An Impeachable Offense (Update)
President Obama announced today that any display of Christian symbols like crosses and doves on the outside of Church buildings and other Church properties will need to be removed by May 1, 2012. In addition, he announced that any messages on signs or changeable billboards announcing services cannot contain any religious words or references.
The President announced that while he is reluctant to take such action he felt he had to act since grave concerns have been expressed by a large number of Muslim leaders that such public displays of Christianity are an affront to Muslims throughout the world. Mr. Obama announced that in order to preserve religious freedom for both Christianity and Islam; and in order to not offend the deeply held convictions of Muslims, he would institute these minor restrictions. “No one’s right to exercise their freedom of religion is infringed by these intelligent reforms,” he said. The President added that he was confident that Christians would understand the actions and follow the example of Christ and turn the other cheek.
No, wait; he didn’t say that because that would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution; he couldn’t possibly be so brazen as to openly thumb his nose at the document that controls his powers of office and willingly violate his oath of office. But what if he did say that? Would you be upset about it? Would you be demanding impeachment proceedings begin immediately?
No, he didn’t say that at all; what he did announce is that he plans to violate the Constitution in a different way. He is appointing a person to a high position in the Executive Branch that requires the Advice and Consent of the U.S. Senate.
Breaking: Now Mr. Obama has made more recess appointments while the Congress is not in recess. This time there are three new members for the National Labor Relations Board requiring Constitutional Senate Advise and Consent approval who won’t have to be approved. Apparently Mr. Obama is under the illusion that he gets to make decisions for the U.S. Congress – you know…like when they are in session and when they aren’t. Since he refuses to get Advise and Consent for all his Czars, makes recess appointments when the Congress is not in recess, stacks the Supreme Court so his healthcare bill will be declared constitutional it is apparent he knows little about the Constitution. Or perhaps he just plans to ignore it. The upside is that now we know why he has paid $millions to prevent his undergrad and law school transcripts from seeing the light of day.
The Constitution requires that the President must submit the names of high Executive Branch officials to the U.S Senate for the process of Advice and Consent except when Congress is in recess. This insures that there is some legislative oversight helping to prevent the very kind of dictatorial Executive power Mr. Obama is trying to achieve.
Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution states:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (Emphasis mine)
Because the Congress is not always in session, and because sometimes these “public Ministers” are needed to make government function well, the President has the power to make what is called a “recess appointment.”
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Mr. Obama made the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – just so you know who to thank) last summer, but the Senate refused to approve the appointment as they have the Constitutional right to do. So today, Mr. Obama made a “recess appointment” that will place this person in power through 2013. Only problem is that the Congress is not in recess.
The creation of this new bureau assumes that people are stupid, and cannot make a financial decision without government bureaucrats telling them what to do, and that no one should be responsible for their own choices. It has broad new powers to drive up the cost of doing business in the U.S., and will cost $billions every year in more government employment and litigation. As a consequence, Congress could not agree to Mr. Obama’s appointment in keeping with their constitution duty to Advise and Consent.
The Congress – following a precedent created by Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2007 – kept the Senate in session during the holiday “break” in order to prevent this appointment being done during a recess.
(Mr. Reid , who used the technique in 2007 said at the time, “While an election year looms, significant progress can still be made on nominations,” Reid said. “I am committed to making that progress if the President [Bush] will meet me halfway. But that progress can’t be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make Democratic appointments to important commissions.”)
President Bush actually took his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” seriously and so did not make the appointments which would violate the Constitution.
Mr. Obama obviously does not take his oath of office seriously. Despite the radical spin today, he went ahead with the “recess appointment” even though the Congress is not in recess. Spin doctors are saying he did so to bypass Republicans, but he did not bypass Republicans in the Senate; he bypassed the Constitution; “I refuse to take `no’ for an answer,” he said. Being a dictator must be so much fun.
Mr. Obama does not take the presidential oath of office seriously because he does not take the Constitution seriously. In fact, he hates the our Constitution, hates the limitations it places of federal power, and he seeks to overturn the document. These are not unfounded speculations.
Mr. Obama’s view of the U.S. Constitution
First, Mr. Obama sees the Constitution as deeply flawed
In this interview he states that the Constitution – including the post Civil War Amendments requiring equality for every person regardless of race – remains colonial, and “deeply flawed.” The President clearly does not support equality of status nor equal opportunity in the United States – he wants something more. What are the “flaws” he wants to correct?
Second, we know the “flaws” Mr. Obama desires to correct
He has stated publicly his desire to do so: (Complete quote context and link below)
- He laments that the Federal Courts dealing with minority rights so far haven’t broken, “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.”
- He said, “…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”
- He said, “…the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
What can we learn from these three quotes?
- He believes that the courts have the power to overturn the Constitution. That is a breathtaking and unconstitutional view. The Constitution provides for the manner in which it can be changed, but Mr. Obama says nothing of that. He only states that 5 people of 9 sitting on the Supreme Court should overturn the Constitutional federalism that our Founders created and which the states ratified.
- He despises the Constitutional limits placed of federal power thinking that government should have the right to control the lives and fortunes of every person in the United States. Mr. Obama longs for oligarchy.
- Mr. Obama revealed in particular what power he wants to exercise as an oligarch: since the courts have not ventured to redistribute the wealth of the nation he intends to do it himself. In this sense, Mr. Obama is indistinguishable from Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Daniel Ortega. He despises equality of opportunity; he seeks to enforce equality of condition. How is this to be distinguished from the proposals of Karl Marx?
- Mr. Obama thinks equal opportunity and equal rights are meaningless. In his view the Civil Rights movement focused on the wrong things They became so interested in attaining equal opportunity; they failed to put together a “coalition of powers” that will enforce “redistributive change.” He then goes on to say that “…we still suffer from that.” What does he mean by this? Equal opportunity, and equal status are meaningless; they fixed nothing. What is meaningful is if the civil rights movement could have gained the power to take the wealth from those who produced it, and spread it equally among those who did not. This is Mr. Obama’s goal as president; remember his statement to Joe the plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around that’s good for everybody.”
Now you know Mr. Obama’s view of the Constitution, so you know why he is willing to violate it. He has no respect for the Founders of our country who fought and died to provide the government we had. He does not respect the 600,000 who died in the Civil War to be among the first of nations to outlaw slavery. He has no respect for the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution providing equal rights and equal opportunity to every person regardless of race. He has no regard for the Civil Rights Movement and the price paid by those who fought to overcome barriers placed in the way of minorities. No, his sole concern is redistribution of wealth he thinks was garnered because of vile capitalism and slavery and exploitation. When you wonder what Mr. Obama is about, and why he is doing what he is doing, just remember this post.
So what about you? Will you demand a retraction? Will you demand impeachment proceedings? Do you think minor adjustments in how the Constitution is followed present any danger to our freedoms? If you are concerned, be in touch with your Senators and Representative in Washington, DC. Demand that they take this case to the courts. Demand that they act to cut off money for the White House to spend on this effort since it has been done unconstitutionally.
As an afterward, Mr. Obama’s opinion about recess appointments has also “fundamentally changed,” from when he was in the Senate.
In 2005, Mr. Obama was serving in the U.S. Senate, and when George Bush legally appointed John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Obama had this to say, “To some degree, he’s damaged goods. I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”
Full text providing the quotes above:
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court…I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.” Link