"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." --Thomas Jefferson

Never before has there been more evidence of outright contempt for our Constitution than under the current liberal hegemony presiding over the executive and legislative branches of our federal government.

The protagonist of this Leftist regime is, of course, Barack Hussein Obama, who promised his constituents, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time" [emphasis added].

Obama proclaimed, "Everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- to lay a new foundation for growth."

In his inaugural speech, Obama declared, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works," signaling his rejection of the old paradigm, which pitted the conservative position, "government is the problem," against the liberal position, "government is the solution."

Thus, by virtue of his election to the presidency nearly one year ago, he believes he has the authority to establish a new paradigm to "fundamentally transform" our nation by creating "a new foundation."

However, if we are a nation of laws with a national government limited by our Constitution, and, indeed, we are, then Obama has no legal authority to "transform" our government.

Those who laid our constitutional foundation were very clear about its limits on government.

Our Constitution's principle author, James Madison, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."

Concerning the legislature's authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

But too many among us have become so fixated on the superficial parameters of today's political debates rather than demand an answer to that most essential question: What is the constitutional authority for Obama's proposals now being debated in Congress?

For example, amid all the acrimony over Obama's transformation of health care, the debate should not be centered on which plan is better, but whether constitutional authority exists for any of the plans under consideration.

Unfortunately, such inquiry is scarce, and hardly noted.

Last week, however, three leading Democrats in Congress were asked during news conferences to cite the constitutional authority for their healthcare proposals. To a one, they responded with answers that betrayed unmitigated arrogance and a disdain for our Constitution second to none in our nation's noble history.

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" replied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when asked specifically about the constitutional authority for Obama's health care proposal. Pelosi's spokesman later clarified, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question." (Apparently, there was an echo in the chamber.)

Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer attempted to answer the question by demonstrating his illimitable ignorance on the subject: "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."

Perhaps Hoyer should take a basic civics course on the "General Welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8, as written by James Madison. On the limitations of the Constitution, Madison wrote: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..."

Finally, Democrat Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (where Rule of Law once prevailed), responded to the question of constitutional authority by insisting, "We have plenty of authority. ... I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that. Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." (No, actually, the states set speed limits, and only misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause by judicial activists could be construed to give the federal government such authority.)

As for Obama, his publicist, Robert Gibbs, claimed, "I won't be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of -- I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of [questions about constitutional authority]."

For sure, nobody will confuse Gibbs with a scholar of any stripe. And, we would remind Gibbs that when the Clintonistas attempted to nationalize healthcare (18 percent of the U.S. economy) back in 1994, the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office issued this piece of analysis: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate ... would impose a duty on individuals as members of society [and] require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Remarkably, neither Obama's bête noire, Fox News, nor any nationally syndicated conservative column, devoted air time or print to these egregiously errant responses.

To be sure, there are a few Republicans who have questioned Obama's authority. Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch proposed an amendment requiring swift judicial review of the health care folly if it is ultimately passed into law. Not surprisingly, Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, refused to take up Hatch's amendment, insisting that it was a matter for the Judiciary Committee -- the very committee chaired by the aforementioned Senator Patrick "We have plenty of authority" Leahy.

In order to divine the real source the Left claims as its authority for "fundamentally transforming the United States of America," consider this congressional inquiry from last March.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann dared ask Obama's tax cheat Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, "What provision in the Constitution could you point to gives authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of '08?"

Geithner responded, "Oh, well, the -- the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities."

Bachmann tried again: "Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to gives authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?"

Geithner's response: "Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is -- is -- has been using authority granted by this body -- by this body, the Congress."

The "authority granted by this body, the Congress."

In every successive Congress since 1995, conservative Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg has sponsored the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359), which requires that "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."

The measure continues to fail, however, because of a dirty little secret: There is no legitimate constitutional authority for almost 70 percent of current federal government programs, and, thus, no authority for the collection of taxes to fund such activities.

Though Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and every member of Congress has pledged "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," Democrats, and too many Republicans, have forsaken their sacred oaths.

In doing so, they have inflicted grievous injury upon our Constitution, thereby placing our Essential Liberty in eminent peril.

In May 1775, at the onset of the hostilities that gave rise to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution calling on the states to prepare for rebellion. In its preamble, John Adams advised his countrymen to sever all oaths of allegiance to the Crown.

Since that time, generations of American Patriots have honored their oaths, shed their blood, given their lives -- but not to the crown of any man or a partisan sect. Instead, these sacrifices have been made to support and defend our Constitution and the Rule of Law it established.

Put simply, there is no authority for a "constitutional rewrite" by Barack Hussein Obama, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor Steny Hoyer, nor any like-minded revisionists. Such contempt for our Constitution, such willful violation of their sacred oaths is a disgrace to the selfless dignity of generations of Patriots before them.

At present, we have a gang of outlaws at the helms of the executive and legislative branches. Under such despots, we are being unlawfully taxed without lawful representation. Sound familiar?

from The Federalist Patriot

Declaring with great 'authority' they HAVE Constitutional authority, yet they cannot articulate from where, this administration is warping our nation, stealing our hard earned tax money, crippling our economy and passing unConstitutional bills. Is anyone listening?

Unfortuneately, Americans are stuck inside of a left vs. right paradigm mentality through an ingenious propaganda strategy perpetrated since the 1920's (at least).

Right and left are conveniently defined and we all pick our sides some even declaring the third position of middle (as if it is somewhat better to go into totalitarianism slowly)

The reality however, is the right is freedom and the left is totalitairian. The right sadly is not supported on the TeeVee or MSM. The protectors of the right are labled kooks and the masses laugh their way into tyranny.

May God help us all!

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:
Unfortuneately, Americans are stuck inside of a left vs. right paradigm mentality through an ingenious propaganda strategy perpetrated since the 1920's (at least).

Right and left are conveniently defined and we all pick our sides some even declaring the third position of middle (as if it is somewhat better to go into totalitarianism slowly)

The reality however, is the right is freedom and the left is totalitairian. The right sadly is not supported on the TeeVee or MSM. The protectors of the right are labled kooks and the masses laugh their way into tyranny.

May God help us all!

If you think that the right is the party of freedom you must have to open your zipper to see. The party that championed the Patriot Act can make no claim to being the party of freedom.

quote:

If you think that the right is the party of freedom you must have to open your zipper to see.

The media conveniently defined them as "right" and you took the bait hook-line & sinker.

The only difference between the dems and pubs is semantics. Neither party at the leadership level desires freedom for the masses.

kill your TeeVee

Speaking of stealing, I take it you're not even going to bother crediting the original source there Mom2APAJ?

BTW, the original source for the OP's post (word for word) is:
"http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/constitution-contempt/"

quote:

In doing so, they have inflicted grievous injury upon our Constitution, thereby placing our Essential Liberty in eminent peril.

Talk about drama....

quote:

Talk about drama....

Yeah, it's just the Constitution of the United States of America....no big deal right?

I heard the Marines were sick of dieing for freedom. Now would be a good time to tell them how you feel.

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:

quote:

Talk about drama....

Yeah, it's just the Constitution of the United States of America....no big deal right?

I heard the Marines were sick of dieing for freedom. Now would be a good time to tell them how you feel.

The Constitution is under no more threat than it was under the Bush administration. Did you whine then?

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
Speaking of stealing, I take it you're not even going to bother crediting the original source there Mom2APAJ?

BTW, the original source for the OP's post (word for word) is:
"http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/constitution-contempt/"

I found it here, same guy as the author, no doubt it will make all of the 'Conservative?' Party blogs, as time goes by.

++++http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/10/29/nobody-questions-that/

Mom....... reference to the title of your thread..

I think Nancy Patooie said it quite well after the elections "because we can...."

and the American people are going to show those in Washington a snspshot of reality in the midterms and if Obama isn't run out of office come 2012 they'll get another eyeful then also.
The People are geting pizzed off and aren't going to take it anymore.

quote:

The Constitution is under no more threat than it was under the Bush administration. Did you whine then?

From a keyboard far, far away you taunt?

I've said it for years, Every president since McKinley has been against the wisely-inspired US constitution. And a quite a few before him.

The morale of this story? Don't trust those in power. Especially when they sit so close to that document.

Yes it is fun to taunt! I myself have no problem with a document intended to breath and flex with the realities of life.

Jefferson and Madison mentioned in the same post as Pelosi and Bachmann. What a bizarre world we live in.

quote:

I myself have no problem with a document intended to breath and flex with the realities of life.

Has the rule of men ever been good for humanity?

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:

quote:

I myself have no problem with a document intended to breath and flex with the realities of life.

Has the rule of men ever been good for humanity?

That is funny. So are you suggesting that there is only a few men that in the 1700s got it right?

quote:

So are you suggesting that there is only a few men that in the 1700s got it right?

Well, they had the smarts to declare this country is under the rule of law. The rule of law takes generations to break down, the rule of men works more quickly. neither is perfect, but I prefer my tyranny with a conscience that only time can allow.
Men in the 1700's? What has your (wo)man done for us lately?

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:

quote:

So are you suggesting that there is only a few men that in the 1700s got it right?

Well, they had the smarts to declare this country is under the rule of law. The rule of law takes generations to break down, the rule of men works more quickly. neither is perfect, but I prefer my tyranny with a conscience that only time can allow.
Men in the 1700's? What has your (wo)man done for us lately?

I have a real problem with those that believe that only Madison had it right.

quote:

I have a real problem with those that believe that only Madison had it right.

Dolly Madison? I'd take a kick to the groin before I gave up my zinger. She does have it right bubba!! I propose a anti-hate law against all those that don't agree, surely they must be haters otherwise they would also indulge in these delicious acts.

First of all, there is a direct avenue for constitutional challenges - the Supreme Court of the United States, the only bastion of defense against the unconstitutional. The SCOTUS was expressly set up such that the men involved would be removed from political influence - hence the lifetime appointment. If your author feels that what is being done is unconstitutional, appeal to the SCOTUS.

Second, as to the worship of the founding fathers, it should be noted that they were well aware of their own limitations, and intended the Constitution to have flexibility. They knew that situations would change, and that circumstances unfathomable to them would occur in the future. To me that is their greatest act of wisdom.

Did James Madison (or Dolly, if you prefer) anticipate a situation where even basic health care would be both widely available and widely unaffordable? Did Thomas Jefferson anticipate man portable weapons capable of killing dozens, even hundreds in a matter of minutes? How much of what they wrote did they intend to be "set in stone" and why then did they not make it more explicit?

quote:

Did James Madison (or Dolly, if you prefer) anticipate a situation where even basic health care would be both widely available and widely unaffordable? Did Thomas Jefferson anticipate man portable weapons capable of killing dozens, even hundreds in a matter of minutes? How much of what they wrote did they intend to be "set in stone" and why then did they not make it more explicit?

More often than not, you will find that the solutions of gov't not only does not solve anything but in fact advanced the progression of power upon mankind.

This method of incremental power-grabbing is referred to as the " Hegelian Dialectic ".

The constitution was not a document to control people but an instrument to control gov't.

btw: the power of the people while seated in a jury, at one time (when the constitution was enforced) allowed the people a role of negating bad laws. Although it is still in our authority, no judge will ever make you aware of this in your summation of duties.

"This whole damn system is corrupt"
- Al Pacino

I find it quite ironic and telling that the OP has the gall to whine about stealing in DC, yet has absolutely no compunction when it comes to stealing the intellectual property of another writer and passing it off as her own.

Just another reason why Republican should be a synonym for hypocrit

When Bush invaded Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, a Constitutional requirement, the conservative crowd cheered.

When he suspended the right of habeas corpus, called for in the main body of the Constitution, they cheered.

When he denied American citizens their right to the legal protections spelled out and guaranteed by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, they cheered.

When he publicly stated that he would ignore laws and treaties he swore to enforce in total defiance of his obligations as outlined in the Constitution, they cheered.

When he called the Constitution a, "god-damned piece of paper," they cheered.

They called him the protector of liberty and freedom. They said he was making tough decisions that were good for the country.

They said that Americans who did not agree were traitors.

They called those who opposed this assault on our Constitution unpatriotic.

Now they have found the Constitution because a new president wants to change how business was conducted under the mismanagement of the conservatives.

He wants to spend money on Americans instead of waging war in Iraq and sending tons of shrink-wrapped tax-dollars on pallets there to disappear. He wants accountability from businesses. He wants to try to make things better for Americans first.

The conservatives boo and jeer...and suddenly find the Constitution that they had turned their backs on for the past 12 years.

There is no constitutional issue here...just race motivated sour-grapes whining by the sore loser conservatives who have completely lost the moral standing to now claim that this president is subverting the Constitution.

I can find the only way to describe this current wave of the conservatives' inexplicable and sudden understanding of our Constitution...

PURE HYPOCRISY.

quote:

Originally posted by SenClaghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:

quote:

Talk about drama....

Yeah, it's just the Constitution of the United States of America....no big deal right?

I heard the Marines were sick of dieing for freedom. Now would be a good time to tell them how you feel.

The Constitution is under no more threat than it was under the Bush administration. Did you whine then?

Scorpio was too busy slurping to whine.

quote:

If you think that the right is the party of freedom you must have to open your zipper to see. The party that championed the Patriot Act can make no claim to being the party of freedom.

Ya know I haven't seen a rush to the Senate podium, or the congressional desk, to repeal this convenient piece of legislation either.....it seems this bunch likes the ability to check out the opposition..... like ya know "send us the names of those who print up or post on the internet, phony stuff about the things we do"......"it's in, and for, your own good, REALLY it is!! You can trust us, we're different from the "others".".......YEAH RIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!

quote:

I find it quite ironic and telling that the OP has the gall to whine about stealing in DC, yet has absolutely no compunction when it comes to stealing the intellectual property of another writer and passing it off as her own.

Uh...P.D.? She credited the Federalist Patriot for the piece.............

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:

quote:

If you think that the right is the party of freedom you must have to open your zipper to see. The party that championed the Patriot Act can make no claim to being the party of freedom.

Ya know I haven't seen a rush to the Senate podium, or the congressional desk, to repeal this convenient piece of legislation either.....it seems this bunch likes the ability to check out the opposition..... like ya know "send us the names of those who print up or post on the internet, phony stuff about the things we do"......"it's in, and for, your own good, REALLY it is!! You can trust us, we're different from the "others".".......YEAH RIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!

I didn't say that that the left was the party of freedom either. It is entirely possible to think that both parties are completely full of it.

quote:

When Bush invaded Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, a Constitutional requirement, the conservative crowd cheered.

NO....WE DIDN'T!! Conservatives all over the place raised hell before and during and after the invasion of Iraq!!

It was the bunch of azzhats that CALLED themselves conservatives that thought this a good move! NOT US!!!

We had Saddam in a box, he was stuck and knew it. The Europeans had a nice little scam going (oil for food)and the reason after fourteen months that we went in was that the French Germans and Russians had convinced Saddam that THEY would not let us invade.

Rather than start an air war and screw the "boots on the ground" bullcrap, Bush did what he did......and the rest of the story will follow! We didn't NEED Iraq we Don't WANT Iraq And would just as soon not have spent one American life there, just to give the damned place back.... that we didn't want anyway.

All we needed to do was keep him,(Saddam) under control, We had been doing that for twelve years with air power.

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:

quote:

When Bush invaded Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, a Constitutional requirement, the conservative crowd cheered.

NO....WE DIDN'T!! Conservatives all over the place raised hell before and during and after the invasion of Iraq!!

It was the bunch of azzhats that CALLED themselves conservatives that thought this a good move! NOT US!!!

We had Saddam in a box, he was stuck and knew it. The Europeans had a nice little scam going (oil for food)and the reason after fourteen months that we went in was that the French Germans and Russians had convinced Saddam that THEY would not let us invade.

Rather than start an air war and screw the "boots on the ground" bullcrap, Bush did what he did......and the rest of the story will follow! We didn't NEED Iraq we Don't WANT Iraq And would just as soon not have spent one American life there, just to give the damned place back.... that we didn't want anyway.

All we needed to do was keep him,(Saddam) under control, We had been doing that for twelve years with air power.

Neither did I cheer, most of us keep silent and held our breaths, we knew our troops were going into harms way and were in need of our support.

President Bush made a big mistake by going into Iraq, and we knew it. Ironicly, a lot of democrats agreed to go into Iraq.

The fundamental TRUTHS are always the most simple...methinks...

Our Founding Fathers wished us to preserve the Citizens rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS...

Extrapolate your arguments from those basic rights...

These generalities define what "We the People" should expect...from our Governance and other authorities related to Commerce or Trade...

It was their intention that "We the People" should retain our "Right to Rule" through the three branches of Government...and sustain the means to do so...by virtue of Constitutional rights... and the "free will and motivation" to do so at some time...in future...