in, I
would be outraged.”
The outrage is compounded by the potential illegality of the
conduct. That’s why a full investigation of the White House’s
involvement in this matter is in order. The United States has an
interest in promoting fair and open elections where all sides
have the freedom to voice their opinion. The Obama
administration has no business spending federal funds to
promote the culture of death overseas, especially when such
efforts are prohibited by law.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/16/the-kenya-connection/

http://www.google.com/images?
hl=en&source=imghp&biw=848&bih=524&q=OBAMA+VIOLATE+CONSTITU
TION&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

==============================
Sunday, August 23, 2009

Obama's plan violates Article 1, Section

8 of the U.S. Constitution
For the record, here's Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts
and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;
Now if that's all there was, that would be one thing,
but it doesn't stop there. Section 8 goes on to
enumerate explicitly and exactly what all that
means.
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and

uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of
foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the
Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies
committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the
Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on
Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than
two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining

the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as
may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten
Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States,
and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise
like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Those are the powers delegated to the federal government. The
10th amendment to the Constitution adds this:
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.
Thus begs the question: where in there is the right to take
private health insurance away from the states and the people?
To nationalize GM and Chrysler? To nationalize the banks?
While I'm at it, how about social security? Medicare? Shouldn't
all those things be left to the states and to the people? Related to
this is an article over at WaPo via memeorandum:
Constitutionality of Health Insurance Mandate Questioned.
Well - yeah!
President Obama has called for a serious and reasoned debate
about his plans to overhaul the health-care system. Any such
debate must include the question of whether it is constitutional
for the federal government to adopt and implement the
president's proposals. Consider one element known as the
"individual mandate," which would require every American to
have health insurance, if not through an employer then by
individual purchase. This requirement would particularly affect
young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go
without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a
comprehensive national health system will not work. But can
Congress require every American to buy health insurance?

In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated

powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate
interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal
mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health
insurance to buy it.

Of course, one could argue that it is constitutional until and

except a judge strikes it down as unconstitutional. With activist
judges graduating from Ivy-League law schools that teach the
absurd concept that the Constitution is a "living" document and
doesn't really mean what you read explicitly, you have to worry
about that. The U.S. Constitution is clear. The feds do not have
the power they think they do. The States and the people can
impose Obamacare on themselves.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamas-plan-violates-article-1-
section.html

=================================

Fall Of The Republic - The Presidency of

Barack H. Obama
 7867 lecturas
Publicado por: Sauron el 22 / 10 / 2009
Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is
bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that
world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new
global currency.

President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1

Section 9 of the US Constitution by seating himself
at the head of United Nations' Security Council, thus
becoming the first US president to chair the world
body.
A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and
laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished
worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now
descending over the planet.
A worldwide regime controlled by an unelected corporate elite
is implementing a planetary carbon tax system that will
dominate all human activity and establish a system of neo-
feudal slavery.

The image makers have carefully packaged Obama as the

world's savior; he is the Trojan Horse manufactured to pacify
the people just long enough for the globalists to complete their
master plan.

This film reveals the architecture of the New World Order and
what the power elite have in store for humanity. More
importantly it communicates how We The People can retake
control of our government, turn the criminal tide and bring the
tyrants to justice.

WATCH FOR FREE HERE ONLINE 'FALL OF THE REPUBLIC: THE PRESIDENCY
OF BARACK H. OBAMA'

DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO HERE:

PART 1, PART 2, PART 3, PART 4, PART 5, PART 6, PART 7, PART

8, PART 9, PART 10, PART 11, PART 12, PART 13, PART 14
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENTARY FILM
'THE OBAMA DECEPTION'

http://www.cherada.com/articulos/fch93-s522-p30204-download-for-
free-fall-of-the-republic-the-presidency-of-barack-h-obama
=================================

Obama Violated ‘Logan Act’ During

Kenyan Campaign, says Former US
Attorney
– 2010/07/16Posted in: Politics
Ex-prosecutor: Obama’s Kenyan activities may
be ‘criminal’. McCarthy says Obama’s
foreign dealings as senator possibly illegal.
WorldNetDaily

In a new best-selling book connecting Islam and Obama-style

socialism, a former top terrorism prosecutor chides the national
media for failing to investigate Barack Obama’s “borderline
criminal” activities in Kenya as a U.S. senator.
Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney who
investigated the American embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya,
charges that Obama interfered in Kenya’s internal politics
possibly in violation of the Logan Act.
The centuries-old law bars Americans who are “without
authority of the United States” from conducting relations “with
any foreign government … in relation to any disputes or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures
of the United States.”
In “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage
America,” McCarthy says Obama undermined U.S. relations
with a strong anti-terrorism ally in an African region where al-
Qaida operates. In 2006, he details in the book how Obama
campaigned for a pro-communist candidate running against
Nairobi’s pro-American government – “in outrageous
contravention of U.S. policy and, probably, federal law.”
During a visit to Kenya, then Senator Obama rallied a crowd in
support of Raila Odinga, the socialist Luo who was seeking the
presidency.
Obama spent six days barnstorming the Kenyan countryside in
support of Raila Odinga, the socialist Luo who was seeking the
presidency. Appearing with Odinga at campaign stops, Obama
gave speeches accusing the sitting Kenyan president of being
corrupt and oppressive, leaving the masses in poverty.
Obama’s interference “was more than reckless,” McCarthy
writes. “It was borderline criminal (and that’s being generous).”
Earlier, Odinga had visited Obama in the U.S. – in 2004, 2005
and 2006 – and Obama had sent an adviser, Mark Lippert, to
Kenya in early 2006 to plan a trip by the senator timed to
coincide with Odinga’s campaign.
McCarthy notes that Obama and Odinga, who named one of his
children after Fidel Castro, are “leftist soulmates” whose
families go way back. Their fathers belonged to the same Luo
tribe – and both Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and the elder
Oginga Odinga worked inside the Kenyan government as
communist agitators.
There is also an Islamist connection.
On Aug. 29, 2007, Raila Odinga signed a secret Memorandum
of Understanding with Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the
National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. In exchange for
Muslim support, Odinga agreed, among other things, to:
• Rewrite the national constitution to install shariah as the
law in all “Muslim declared regions.”
• Elevate Islam as “the only true religion” and give Islamic
leaders an “oversight role to monitor activities of ALL
other religions.”
• Establish shariah courts in every Kenyan divisional
headquarters.
• Ban Christian proselytism.
• Fire the police commissioner for “allow[ing] himself to be
used by heathens and Zionists” to oppress Muslims.
• Adopt Islamic dress codes for women.
• Ban alcohol and pork.
Even with strong Muslim backing, Odinga (who does business
with a wealthy Saudi donor to Osama bin Laden) was defeated
in the December 2007 election. But he accused the incumbent
president of rigging the vote and incited his supporters to riot in
protest.
Over the next month, some 1,500 Kenyans were killed and more
than 500,000 displaced – with most of the violence led by
Muslims, who set churches ablaze and hacked Christians to
death with machetes.
All the while, Odinga was in regular communications with
Obama, who publicly called for an end to the violence.

Obama and Odinga, who named one of his children after Fidel
Castro, are “leftist soulmates” whose families go way back.
“Odinga’s strategy, the extortion strategy of Islamist
intimidation, worked to a fare-thee-well,” McCarthy notes in his
book. To appease his angry mob of supporters, he was named
prime minister and allowed to share power with the president.
“With Obama’s helping hand, leftists and Islamists had
combined forces to overwhelm a constitutional democracy,”
McCarthy says, while decrying the national media’s “stubborn
disinterest” in the “stunning” chain of events.
The same alliance can be seen in the U.S., he says, as the Obama
administration reaches out to the radical Muslim Brotherhood,
which according to the FBI, has a plan to infiltrate and sabotage
the U.S. from within. Obama and other Alinsky
“revolutionaries” are carrying out a similar plan, he maintains.
McCarthy says that while there’s no evidence Obama is a
practicing Muslim, he shares Muslim Brotherhood hatred for
America and “the Muslim Brotherhood’s sabotage strategy.”
McCarthy says the administration ignores incontrovertible
evidence tying Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America to
Hamas and other terrorist groups. One of them, he notes, is the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, which claims to be a
benign civil-rights organization.
Related posts:

1. Obama Sends $23 Million Home to Kenya

2. Oops! Obama tells another nativity fib?
3. Obama Campaign Ties to Foreign Money? | Barry, it’s
Your Turn Under the Microscope
 4. “DREAMS FROM MY FATHER”, BY BARACK
OBAMA, A MYTHICAL FAIRY TALE.
Tags: Birthers, cam, Federal Law, George W. Bush, Islam, Obama, Politics, US Foreign Policy

http://www.menwithfoilhats.com/2010/07/obama-violated-logan-act-
during-kenyan-campaign-says-former-us-attorney/

================================

Obama is a Muslim and supports Muslim causes in US and worldwide.

Reasons Why the American Constitution is
NOT Sharia Compliant
August 28, 2010
by froivinber

Nonie Darwish, author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment and

founder of Former Muslims United, listed 34 facts that prove
that Islam is not compatible with the United States’ Constitution
and the Western culture.
Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the U.S. constitution is
Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of
Sharia to see how truthful Imam Rauf is:
1- Jihad, defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish
the religion,” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of
state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation
of Sharia and unfit to rule.
2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning
through force.
3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes
such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some
cases of rape.
4- A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go towards
jihad.
5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he
is unjust.
6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph if he rejects
Islam.
8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an
adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and
honor killing is acceptable.
10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-
Muslim, but will get it for killing a Muslim.
11- Sharia never abolished slavery, sexual slavery and highly
regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of
limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They
must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are
forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or
pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious
holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new
churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not
enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer
protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone
who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse
a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or
Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But Muslims can
curse non-Muslims.
15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level
jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women
in low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot
keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
18- A non-Muslim cannot rule — even over a non-Muslim
minority.
19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.
20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage
contract can take place anytime after birth and can be
consummated at age 8 or 9.
21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s
obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and
keep her from leaving the home.
22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as
saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the
husband did not intend it.
23- There is no community property between husband and wife
and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the
wife after his death.
24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and none of them
have a right to divorce him — even if he is polygamous.
26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual
organs.
27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women
captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her
marriage is annulled.
28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a
man.
29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.
30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.
31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money
(dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which
is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Not all Sharia schools
allow the face of a woman exposed.
33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he
caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not
true for women, since the man “could be married to the woman
he was caught with.”
34-It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is
obligatory. That means that for the sake of abiding with Islam’s
commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and
should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with
this kind of lying.
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams
after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran,
Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf
tell us: What part of the above is compliant with the U.S.
Constitution?
• Nonie Darwish is the author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment; the terrifying
global implications of Islamic law” and founder of Former Muslims United.
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/reasons-why-the-
american-constitution-is-not-sharia-compliant/

=====================

Virginia Judge Rules Obama’s

Mandatory Health Insurance is
Unconstitutional
Posted by PC Corruption Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

A federal court ruled Monday that a key part of the health-care

overhaul violates the Constitution, dealing the first legal setback
to the Obama administration’s signature legislative
accomplishment.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law’s requirement
that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty “exceeds
the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
The 42-page ruling doesn’t mean states or the federal
government must stop implementing the law. But it is expected
to give ammunition to a broad Republican assault against the
overhaul, which includes efforts in Congress to chip away at it.
Requiring Americans to buy insurance “would invite unbridled
exercise of federal police powers,” wrote Judge Hudson, a
George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia.
“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the
business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health
insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to
participate.”
The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Republican Attorney General
Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since
President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20
federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges
in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama
administration. The battle is expected to end up at the Supreme
Court, though probably not until the 2011-12 term at the
earliest.
Judge Hudson didn’t grant the plaintiffs their request for an
immediate nationwide injunction against the entire law or
against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance.
That requirement, known as the individual mandate, begins in
2014.

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=330

======================

President Obama removes ‘Creator’ from

the Declaration of Independence
September 20, 2010 by POPEYE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-xYtTv3dUo
And for those concerned with context, here is a complete version
of the remarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Kd7ZQZxDhjk&feature=player_embedded
ORIGINAL LINK HERE

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=17134
====================
Obama has absolutely no understanding of
the second amendment.
How it is presented @ the Whitehouse.gov US Constitution Site:
...
"The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
...

This is entirely incorrect.

The Bill of Rights does not give the people ANYTHING, and I
doubt you could find a valid Supreme Court decision that backs
up that claim.

The Bill of Rights exists as a list of limitations on the Federal

Government. A list of things it cannot do. It does not grant
anything to the people.
It should read:
"The Second Amendment provides that the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
The current wording implies, and in fact states, that the
Constitution GIVES rights, when the Founders clearly held that
we are "endowed by our Creator" with our rights and that the
purpose of government is to secure those Creator-endowed
rights.

In short, the Constitution enshrines and protects our rights, but

does not "give" rights. That is a dangerous misinterpretation,
because the uninformed citizen might fall prey to the belief that
government could also "take away" rights.

As a "Constitutional Scholar" Obama ought to be ashamed of

this garbage on Whitehouse.Gov.
So, now we wait for some backpedaling and for some low-level
staffer to get thrown under the Hopenchange Express...

-----------

As I look at the rest of the Bill of Rights there are some pretty
hideous "interpretations" of the 4th and 5th amendments too...

Look it up here.

TBG- ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

http://l2uj.blogspot.com/2009/03/urkels-second-amendment.html

================================
=
=
*
=========================================================================

Barry violates the Constitution

'' Presidential Oath of Office ''

“I do solemnly swear 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.”
(per Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution)
Did you wonder, at Barack Obama’s Inauguration as President of the
United States, how he could swear allegiance to our Constitution?

When you heard him declare that same Constitution “fundamentally

flawed,” and heard him read from his autobiography of his associates,
leftist friends and Marxist professors — whom he claims to have
“sought out” — did you ask yourself Did you, having even a limited
knowledge of Obama’s associations with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers
and Black Liberation Theology preacher how in the world this man
could possibly pledge to uphold the Constitution?

Reverend Wright, cringe slightly while he was taking the oath of office?

And have you wondered since then — in light of the policy changes he’s
proposed and the processes, procedures and strong-arm tactics he’s
used — how he could have made that solemn vow to our Constitution,
hand upon the Bible, pledging to preserve, protect and defend that
precious document?

That question — in its various forms — is brought up fairly regularly

by conservative-leaning writers and pundits, often as a sort of rhetorical
question.

It’s usually intended to flavor a discussion that highlights Obama’s

steering of the U.S. toward a more Western European, socialism-
flavored America, or his blatant breaches of protocol (apologizing for
America, bowing to foreign leaders), or his over-stepping of long-
established boundaries within the federal government (forcing citizens
to purchase insurance, taking government ownership of private
companies). You know — the stuff Obama calls change.

How could he dare do this to the Constitution, they’ll puzzle as they

shake their heads; or, how could he possibly disregard our Constitution
like this?

Last night, Newt Gingrich brought the subject up yet again on Sean
Hannity’s TV show, with a slight variation, when he posed the
highlighted question below:

Gingrich: This is a group prepared to fundamentally violate the

Constitution. And by the way, the executive order on abortion is a
fundamental violation. The idea that a President of the United States
can personally reinterpret the law is just wrong.

Hannity: An executive order can never trump a statute anyway, so it

wasn’t really worth the paper it was printed on…

Gingrich: But the President may think it does. You know, I’ve been very
curious… I’d be fascinated to know, since he taught Constitutional law
in Chicago… which Constitution was he teaching? Venezuelan
constitutional law? I mean, I can’t imagine how he could have actually
taught American Constitutional law and be this wrong, this often.

I think I might be able to answer that for the former House Speaker.
I’ve been pondering this very question too, along with its numerous
variations. Over time, it has shaped itself into one comprehensive and
important question:

•If President Obama spends so much time and energy undermining the
U.S. Constitution and — by his own admission — shamelessly working
to fundamentally change it, how could he have sworn an oath on the
Bible to preserve, protect and defend that same Constitution?
It’s not because Obama is ignorant of what the Constitution really says
or means. He wasn’t referring to some other nation’s by-laws. It’s not
because he isn’t a natural-born citizen or because he just isn’t up to the
task. It’s not even about the Alinsky/Marxist philosophy that “the ends
justify the means,” though that point has merit.
President Obama did, indeed, genuinely swear to uphold the
Constitution of the United States. But my conclusion is that he was
pledging allegiance to the U.S. Constitution not as it exists now, but as
he intends to make it. With this skewed rationalization, Obama was able
to vow, in good faith and in good conscience, to “preserve, protect and
defend” our most important founding document. He could at the same
time proceed to condemn it. With this warped perspective, he can also
justify any and all radical changes his social policies demand. And it has
the added benefit of meshing perfectly with his agenda for hope and
transformational change.

Every single thing Obama has proposed, accomplished and intends to

accomplish fits neatly into this convenient framework he views as the
“future” Constitution of the United States. It was to that Constitution —
the one that will eventually exist after he rewrites it — that Barack
Obama pledged his most sacred oath.

That, at least in my mind, fully explains this paradox. Hopefully, it cuts

to the heart of the matter, and perhaps opens doors to even deeper
truths.

Maybe it will explain it for you as well, and help guide your thinking
about Obama’s motives and intentions from here on.

– RB Stratford

Make no mistake. We’re now in the middle of a bloodless coup – the

takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd – a cold-
blooded gang that despises American's prosperity, our standing in the
world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness.

America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack

Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due
to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others... live
better than others.

And in that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair.
Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American
to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.

And, like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to
Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of
outcome" over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must learn
to live in chains to make it happen (in fact, servitude to the iron will of
government will be required).

That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man

and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today.

That dangerous worldview also explains why he has already gobbled-up

major banks and why the government now controls more and more of
our money – yours and mine. And if you wake up one day to discover
you’re broke, don’t be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie
Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.

That dangerous worldview explains the sudden and shocking erosion of

your freedom to make a living, to run your own business, whether a
Mom-and-Pop grocery store or General Motors.

That dangerous worldview explains why his Attorney General, Eric

Holder, despises the 2nd Amendment... why, if he had his way, he would
take away our guns, leaving us defenseless against gangs and hoods –
and, more to the point, against Obama's own shock-troops from
ACORN or SEIU. Remember, it was the healthy and rational fear of
government that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the
Constitution of the United States.

And that dangerous worldview explains why Obama intends to take

away your freedom to choose your own doctor... your own treatment.
Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets
treatments... who gets transplants... who gets dialysis... who gets costly
medication... and who needs to die for the common good.

What can we do to stop this monomaniac... this American dictator?

There’s only one answer.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice

President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed
from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

impeach Barack Hussein Obama!!

To borrow a phrase from the "anointed-one," ... "yes we can."

But before going on, we really need to address the often misunderstood
subject of what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense, in order to
illustrate that Barack Obama's actions are grave enough to warrant
impeachment.

Former-President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of

Representatives, said an impeachable offense was, “whatever a majority
of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in
history.”

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice

President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed
from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in

English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers
but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.

Here's a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully

summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the
term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:

“’High crimes and misdemeanors’ entered the text of the Constitution

due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the
reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough.
He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be
covered... so Mason then proposed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ a
phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a
‘misdemeanor’ meant ‘mis-demeanor,’ or bad behavior."

In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a

criminal act (as some would lead you to believe) and our Founding
Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for
actions which were... well... simply put... egregious... grossly
incompetent... grossly negligent... outright distasteful... or, in the case of
Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence
toward this country, which is unabated."

And make no mistake, for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that
impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of
"playing politics," the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of
a sitting President be a political act.

As C-Span.org notes:

“The Congress decides the definition [of impeachable offenses]: by

majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the
Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put
impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the
judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal
definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald
Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an
impeachable offense is ‘whatever a majority of the House of
Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.’"

The Obama Administration exemplifies maladministration. It qualifies

as the poster-child for bad behavior.

Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and
adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.

Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for

Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution
for such a time as this.

It could be easily argued that we have a duty to impeach Barack

Hussein Obama.

Of course, our elected officials won't have the back-bone to go it alone.

That's where you come in.

Help us spread the word far-and-wide and our elected officials will come
to know that Impeachment is the will of the American people and they
ignore the will of the people at their own political peril.

The question is not whether we should impeach Barack Hussein Obama.

Rather, the question is, can we

impeach Barack Hussein Obama before it is too late?

Tags: Presidential Oath

http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/2010/03/00530-barry-
violates-the-constitution-by-capt-dax.html

http://thecaptiansquarters.blogspot.com/2010/03/barry-violates-
constitution.html
Thursday, March 25, 2010

=========================================================================
=========================================================================