The Blatant Unconstitutionality Of The Obama Presidency

Obamacare and the Unconstitutional Revolution

 

 

 

” Contrary to the complaints one hears from Rand Paul and other libertarians, the revolution has not occurred in foreign affairs and national security. Instead, Obama has dramatically changed the presidency by claiming the right to refuse enforcement of laws with which he disagrees.  This newest development only compounds Obama’s injury to the Constitution by refusing to enforce the immigration and welfare reform laws.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The framers included this provision to make sure that the president could not simply cancel legislation he didn’t like, as had the British king. Since the days of Machiavelli, through Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu to the Framers, executing the laws (along with protecting national security) has formed the very core of the executive power. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 75: “The execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate.”

Under this understanding of presidential power, President Obama may not refuse to carry out an act of Congress simply because of disagreement. The Framers gave the president only two tools to limit unwise laws.”

 

Read it all to see just how blatantly unconstitutional have been many of the current president’s actions . A Constitutional scholar Obama is not , all reports to the contrary not withstanding .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

John Yoo Sums Up Our Feelings On The Roberts Court’s Affirmative Action Punt

No Silver Linings To SCOTUS Affirmative Action Decision

 

 

 

” Put me down, however, on the pessimistic side of the ledger. I think this is a setback for the cause of returning the nation to the color-blind principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A majority of the Court, it seems to me, continues to agree that “diversity” in higher education is a compelling government interest that survives the strictest of scrutiny by the judiciary. Until Grutter v. Bollinger, the 2003 case that blessed affirmative action in university admissions, the Court had found that the only use of race that could qualify as a compelling government interest was in wartime — and that was in the Japanese internment case, Korematsu. To compare diversity in higher education to the nation’s ability to defend itself while at war showed how mistaken the Court was in Grutter.

In Fisher, the Court declined to reconsider this terrible mistake. Instead, it returned the case to the 5th Circuit for further proceedings because it wants the lower court to seriously examine whether any individual affirmative action program was “narrowly tailored” to achieve the goal of racial diversity in higher education. This left the basic law of Grutter unchanged and only ensures that challenges to affirmative action will focus on the ways that schools measure and count an applicant’s skin color — not on the unconstitutionality of using skin color at all.“

 

    Affirmative action is a direct affront to the bedrock principle of “equal before the law” and the Fisher case presented the Roberts court with a golden opportunity to right this error of reason once and for all which they failed to do . Shame on them . The politicization of the judiciary is complete and liberty loving people should harbor no illusions as to the respect that this present court holds towards our Constitution .

  The transformation is complete . We the people are truly on truly on our own . The government has become nothing more than a self-perpetuating Leviathan and cares not a whit for history , equality , liberty , Constitutionality , or the rule of law . Between the president , congress and the courts we are now o believe that the law is whatever THEY say it is . 

 

 

 

 

—