We elected an inexperienced man with no qualms about abusing power to be President of the United States.
I won’t get into the reasons why everyone voted for him. Some knew what he stood for, and agreed with his politics. Some voted for him because he was the one with the D next to his name. The press did its highly effective best to hide or minimize anything, large (from his socialist past) or small (like his smoking), that might have created a doubt in the minds of those who were the lemmings following the soaring rhetoric of “Hope and Change.” So he rode to victory with a majority created by the believers and the clueless.
We ignored or were not informed about his dislike for the Constitution, something that he had referred to as an “impediment.” As far as the Constitution is concerned, he had criticized it as not being like constitutions from socialist countries. Those constitutions—like that of the Soviet Union (we all know how that worked) guarantee such things as jobs and shelter. Our Constitution guarantees us what our Creator gives us—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In not guaranteeing us what our Creator expects us to do for ourselves—provide food and shelter—we have a chance for the dignity and satisfaction of doing for ourselves what we can, and not being dependent, subservient creatures.
So when Obama swore in his Presidential oath to uphold the Constitution, I don’t think he had any intention of fulfilling that oath. He has certainly not done so. Upholding the Constitution as head of the Executive Branch involves enforcing laws passed by Congress: Not just the ones you like, but all of them. In spite of that, he has chosen not to defend the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) because he personally does not believe it is Constitutional. As an individual, he has a right to his opinion; as President, he does not have a right to unilaterally decide that issue. Immigration laws? In that case, he has decided that he will only partially enforce them, and additionally jealously prevent anyone else from enforcing the parts he doesn’t like. I could go on and on with his other abuses of power which violate the Constitution and the Oath that he swore to uphold it, but it is unnecessary. Had a Republican President chose to selectively enforce laws of any kind, he would be impeached. I would support that, even if I disagreed with the laws that he was disregarding. We are a nation of laws, and disregard for laws at the highest level is very dangerous.
Strike one against the Constitution—the Presidency under Obama.
Then there is Congress, who has grown on both sides of the aisle to believe that DC’s role is to control and in effect, eliminate diversity in this country. (Don’t worry, it’s not trying to eliminate PC types of diversity, just different approaches by State governments.) It started under Bush, but went into hyperdrive under the supermajority from 2008-2010. Somehow they thought that instead of concentrating on the recession that they “inherited” from their own policies in Congress under a Republican President, they would try to, among other atrocities, force through the seeds for socialized medicine, a wish dating back 100 years. They turned to Alinksy’s Ends-Justify-the-Means to bribe members of their own party and shove it down the throats of an unwilling populace, proclaiming that they had the support of the “people” (which was and is contradicted by all polls). In the process, they totally ignored the other Party, while vilifying them as being obstructionists. While having to negotiate only with the centrists in their party, they made it out as if they had to appease far right wingers, who had no part in anything. Smoke and mirrors.
In the process, someone asked Pelosi what authority granted to Congress by the Constitution authorized the passage of a bill requiring people to buy something with money out of their own pocket. She said, incredulously, “You’ve got to be kidding.” She seems oblivious to the fact that the Constitution basically says, “Federal government, here is the list of things you can do. If it’s not on this list, you can’t do it—either the states can or the people can, but not you.”
Congress does what it wants these days, whether the Constitution says it can or not, even though everyone in Congress swears the same oath to uphold the Constitution. I would be curious to see if copies of the Constitution is on rolls in the Congressional restrooms to be consistent with their attitude towards it.
Strike two against the Constitution—a Congress run by Progressives.
Then we come to the Supreme Court and Obamacare. Actually, it boils down to Justice Roberts as the swing vote. There will be conspiracy theories about this one forever. It’s starting to bubble out that he changed his mind about a month ago. I sit here, stunned, wondering what went through his mind. Blackmail is the only thing that my husband and I can figure out.
When I heard how his vote went, and knowing of his judicial philosophy, I thought of Bush when he said that he had to violate the free market system (with bailouts) to save the free market system. His not very conservative actions are part of what caused the dissatisfaction to give us Mr. Hopeandchange (who proceeded to violate it even more). It was twisted logic then and it is twisted now. A violation is a violation, “friendly” or not.
Roberts philosophy of judicial constraint as applied in this case trashed the Constitution by expanding the federal governments’ powers. Like Obama, he put his personal philosophy ahead of the Constitution.
I think—and hope—that Obamacare will be repealed by the new Congress coming in this year. However, we now have a Supreme Court decision that says that when the government tells us to take money out of our own pocket and hand it over to a company to buy something that is in society’s best interest, that is a tax. That is the screwiest definition of a tax ever, and it will come back to haunt us the next time we decide to give taxers and spenders control of Congress. This decision expands the ability to tax as much as Wickard v Filburn expanded Federal controls through the commerce clause and Kelo v City of New London expanded the reasons under which governments could condemn property for public “purpose” instead of “use.”
Strike three against the Constitution—the Supreme Court.
Even after his stunning victory, Obama is out there claiming that the Supreme Court is a liar–Obamacare is not a tax. This, in spite of the fact that it was his lawyers that successfully convinced the Supreme Court that is is a tax, and in spite of the fact that the IRS will be “administering” the “penalty” aka tax because he knowingly put it there. How’s that for showing respect for a coequal branch of government under the Constitution?
If the three branches of the federal government are working against the Constitution, the game is up. If enough people don’t realize this and then continue to remember it in the long run, we are a different country.
We had a good run as a free country. I wish that it could have lasted longer.