Category Archives: Constitutionality

Random Shots for Wednesday

Posted on by

I’m surprised how many readers liked my post for Monday, August 12, 2013, titled, Planes. Many were pilots…or inactive pilots like me. There are no ‘former’ pilots, only those who are current and those who aren’t.

I was rushed for time Monday morning. I could have written it better. I wish I had, especially that sequence of landing a small plane. It’s difficult to describe for those who’ve never done it…the feel and feedback from the rudder pedals, slipping to compensate for a crosswind, the flare…those last few floating feet before touchdown that seems to last forever.

I thank all you pilots, active and inactive, who liked the post.

***

I  am a Mark Levin fan. I usually listen to the first hour or so of his dailyl broadcast on KCMO-710, 5PM. He has been hitting the ‘Pub establishment hard this last week…harder than usual.

Part of it is PR for his new book, The Liberty Amendments. His book outlines a plan to restore the Constitution to that originally envisioned by the Founders.

But the book isn’t what has Levin in the news. No, it’s his prognosis for the ‘Pub party and that prognosis is poor…very poor.

Mark Levin: ‘Entrenched’ Republican ‘losers’ may cost GOP the House in 2014

Jeff Poor, Media Reporter, 12:17 AM 08/14/2013

Conservative talker Mark Levin blasted Republican House leaders on his Tuesday radio show, warning that by attacking more conservative members of the GOP, Speaker John Boehner and prominent Reps. Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are throwing away the 2014 midterm elections.

Levin, author of “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic,” said the GOP establishment’s disparagement of conservative colleagues, could be a disaster in a midterm “turn out the base” election.

“This is my great fear,” Levin said. “My great fear is that guys like Boehner, and quite frankly Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor and his goofball [Kevin] McCarthy — they don’t get it at all. Midterm elections in particular are base elections, they are turnout elections. And they’re doing everything they can to turn us off, to turn us off. Where are they standing ground and keeping ground and fighting? Instead it’s, ‘No, no we’re not going to shut down the government.’ Even if that’s your ultimate view, why do you reveal that to the leftists and the media? It’s like playing poker and the idiot shows his cards — and that’s what he does. ‘Hey, look at this.’”

“And also, amnesty?” he continued. “Pathway to citizenship? This is their number one issue. No. And then we have Obamacare. The president of the United States, rubbing the Republican’s nose in it,acting like he’s king, and as I’ve been saying and now others, an imperial president. ‘No. we’ll follow this part of the law. No, I’m suspending this part of the law. No, I’m deferring this part of the law.’ What the hell is that? And what are the Republicans doing about it? Now the typical Republican response would be ‘well what do you want us to do about it?’”

The conservative talker encouraged Republicans in the House and Senate to use any means necessary to draw attention to President Barack Obama’s attempts to thwart the law and/or the Constitution, including obstruction tactics.

“Here’s what I want you to do,” Levin said. “You fools should have been, time and time again, every time he has violated the Constitution, you should have made an issue about it,” Levin said. “You should have punished him in some way — denied him some appointee, obstructed some piece of legislation. Draw attention to this lawlessness so the American people after a year, or two, or three of you consistently explaining it and hammering away at it would in fact be aware of what you’re trying to do and say! But instead, what do we get? What do we get? We get John McCain attacking Ted Cruz. What do we get? Chris Christie attacking Rand Paul. What do we get? Karl Rove attacking Mike Lee. The same dug-in entrenched losers who may well cost us the House of Representatives in the next election.”

Levin speculated as to what would happen if the Democrats regained control of the House and who the so-called Republican establishment may blame for it.

“And do you know what Obama will do again if he controls the whole damn thing?” Levin added.  “And he’s banking on it. That’s why he’s putting all these things off. He’s sucking people in to vote for him and then he’s going to drop the hammer. Then what do we do? ‘We don’t control any — one half of one third or anything else.’ And what are the Republicans going to do then? Blame the conservatives? Blame the tea party? What are they going to do then? ‘We can’t control anything. We don’t even have one half of one third — of course you don’t. Look what you’ve squandered, the opportunity. This president is pathetic. His policies are a disaster. We have sustained high unemployment, sustained housing problems. The economy is still on its back. He won’t secure the damn border. He’s hollowing out the military. He’s hollowing out NASA. What the hell? He’s handing you the issues to run on. And what do you do? You attack conservatives. Brilliant.”

If you’ve ever listened to Levin on the radio, or via his pod and internet ‘casts, you’ve heard this theme before. The Republican Party is dying, poisoned from within. It is a Truth and many in the party, in and out of Washington, refuse to listen.

***

A Colorado District Judge ruined that state’s liberal scheme to derail the recall elections of three democrat legislators. In his decision, the mail-in ballot scheme and no-show voting was rendered ineffective. How? The Judge ruled in accordance to the Colorado state constitution.

Judge rules to uphold the Colorado Constitution

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 – Red Pill, Blue Pill by Al Maurer

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., August 13, 2013—Monday evening Denver District Judge Robert McGahey ruled in favor of the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit to allow candidates up until 15 days prior to the September 10 recall election to qualify for the ballot. This ruling upholds the state constitution, which mandates it.

Under the recently-enacted House Bill 1303, state election law was changed to allow all mail-in ballot recall elections. To meet the deadlines imposed by such an election, candidates were given only until July 29 to collect 1000 signatures—10 days from when Gov. Hickenlooper belatedly set the election date.

Potential candidates now have until August 26 to gather enough signatures to get on the ballot, making it impossible for county clerks to then print and mail ballots to voters. The election, therefore, will now be an in-person one.

In choosing between the state constitution and the recent statute calling for mail ballots and early voting schedules, Judge McGahey said it would be an “absurd result” to ignore the constitution’s direct wording on recall candidates.

In addition, Judge McGahey ripped the legislature for “Writing an election law so clearly non-compliant with the state Constitution….With all due respect to the legislature, it did not consider or ignored the clear language of Article XXI – I find that both sad and, frankly, shocking.”

The major parties did not agree.

The dems protest because their vote fraud scheme was foiled. The ‘Pubs don’t like it either because it ruins their plan to be the only opposition to the dems. That ‘Pub view may have some merit if the votes to oppose the dems are diluted among several candidates.

There is a companion article here. I suppose it’d be too much to hope for that the ‘Pubs and Libertarians jointly submit a candidate against the dems. Yes, I suppose it would, and, that’s too bad, because now the opposing votes against the dems will be diluted among two or more candidates.

***

I’d like to make a followup to a post I made some months ago. That post was about the Cass County Lincoln Day dinner and guest speaker Tom Schweich, Missouri’s Auditor. In the last two paragraphs of that post, I wrote:

I applaud Schweich’s attempt for unity. He has a steep road to walk. I like Schweich. I voted for him in his last election and will probably vote for him in the next one. However, his attempts to heal the party will fail as long as the state’s party hierarchy maintains their paternalistic attitude and their continued efforts to control the central committee.

Unless there is significant change, they will fail. Ed Martin unseated David Cole as Chairman of the MO Central Committee. Martin ran for Attorney General as a Tea Partier. I’ve met him and I was impressed with him. He now has a formidable task, the reunification of the Missouri Republican party. I await him to begin that reconciliation—before it is too late.

Since April, when I wrote the post above, I’ve met a number of times with Ed Martin‘s Political Director Steve Michael. At one meeting, he was joined by Bob Evans, the Heritage Action Regional Coordinator for Missouri who was formerly a member of the St. Louis Tea Party.

In a different meeting, he met with some grassroots folks to expand and reinforce Ed Martin’s links with the conservative base—a base that is losing its ties with the Republican Party. Another brief meeting was when Steve Michael spoke at a Cass County ‘Pub gathering last week.

In April, I asked if Ed Martin was willing to reach out—and listen to, the conservatives, Libertarian Republicans and those whose loyalty isn’t necessarily with the Republican Party. I can now say, “Yes, he is.”

There’s hope yet for the survival of the ‘Pub party in Missouri…but only if Ed Martin and the ‘Pub state central committee really listens and heeds those who are feeling disenfranchised with the ‘Pubs.

Facebook

The Abuses of Militarized Police

Posted on by

A story has come from Nevada of a lawsuit that was filed on July 1st, 2013. It contends the Henderson, NV, police violated the 3rd Amendment rights of a man and his parents.

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The issue in this complaint against the Henderson PD is that “militarized” police, i.e., their SWAT organization, seized the home of a man against his wishes. When the SWAT police didn’t get permission to enter, they broke in the door, assaulted him, arrested him and took him off to jail. They subsequently, using a subterfuge, did the same with his parents who lived in another, nearby residence. The following day all charges were dropped. Clearly the arrest was a ploy to remove the man from his home and his parents from their home against their protests.

You can read the complaint of the lawsuit here.

Henderson [Nevada] police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court….

The Mitchell family’s claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States….

“On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence,” the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: “At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.”

The complaint continues: “Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants’ plan in his official report: ‘It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’”

It continues: “The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

“Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

“Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.

“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor….

“Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple ‘pepperball’ rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain….”

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

If you read the complaint, you’ll note the Henderson Police also violated their 4th Amendment rights as well by searching both homes without warrants nor any probable cause.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The police searched, ransacked the house, for what reason?

When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.” — Courthouse News.

The Mitchells, son and parents, had broken no law. They were not the subject of the domestic dispute—that was their neighbor. So what justification did the police have for their actions other than they could? From what a number of legal professional have determined, none. There was no justification.

The crux of this suit is whether militarized police constitutes “soldiers” within the definition of the 3rd Amendment. They are agents of the state, as are soldiers. Many will say SWAT police are soldiers if you use the “walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck” logic.

Although it’s not well known, there is a history of US military forces violating the 3rd Amendment. That last such occurance was during WW II.

During World War II, after Japan attacked the Aleutian Islands off Alaska’s coast, the United States forcibly evacuated the islands’ natives and quartered soldiers in private homes. That hitherto unremarked violation of the Third Amendment gives us a fresh perspective on what “Property” means in the U.S. Constitution. As a general legal matter, property includes not just real estate – land, fixtures attached thereto, and related rights – but also various kinds of personal property, ranging from tangibles such as books to intangibles such as causes of action. That knowledge would, if we interpreted the Constitution as we do other legal documents, tell us just about everything we need to know about the scope of constitutional property. Case law and commentary do not speak as plainly, however, raising troubling questions about what “Property” means each of the four times it appears in the Constitution. In particular, some authority suggests that the Takings Clause protects personal property less completely than it does real property. The unjust treatment of Aleutian natives during World War II shows the risk of giving constitutional property so peculiar and narrow a definition. This paper describes the troubling inconsistencies that afflict the law of constitutional property and invokes the Third Amendment, that oft-forgotten relic of the American Revolution, to argue for giving “Property” a plain, generous, and consistent meaning throughout Constitution. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

The issue above is, that while troops “may” be quartered in private homes during wartime, the act must follow specific law. In other words, Congress must pass specific legislation that clarifies the circumstances when the 3rd Amendment doesn’t apply, compensation to the owners for damage, and the legal procedures to enact the seizure. That clarifying legislation has never been passed making the acts during WW II illegal.

The event in Henderson, NV in 2011 doesn’t have the quasi-justification of occurring during war. That is, if the Henderson PD does not consider themselves at war with the residents of Henderson.

The abuses of militarized police are growing across the country. It is a manifestation of a growing police state that has been actively encouraged by the federal government.

Whether our front door is kicked in by a group of lawless thugs, or by armed and armored SWAT troops acting like lawless thugs, it is still a violation of our castle. Theoretically, we could be justified in resisting under the auspices of castle laws. Of course, it wouldn’t matter when the SWAT team kills us. We’re still just as dead. And…the SWAT team would likely get off without charges.

It does beg the question. Can people defend themselves against police when it is the police who are violating the law? That is something for our Legislatures to address.

Facebook

Scandal du Jour

Posted on by

More corruption have been unearthed in Washington, DC—again in the State Department. It seems their DSS, the Diplomatic Security Service, which is the department’s security service has been hiring prostitutes while on duty, engaged in “sexual assaults” on foreign nationals, and falsifying reports, among other things.

After the revelation of NSA snooping last week, it seems that every day there is another discovery of corruption and/or violations of law or the Constitution. It really makes you wonder what is coming next. All of this is a prime example of Congress enacting laws they do not understand, have zero concept of ‘unintended consequences’, or in the case of many democrats, simply don’t care it the law enhances their chances for re-election. There are a number of ‘Pubs defending the NSA as well.

It all makes one ask, “What resource do we have when the Constitution is ignored and no longer protects us?” Not many. Public opinion is about it…and the ballot box. The dems (and some ‘Pubs) are working hard to remove that second option, (Motor-Voter, continuing large-scale vote fraud, the Gang of Eights Immigration bill, etc.) Julian Assange claims the “rule of law” is collapsing in the US. He may be correct.

The PTBs (Powers That Be) claim the NSA leaker is a Chinese agent because he fled to Hong Kong. He may well be. That does not, however, invalidate his claims—in fact, once exposed, the NSA/CIA have tacitly admitted PRISM exists and has existed for years. The program’s supporters claim information skimmed by PRISM, prevented a terrorist subway attack in 2009.

Really? Perhaps. But how many individuals’ privacy was violated in the process? We don’t know—and that is the crux of the matter. How much do we not know. Supposedly, Congress was informed. So we were told. Then is was discovered that only a few congressmen in some oversight committees were told—and not everyone in those committees, only a select few.

It makes you wonder why some were told and why were others not informed? Hmmm? Obama claims all of Congress was briefed. Members of Congress, including some democrats, refute that claim.

It is interesting that Obama is even losing the rank ‘n file dem congressmen on this scandal.

Facebook

but not through Observations…

Posted on by

That is a phrase I heard during last Sunday’s sermon. The essence of the phrase, Luke 17:20, is that God is not accessible through “Observations.” In other words, not through personal acts and ceremonies. In another context, viewing the events as we pass through them, the “observations” of those events and what they may foretell, the phrase acquires a completely different interpretation.

Case in point. Liberals and their democrat sycophants, tell us they revere the Constitution, that they only want to uphold its provisions. However, as we observe them, their acts betray their words.

They claim to support the 1st Amendment, but their actions indicate they only revere that part that protects their, not our, free speech. The other portions of the 1st Amendment is ignored. They ignore the religion component of the 1st Amendment by forcing religious organizations to violate their Church doctrine—specifically, forcing the Catholic Church to provide condoms and birth-control drugs either directly or though health insurance programs.

Not only does this violate the actual text of the 1st Amendment, the “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof,” it also violates that “separation” of church and state that isn’t in the Constitution but is contained in the Federalist Papers. In the first instance, Obama, in the guise of the chief executive, wants to force the Church to violate church principals. The governmental order restricts the  Church—constrains its ability to freely exercise the principals created through centuries of Church doctrine and canon law. In the second instance, Obama’s acts violate the non-constitutional separation of church and states by imposing political conditions upon the way the church conducts its internal affairs.

From another perspective, Liberals and democrats tell us they have no intention of violating the 2nd Amendment. All the months leading up to the election last November, it was a constant mantra from the left.

The courts, over the last few years, have been reinforcing the common viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment in that it was an individual right and the government could not suppress the individual right to own personal weapons. In another case, the Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment also applied to the states. Other court cases on whether individuals have the right to self-defense and to bear arms beyond the threshold of their residence are winding their way, slowly, through the courts.

These court actions caused the libs and dems to be quiet on the 2nd Amendment until after the November election. Once they passed that hurdle, they renewed their attempts to suppress our 2nd Amendment rights—see recent actions in New York, Colorado and Connecticut.

What is yet to be known is whether the acts by these states violate the terms of the SCOTUS decision that the U.S. 2nd Amendment also applies to the states. I expect lawsuits to be appearing in all three states that these news laws violate the 2nd Amendment.

The point to all this is that liberals lie. They espouse how they revere the Constitution all the while planning to violate it at the first opportunity when they think they have a measure of short-term advantage. For them, it is not an issue of whether their acts are allowed by the Constitution, it is whether they can gain some advantage through politics or through the apathy of their opponents. Once an act is allowed to stand, it will be extremely difficult to remove it. Perhaps only through blood—the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists.

We maintain our personal freedom through Observances. Observances that are contained within the Constitution and by observing—and reporting, the acts of those who desire to oppress us. Constant vigilance is Observance.

Facebook

Why am I a conservative instead of a democrat?

Posted on by

I chose today’s blog title purposely. I excluded the label Republican. I am not an establishment republican, I am a believer and follower of republicanism. There is a difference. In that same vein, I used the term democrat instead of liberalism. In this case I’m referring to the classical democrat philosophy of the mid-20th Century instead of the current democrat philosophy of liberalism. Again there is a difference. You’ll also notice I use the term “democrat” instead of “democratic.” There’s nothing democratic in the democrat party.

My parents were democrats in the classical sense and members of the democrat party. My mother was an elementary school teacher in the days before the infiltration of unionism into the NEA. My father was a coal miner. He and his father were members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). One of the more powerful unions during the first half of the 20th Century.

My parents…I’m trying to find the correct verb…adored…no that’s too strong…respected…no that’s too weak. Let us say both understood and believed in classical democratic philosophy best defined by Yves R. Simon. I remember my mother talking about “Dr. Simon.” She once traveled to Springfield, IL, to hear him speak at an Illinois education conference. I went with her.

I think, in those days, I attended more teacher’s meetings, conferences, conventions that most active teachers. Dad worked, my older sister was in college and at that time my grandmother did not yet live with us.

At that young age, I was steeped in democrat philosophy. It would be natural for me to be a democrat party supporter when I was older.

It didn’t work. Nor, surprisingly, did it work with my older sister. She graduated from college with a teaching degree and eventually became President of her local American Federation of Teachers union—as a Republican. In the 1950s and early 1960s, education and teachers unions were conservative.

Why did we change? What happened? A short answer was the events of the latter half of the 1960s. The real answer is more involved.

Through the first half of the 20th Century, schools taught history, real history about the Founding Fathers, about Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. Because we lived in Illinois, Lincoln was included. 

Lincoln, at that time, outside of Illinois, was not viewed all that favorably. That view could be understandable in the southern states but it was also true in many of the northern and western states as well.

The common view was that Lincoln violated the Constitution. He waived Habeas Corpus, imprisoned political enemies without trial nor charges levied, and he violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and the 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The excuse that Lincoln had to violate the Constitution in order to save it was not universally accepted.

The national culture at the end of World War II, those called the “greatest generation,” was conservative.  A conservative today would have felt at home in any democrat household. The democrat party leadership, however, was already tainted by the Progressive philosophy of the early socialists of the Wilson era and those brought into government by both Roosevelts.

Everyone was a “bitter clinger of their Bibles and guns” as Obama labeled us. If those voters were brought forward sixty years, there wouldn’t be a single democrat politician in office.

By the time my wife and I graduated from college in 1969, the liberal infiltration of universities and education was a fact. The transition of education with a conservative philosophy to a socialist philosophy took less than a decade. Many believe the transition was the culmination of long-term subversion by the USSR. There are many documents released after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s to support that view.

Returning to the question why I, my wife, whose parents were also democrats, and my sister turned out to be republicans instead of democrats is an easy answer.  We didn’t change. The democrat party, infiltrated by socialists, communists if you will, and progressivism, changed.

Modern researchers claim that if John F. Kennedy was alive today, he’d be a republican. Maybe. I’m not so sure of that but I do agree with his statements and actions at the time of his presidency were more conservative than democrats like to admit.

The core difference between the two parties in the 1950s was a single concept. The democrats, following a philosophy similar to that of Simon’s believed in a top-down government—the primacy of the federal system. Republicans on the other hand, believed in a bottom-up government—the primacy of the individual and of the states.  That was, and still is to a large extent, the single division between today’s republicans and the views of the establishment Republican party and the democrats.

The final answer, as I said above, is that we did not change. The political parties did. We stayed faithful to the views taught to us by our parents and by our educational system.

We can correct the drift towards more federalism, more statism, more socialism, but to do so we must first reclaim our educational system, remove the taint of political correctness and teach the truth about our history, not the liberal pablum taught today—in the few remaining areas where history and government is still taught.

Facebook

The Imperial Presidency

Posted on by

The term, Imperial Presidency, is not new. I first heard it before many of you were born.  It did not have a positive connotation.

Imperial Presidency is a term that became popular in the 1960s and that served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the constitutional limits.[1]

It was based on a number of observations. In the 1930s, the President of the United States had few staff, most of them based in the U.S. Capitol, where the President has always had an office. The Oval Office is still used when the president is in the country and not traveling, but is most often used for ceremonial occasions, but, in 19th and early 20th centuries, presidents were more regularly based there with a small staff. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s leadership during the Great Depression and World War II changed the presidency. His leadership in the new age of electronic media, the growth of executive agencies under the New Deal, his Brain Trust advisors, and the creation of the Executive Office of the President in 1939 led to a transformation of the presidency.

The President has a large executive staff who are most often crowded in the West Wing, basement of the White House, or in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is beside the White House and used by the Departments of Defense and State. Progressive overcrowding in the West Wing led President Richard Nixon to convert the former presidential swimming pool into a press room. — Wiki.

Dictonary.com has this definition of Imperial Presidency.

imperial presidency 

noun ( sometimes initial capital letters )

a U.S. presidency that is characterized by greater power than the constitution allows.

 

Origin: 1970–75

When Lincoln was in the White House, he had only a small personal staff.  People could, and did, walk into the White House from off the street and ask to meet the President. More often than not, they met Lincoln.

Since Lincoln’s time, Presidential staffs have grown. The “Executive Office” was officially established in 1939 for Franklin Roosevelt to help administer government programs created during his “New Deal” era. Initially, six agencies, including the actual White House staff were included in the Executive Office. During WW2, Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion was added and remains to this day although inactive. More offices were added by Truman and additional offices has been added with every President.

When Obama was elected he added more personnel calling them “Czars” and granting them extraordinary power.

Today, I found this in my mail box.

Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. June 22, 2012 at 9:06 am

The United States was born when rebellious colonists declared their independence from an imperial ruler who had vastly overstepped his bounds. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” they wrote in their Declaration of Independence.

Today’s presidency lacks the regal air of George III. But imperialism is back, in a big way.

Last week, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum instructing U.S. immigration officials to use their “prosecutorial discretion” to create a policy scheme contrary to existing law, designed to implement legislation that Congress hasn’t passed.

…

We can now see before us a persistent pattern of disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision-making without—and often in spite of—congressional action.  This violates the spirit—and potentially the letter—of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the President.

Examples abound:

  • Even though the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the President’s cap-and-trade plan, his Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
  • After the Employee Free Choice Act—designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls—was defeated by Congress, the National Labor Relations Board announced a rule that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
  • After an Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would regulate the Web anyway, even despite a federal court’s ruling that it had no authority to do so.
  • Although Congress consistently has barred the Department of Education from getting involved in curriculum matters, the Administration has offered waivers for the No Child Left Behind law in exchange for states adopting national education standards, all without congressional authorization.

Worse than the examples shown above is the disregard of the presidential duties. Duties that Obama is refusing to perform.

  • Since it objects to existing federal immigration laws, the Administration has decided to apply those laws selectively and actively prevent the state (like Arizona) from enforcing those laws themselves.
  • Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.
  • DOJ also has announced that it would stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act or defending it from legal challenge rather than seeking legislative recourse. — The Morning Bell.

Now Obama is refusing to release documents to Congress in the Fast ‘n Furious scandal citing Executive Privilege.  That didn’t work with Nixon—as decided by the Supreme Court, nor will it work for Obama. The Supreme Court declared that Nixon could only exclude releasing documents if they related to national security issues and their release could harm the nation. Those exclusions do not apply to the DoJ documents sought by Issa.  In addition, the crime being investigated with Nixon was a simple burglary. The crimes being investigated in Fast ‘n Furious includes the murder of at least two US citizens, one, Brian Terry, a Border Patrol officer killed in the line of duty.

Earlier this year the President crossed the threshold of constitutionality when he gave “recess appointments” to four officials who were subject to Senate confirmation, even though the Senate wasn’t in recess. Gaziano wrote at the time that such appointments “would render the Senate’s advice and consent role to normal appointments almost meaningless. It is a grave constitutional wrong.”

There is no telling where such disregard may go next, but the trend is clear, and it leads further and further away from the constitutional rule of law.

The President has unique and powerful responsibilities in our constitutional system as chief executive officer, head of state, and commander in chief. Those powers do not include the authority to make laws or to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The President – like judges or Members of Congress – takes an oath to uphold the Constitution in carrying out the responsibilities of his office.

Indeed, the President takes a unique oath, pledging he “shall faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We don’t need a new Declaration of Independence, but we do need a President who will defend and vigorously exert his or her legitimate powers, recognizing that those powers are not arbitrary or unlimited. — The Morning Bell.

This unconstitutional seizure of executive power must be stopped. When we remove Obama from office next January, the new Congress and Executive must take steps to insure that no future abuses of power can ever be made by another “Imperial” President.

Facebook

The Call of the Mild

Posted on by
Chris Muir’s Day-by-Day has a great cartoon today. It presents the more important issue in Washington, the roll-over of the Republican Establishment.  Barack Obama is still the more dangerous person in the country, but numbers two and three are John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

Obama is dangerous because he wants to overthrow our Constitutional government. His actions of this last week are only the latest instances in a series of acts that he has done to by-pass Congress.  Boehner and McConnell aid and abet Obama’s act by doing nothing in opposition.  Now it appears the ‘Pub establishment is about to ram another rubber stamp by the name of Mitt Romney down our throats.

I have heard that the Tea Party is running a candidate against Boehner in Ohio.  We must remove Boehner and all the rest of the ‘Pub establishment before the country is irrevocably damaged…if it isn’t already.

The Missouri ‘Pub establishment has closed the Missouri Caucus.  I hope they don’t sell us out like the ‘Pub establishment in Washington, DC, has done.