I can’t go to sleep until I give you these two
This one from Publius Huldah regarding the constitutionally mandated powers of the POTUS, and the enumerated powers of the federal government.
On election night, November 2, 2010, Rep. John Boehner said in his victory speech:
…While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. … [emphasis added]
But Boehner is not as astute as Ezra Klein, and does not know that it is our Constitution which sets the “agenda” for the federal government. The agenda the Constitution sets restricts the federal government to war, international relations & commerce; and domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: a monetary system based on gold & silver, weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a bankruptcy code, and mail delivery (Art. I, Sec. 8, cls.1-16). 1
And because none of the House Republicans seem to know that our Constitution sets the agenda, and don’t know that our Constitution also enumerates the powers delegated to the President, they are allowing Obama to carry out his “agenda” to transform our Country into a fascist dictatorship.
And this one from Col Sellin, basically regarding how the left is going to cram their communist bullshit down our throats despite how much proof we have that Obozo is not legally able to do it.
Members of the political-media complex have no intention of addressing Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility for the Presidency or his criminal activity both before and after occupying the White Housebecause it would expose their own culpability in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
Their plan is to stall, wait for the Obama
“problem” to be overtaken by events, like the 2012 election, and then sweep his crimes and theirs under the rug.
Is this not something which I’ve said, or you’ve thought, about this entire affair? This may well get ugly, but I’ve implied that before as well. The fedgov is worried about race riots if this legal action is taken? Bullshit, the collaboration simply reeks. And if it does? Fucking bring it.
Comments are closed.
Three cheers on the Publius Huldah article.
It is everything I have been saying with the added benefit of the citations from the Federalist and the constitution. From his(?) view on the function of the executive to how treaties are incorporated as federal statutes(embedded link) and not change the foundational law this was a serious and well researched article. I really have to go back a re-read the the Federalist Papers. It has been a while.
His(?) exegesis on how and when presidential executive orders are proper was first rate and absolutely on the mark. Governance by executive order is lawless and invalid. And because the constitution puts a positive duty to “faithfully execute the laws authorized under the constitution” .i.e. the laws constitutionally authorized, it puts to bed any notion of “prosecutorial discretion”. If you have so many laws you have to budget your time and money and exercise such arbitrary powers as what is important enough to prosecute and what is not then you have too many laws. In a government that was founded on the premise of limited scope this is only a problem when it exceeds it’s mandate.
Congress has no authority to delegate its law making ability. Only altering the constitution itself can change that. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are just the two most egregious examples and are the fulfillment of the Wilsonian dystopia of “government by expert”.
I agree wholeheartedly with PH and had his page bookmarked from a comment you made over at the Rott a couple of weeks ago that used one of PH’s as the basis for a post on Islams compatibility with the constitution I am a little less sanguine as to the constitutional remedy as impeachment is more a political tool rather than a legal remedy. It would require men who put the country before their party. As we have seen in much the tenor of Professor Angelo de Codevilla’s stirring article from about a year ago;America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolutionand in both Sellin’s article above and throughout PH’swritings they acknowledge and in the case of Sellin openly indict the venality of a ruling class that has no other interest than to preserve the perquisites of their own power.
Excellent cites to further the argument. Now if we can just find the right people to do what must be done, however it must be done.