Today's issues analyzed from a Constitutional Constructionist's point of view.
Showing posts with label separation of powers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label separation of powers. Show all posts
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Pres. Obama and the "Chains of the Constitution"
Some time ago, Pres. Obama made a remark regarding his frustration with the way Constitutional constraints hampered his efforts to reshape America according to his own ideals:
It cannot be expressed any better than the following words penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions:
It is past time to re-bind our government with the chains of the Constitution that were intended to safeguard the enumerated rights of the States, and more importantly, the People.
"It turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction..."And, for once, he nails it.
It cannot be expressed any better than the following words penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions:
"...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution…"Mr. President, when the direction you desire to go conflicts with, or diverges from, the directions established in our Constitution, you are going in the WRONG direction. End of story.
It is past time to re-bind our government with the chains of the Constitution that were intended to safeguard the enumerated rights of the States, and more importantly, the People.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Privileges and Favors, or Inalienable Rights?
"Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right…" B.H. Obama
"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom..." Michael Bloomberg
If one looks at our rights only as amendments to the Constitution, it is easy to dismiss their importance. When you put them back into their original context of the Bill of Rights, however, one is confronted with the critical nature of those amendments. The States that created the federal government with the ratification of the Constitution DEMANDED the addition of the first 10 amendments, and ratified them with a 3/4 supermajority. Those amendments to the Constitution made this country what it was. Our government's penchant to disregard them has made us what we are today.
The Danbury Baptists nailed the basic issue when they wrote their historic (and abused) letter to then-president Thomas Jefferson:
"[A]nd such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ."Our rights are not privileges or favors granted to us by a beneficent government; they are INALIENABLE RIGHTS, recognized by our Founders as having been granted to us by God by virtue of having been created in His image. Therefore, the attacks and slanders we endure at the hand of our government for the exercise and defense of those rights are "inconsistent with the rights of freemen." But as was the case already in Jefferson's time, those of us who believe and defend that position are instead looked upon as the enemy by those who seek absolute power.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Senator Paul Achieves Constitutional Victory!!!
Sen. Paul accomplished his goal!
In response to his filibuster, the received the following message from AG Eric Holder:
Well done, Senator Paul.
In response to his filibuster, the received the following message from AG Eric Holder:
"'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is NO. (emphasis added)"Thank you, Senator! And shame on the rest of you who made him go it alone. You swore an oath to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution; that is your primary duty, from which all others are derived. Once again, David takes on Goliath while the rest of the army stands on the sidelines - not willing to take part in the battle, but, instead, deriding the one man who was willing to engage the fight.
Well done, Senator Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)