On the issues of government spending and borrowing, taxation, illegal immigration, gun control, and others, Democrats across America are encouraging President Barack Obama to "ignore the constitution" in order to ensure that their agenda is not altered or turned back on any level by the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. During President Obama's first four years, Democrats have continued to act with impunity towards the only U.S. document that places restrictions on the power of the U.S. President: The Constitution of the United States of America.
Consider these recent quotes from leading politicians and spokespeople on the far left side of the American political spectrum:
We believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis - without Congressional approval, if necessary - From a letter, written to President Obama, asking the president to suspend the U.S. constitution to resolve the current debt ceiling debate; signed by Democrats Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Patty Murray (D-WA).
The president, I think, has the authority under the Constitution and under the various statutes that are passed - if nothing is done - he must do something about paying the bills. That issue may well go to the courts in our system. He’s got two different statutes telling him different things and he can resolve - multiple statutes telling him different things - he can resolve that issue. - Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) speaking about the need for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, without congressional approval.
The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet, but we're compiling it all. - Vice President Joe Biden, regarding President Obama's intention to establish new gun regulations without the agreement of Congress.
The majority of the federal government in the United States is currently controlled by the ruling Democratic party. They control the presidency, and the U.S. Senate (upper chamber of Congress). Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress), while the U.S. Supreme Court is still considered to have an ideological split between liberals and conservatives. With Democrats encouraging the President to ignore the Republicans in Congress and "take immediate action" on issues relating to spending, borrowing, taxation, gun control, and more, what these politicians are lobbying President Obama to do is to commit treason, ignore his oath of office, and effectively "suspend" the constitution by ignoring its provisions.
What kind of message are the Democrats trying to send to the rest of us? Is the message that Democrats are not obligated to be bound by the constitution, because some of its provisions prevent Democrats from acting without the consent of Republicans? Are Democrats wanting our children to be "okay" with losing the foundation for the American way of life, and the basis for every law in the U.S.? Or is it all "grandstanding" for the mainstream media?
Whatever the purpose, the strategy and the message seem to be designed to encourage "uninformed" voters to support this unprecedented assault on our most treasured document as a country. Democratic supporters of President Obama might be well advised to consider these questions, should President Obama decide to continue on the same path he started down, by violating the constitution through his "recess appointments" policy, and Obama's "executive order" version of the DREAM ACT; a legislative act by the President, specifically prohibited by the "separation of powers" contained within the constitution:
Are you prepared to give up the rest of your rights, including the freedom of speech, of the press, of religion and the right to vote, just to give President Obama political victories over Republicans?
Are you prepared to give up your right to vote for the next President of the United States?
Are you prepared to allow the government to conduct a search of you or your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night?
Are you prepared to surrender your property so that President Obama can spend as much as he wants to, or transfer that property to others that he believes are "more deserving" to own it than you?
Are you prepared to lose your retirement income because investors may become scared to buy American investments during a potential constitutional crisis?
If any portion of the constitution should not be enforced by the supreme executive authority in the United States, the president, then in accordance with existing legal precedents, the rest of the constitution will become invalid, creating a constitutional crisis here at home, and the withdrawal of support for our currency, the U.S. dollar, both here at home and abroad. While Democrats are recommending to the President that he ignore the constitution, the resulting damage to America's reputation, as both a safe haven for investors, and as the beacon of freedom to the world, would end America's reign as the undisputed champion of democracy in the world.
You see, if we don't appreciate our own constitution enough to defend it with the last drop of our blood, then every life surrendered in defense of that same constitution, and our country, has been given in vain. I never imagined that I would have seen and read quotes from elected representatives in Congress encouraging the suspension of any portion of the constitution, but I included just three in this article. During the Obama administration, there are literally thousands of news stories written that have encouraged our president to ignore the same constitution that President Obama has sworn to "...preserve, protect and defend...", with almost all of the quotes coming from representatives of, or political supporters to, the Democratic party here in the U.S.
Long before the announcement of a "deal" on the "fiscal cliff", Democrats began encouraging President Obama, at the beginning his first term of office, to "take immediate action" on a multitude of things. In recent days, the mantra from the Democratic National Committee is that Obama must take "immediate action", to resolve the issues dividing us as a country, in a manner that benefits Democrats and the agenda of the Democratic party, at the expense of Republicans and the agenda of the GOP. Why is our Congress suddenly of no importance to the Democrats? Is it because the House of Representatives is not cooperating with Obama? Is it because there are too many existing laws in place, including the constitution, that prohibit a takeover of the U.S. government by "executive order"? What's the rush? Why is it that Democrats are not attempting to come together withe Republicans so that laws can be passed that are agreed to by members of both political parties?
The insistence by Democrats, that the President simply ignore the political power held Republicans, refuse to participate in governing together with the Republicans, and move to rule by decree, is nothing different than has happened around the world since the United States was founded. Cries of "we need action now" have led to the political administrations of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong II, and Mao Tse Tung, and to the deaths of millions of people around the world.
Democrats love to speak about their desire to "spread democracy". In their rush to try to see who could get to the microphone first, about the need for President Obama to end representative government at the federal level here in the U.S., Democrats have turned their collective backs on the constitution, and now want to lead the charge for the U.S. to embrace tyranny, of the kind promoted by Benito Mussolini in fascist Italy, as "the answer" to gun violence, the lack of money to match the rate of growth in government created by Obama's spending habits, as well as any other issue that the President believes that we are not moving "fast enough" on.
If its a constitutional crisis that President Obama wants, then the House of Representatives should just go ahead and adjourn officially, and let the fireworks begin. Republicans in both the House and the Senate are not having their voices heard by Democrats, and since the Democrats are covering their ears, the Republicans have no reason to come to the table to discuss anything that the President wants to do.
Raise the debt ceiling? Let's get a handle on spending first, and cut entitlements; then we will have a vote your debt ceiling increase request. You want another continuing resolution? Go ahead and get a budget passed in the Senate, and then let's see where discussions lead from that point forward. You want to keep troops in Afghanistan past 2014, or give military hardware to Egypt (Members of the Afghan Defense Forces have attacked U.S. troops, and the Egyptian military suspended the Egyptian constitution in 2011, following the ouster of former president Hosni Mubarek, and a new pro-Islamic, anti-Christian constitution was approved by an overwhelmingly Muslim population)? Mr. President, you should be coming to Congress to make those kinds of requests.
The time to start talking about defending our constitution from threats to it, by the Democratic party and others determined to see its demise, is now; not after the constitution's authority has been suspended by President Obama. It is not possible either intellectually, or lawfully, to defend certain rights in the constitution, while seeking to ignore others; not if you are the President of the United States.
Barack Obama's supporters somehow have come to believe that the President is more important than the constitution. Here is what the constitution says about that sort of sentiment:
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. - Article VI, U.S. Constitution
Now in this article of the constitution, there is absolutely nothing mentioned regarding the president. The constitution set out one clause that talked about the authority of the U.S. constitution over all citizens of the United States: Article VI.
Article VI of the constitution does not say that the president is the supreme law of the land in the U.S. Article VI says the constitution and the law of land, together, ARE the supreme law of the land in the United States.
So, the Democrats have decided to "go on the offensive", by having members of their party, elected to Congress and to the White House by a "vote of the people", use unconstitutional arguments to put forth reasons why the president should choose to ignore the constitution. Now that's what I would call a very novel approach to problem solving within the federal government. No longer do we hear calls for "bipartisanship" coming from President Obama, as he called for in his State of the Union address two years ago. Now the president says that he and congressional Democrats "will not compromise" over increasing the debt ceiling, while at the same time wanting to add over $1 trillion in new taxes, and refusing to reduce federal spending on any program within the U.S. government.
Liberals like to think of themselves as the ultimate arbiters of all things legal. Here is my response to their claim that the president can "ignore" the constitution and still be considered to be acting in accordance with the same constitution (Taken from the 2nd edition of American Jurisprudence, an encyclopedia on U.S. law, in reference to how an "unconstitutional official act" is defined) :
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. - 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
I understand the point that Democrats are trying to make. Democrats want everyone in America to believe that if President Obama wants to do it, then it's legally OK for him to do it. The problem with this argument is: The argument has no supporting legal basis in either fact, or law, nor does the argument have the weight of constitutional precedent in the United states.
We have all been told about how great it is that President Obama is an "authority on the U.S. Constitution". President Obama says that the U.S. Constitution is "flawed". If the constitution is such a flawed document, there already exists a process to amend it (please feel free to watch the short video above to learn how this process works). The constitutional amendment process does not provide for "immediate action" on anything, but it is the legal method that the president should be turning to, if he believes that we need to "improve" on the constitution we have now. The constitutional amendment process is one that is not as "sexy" as just ignoring the constitution, by suspending it, and ruling by decree. However it is the only method that has been respected by every other sitting President of the United States.
Instead of trying to betray our constitution and our country, by insisting that the president is not obligated to comply with any provision of the U.S. Constitution that he disagrees with, Democrats should be showing us how much they honor and respect our existing legal processes. However, it appears that the long-held American values of patriotism, and protecting our constitution, are no longer popular for Democrats, as they seek to create a "new normal" for Americans. Isn't that, in fact, the real message that Democrats are trying to send to the rest of us, right now?
Comments