Wannabe Emperor B. Hussein Obama Rewriting the Constitution
Cartoon: Daniel Snyder@Twitter
Wannabe Emperor B. Hussein Obama Rewriting the Constitution
Cartoon: Daniel Snyder@Twitter
(Politico/SenTedCruz) The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation and executive amnesty for immigrants here illegally unilaterally decreed from the White Hose would seriously undermine the rule of law.
Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the president threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people that have come to our country illegally.
To be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans on Congress, it is a dispute between President Obama and the American people. The Democrats suffered historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the president’s executive amnesty.
President Obama was correct: His policies were on the ballot across the nation in 2014 the elections were a referendum on amnesty and the voters soundly rejected it. There was no ambiguity.
Undeterred, President Obama appears to be going forward. It is lawless. It is unconstitutional. He is defiant and angry at the American people. If he acts by executive diktat, President Obama will not be acting as a president, he will be acting as a monarch.
Thankfully, the framers of the Constitution, wary of the dangers of monarchy, gave the Congress tools to reign in abuses of power. They believed that if a president wants to change the law he cannot act alone…
Rest here from Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX)
(Daily Caller) The Obama administration has quickly converted the U.S. Supreme Ct’s Hobby Lobby decision into a campaign issue, calling on Congress to continue providing abortion-related drugs to Women who work for Catholic employers.
The chances of such a measure ever becoming law zero–the cynical opportunity to raise campaign contributions and attempt to make this a wedge issue going into the midterms–priceless but so very predictable for liberals that can’t come up with any new or original campaign ideas.
In related Hobby Lobby news that Obama Won’t Tell You and Liberals Don’t Want You to Know:
H/T: The Daily Signal
(CNA) On Monday, in a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court said that closely held corporations can not be required to provide contraception coverage to their employees which they determine to be objectionable based on the religious beliefs–definitely is a victory for Christian principles and that all five of these votes came entirely by Men speaks volumes about the (so called) ‘War on Women’ which our country is currently embroiled.
Yesterday’s decision reminds us that Women’s health–and by this I mean more than merely contraceptive coverage–is not just a Woman’s issue. Yesterday’s decision affects both Women and Men because procreation necessarily involves Women and Men and because conscience protection is not gender specific nor is it a partisan issue.
The Truth Is: We gave up mutual responsibility for procreation long ago when we praised the birth-control pill for giving Women a ‘new found freedom’ and power over their fertility, when we wildly accepted, nay, promoted sex outside of marriage, when we made abortion about ‘a Women’s right to choose’ we surrendered something quite difficult to get back–shared responsibility for what our bodies are made to do when we have sex namely, to create life.
Even though it takes two to make a baby, we have given Men the ability to opt out of parental responsibility if they choose. The forms of contraception covered by ObamaCare, all depend necessarily on the Woman’s faithful use of these devices not the Man’s. Male condoms are not covered by ObamaCare also not covered are methods that both beget appreciation for the wonder that is the female reproductive system and require mutual responsibility like natural family planning or other fertility awareness methods…
Full article here by Jennifer Manning, Catholic Womanhood
(Washington Times) Sen Chuck Schumer stumbled over basic American history on Tuesday, crediting Thomas Jefferson for authorship of the ‘Bill of Rights’ during a debate over the 1st Amendment and campaign finance.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the ‘Bill of Rights’ on whats being proposed here, he’d agree with it, he would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute,” said Schumer.
While Jefferson is deemed the principle author of the ‘Declaration of Independence’ he was not intimately involved in the writing of the ‘Constitution or the Bill of Rights’ and in-fact was serving as the Minister of France at the time of both the Constitutional Convention and the Congressional debate over the ‘Bill of Rights.’
Jefferson’s fellow Virginians’ James Madison and George Mason are usually credited are being more influential in the process–Mason for being among the most forceful in demanding the protections of such a ‘Bill of Rights’ and Madison, for being the political muscle that got them approved.
“Madison’s support of the ‘Bill of Rights’ was of critical significance,” the National Archives writes on its webpage: “One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the Hose to enact the amendments.”
The National Archives goes on to recount Madison’s efforts to shepherd a package of 17 Amendments through the House in 1789 a number that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate before being submitted to the States–Of those, 10 were ratified fairly quickly.
One would hope that a sitting U.S. Senator would familiarize himself with American History before attempting to change the Constitution for political purposes.
The new Constitutional Amendment that Schumer is pushing, would grant to federal lawmakers the power to control free speech or whatever they would deem is objectionable to them.
(SPLC) According to the ‘Southern Poverty Law Center’ (SPLC) I’m an ‘extremist’ because I together with other nefarious groups such as:
The Christian Right, Tea Party organizations, The National Review and The Federalist joined by other “radical” anti-government groups such as the State of Indiana and Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul (I didn’t know that he was a group though, I digress) that have chosen to exercise their First Amendment rights and oppose Common Core curriculum, are nothing more than ignominious serfs.
First Amendment Subject to Govt Oversight & Regulations???
(Washington Examiner) Federal bureaucrats reacting to the growing voice of Conservative news especially online are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations–a potentially chilling intervention that the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Lee E. Goodman is vowing to fight.
“I think there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial decisions of Conservative publishers–The right has begun to break the Left’s media monopoly particularly through new media outlets like the Internet and I sense that some on the Left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media’s exemption and Internet communications.”
Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating Conservative media such as Drudge Report, Sean Hannity and Citizens United Film Division. Liberals over the years have been pushing for a change in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ‘fairness doctrine’ to choke-off Conservative voices.
“The picking and choosing has started to occur…There are some in this (FEC) building that think we can actually regulate (silence) media,” added Goodman.
In February I wrote here the out of control FCC proposed putting ‘government monitors’ in newsrooms to inspect issues such as the amount of time spent on news which they determine to be of ‘critical importance’ and would permit government agents to look over the shoulders of reporters, editors and station owners, about how they decide which stories to run.
When was the First Amendment repealed?
(FOX News) Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the Constitution and balance the federal budget, in the wake of lawmakers in the State of Michigan, becoming the 34th state to exercise their rights triggering the 2/3 necessary pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
In the wake of Michigan’s vote, Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA) pressed House Speaker John Boehner yesterday to determine whether the states crossed the necessary threshold to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment and Obama, can’t do a damn thing about it.
If 2/3 of the states have indeed called for a constitutional convention, the ball is now in Congress’ court.
The last time a successful amendment was ratified was May 1992 the 27th Amendment on Congressional pay increases.