Obama Unmasked On A Facebook Post

2 Comments

I get excited a lot and post political stuff on Facebook. One of the fun things is that I have liberal friends there who argue with me, and it’s fine, as long as they use facts. One of my liberal friends and I have a Southern Gentleman’s bet to wear a flattering icon of the newly elected president from November through January. I’m hoping it’s him. Not necessarily because it’s between two candidates for President, but because it’s Barack Obama. On another liberal post, another friend posted Obama’s accomplishments…and it was one of those liberal made up posters that you see and re-post for effect. Problem was, it’s a lie. When we conservatives answered it, she said she could not answer Republican propaganda. Wrong…I’m not Republican, and another of my friends voted for Obama and he wrote one of the most damning answers on Obama I have ever seen. I asked him if I could re-post it, and he gave me his permission. I will only say, thank you Rob for allowing me to do that. I will not give his full name so that people will attack him…you can save the attacks for me. But I am going to post it for your review. It’s facts that he has been accumulating since Obama was elected in it’s full glory. In this election cycle of accusations of killing people, not paying a correct amount of taxes, condemning someone for having off shore bank accounts when your own people do and more, this is stuff you need to read and consider in November. Once again, thanks to Rob for some great foresight in writing this down…as they say, it don’t get better than this:

He has done more than any other President before him. He has an impressive list of accomplishments:

First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States

First President to violate the War Powers Act. .

First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.

First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S, including those with criminal convictions.

First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (GM) to resign.

First President to terminate America ‘s ability to put a man in space.

First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 102 to date.

First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.

First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

First President to repeat the Holy Quran & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.

Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona). Hello Jan Brewer. It really depends on your personal feelings on on what you want accomplished. 

Anything you feel I posted above and you disagree let me know your opinion. I welcome your input on this thread without having to list biased links to liberal websites as a complete Status update making headlines. Defend in your own words and lets not bore others with headlines which they could care less to read. Do it here or wherever. The above is just a list I’ve been compiling on my own. No link and just a sample of what I’ve been keeping track of. This is first election I’ve ever became outspoken. I’m generally not a public spokesperson when it comes to politics, however what this President has done over the past 3.7 years has me baffled in the directions he is taking the country. People need to wake up and get off the I’m a die hard democrat or republican vote and really look at what is going on before it is too late. Hopefully some individuals can get off their I’m going to support the party no matter what use some common sense. We need somebody that can fix this mess rather than promise to give somebody something when they have no means to give it away!

(Liberal Answer) I cannot argue with right wing extremists propaganda.

I’m not right wing nor left wing. Completely independent. Convince me to vote for Obama with something truthful with substance. I gave Obama a chance last election. Time for another change. Surely we can get it right this time before it is too late

 

Advertisements

House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments

5 Comments

What in the world are these Republicans in the House of Representatives thinking? As if they haven’t given enough power over to the President already. Folks we are seeing the office of the President turned into the office of the American Dictator. Last year, the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 79-20, so it now goes to the desk of President Obama for his signature. (Did anyone hear about this? I don’t remember it) I must admit, I am almost speechless and biting my tongue here.

By a vote of 261-116, the House of Representatives passed a bill rewriting Article II of the Constitution and divesting the Senate of the power to accept or reject the appointment of many presidential nominees.

By a vote of 261-116, the House of Representatives passed a bill rewriting Article II of the Constitution and divesting the Senate of the power to accept or reject the appointment of many presidential nominees.

Last year, the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 79-20, so it now goes to the desk of President Obama for his signature.

“Important positions will be filled faster, government agencies will be more capable of offering valuable services to their constituents, and the overall confirmation process will be more efficient,” said Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Dozens of key management positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security (including the treasurer of the United States, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the assistant administrator of FEMA) will now be filled by presidential edict, without the need of the “advice and consent” of the Senate, a phrase specifically removed from the process in the text of the bill.

Although the House vote occurred on Tuesday, the Senate voted to surrender its constitutional check on the executive over a year ago on June 29, 2011.

Despite a last-minute attempt by some House leaders to put the measure to a voice vote, thus allowing members to vote in favor of the legislation without being listed on the record, a roll call vote was taken, and the name of every congressman who voted to unconstitutionally neuter the legislative branch is listed.

The process began last March when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and 15 cosponsors, including Republicans Lamar Alexander (Tenn.); Scott Brown (Mass.); and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), introduced S. 679, the “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.” The measure struck from many current laws the “advice and consent” requirement for many executive branch appointments, giving the president unchecked power to fill key administration positions.

In a memo sent to Capitol Hill in advance of Tuesday’s vote in the House, Thomas McClusky of the Family Research Council reminded lawmakers, “The United States Constitution does not bestow kingly powers on the President to appoint the senior officers of the government with no process.”

Although McClusky’s reading of the Constitution is accurate, as of Tuesday it is no longer the law of the land. According to proponents of the measure, the bill benefitted from such strong bipartisan support (95 Republicans joined 166 Democrats voting in favor of passage) because its sole purpose is to relieve the backlog of unconfirmed appointees by eliminating the confirmation requirement for about 200 offices.

The process by which heads of executive branch departments are appointed and confirmed is set forth by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The “Appointments Clause” provides that the president:

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.

Now, as soon as President Obama adds his signature to the bill, the checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers as a protection against tyranny will be eliminated, as well as the concept of enumerated powers.

This history of the delicate system created by our Founders was synopsized in an article published by the Heritage Foundation:

When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.

The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

Many of the Framers had practical experience with government and recognized that not every office would be of sufficient authority and consequence as to merit the attention of both the President and the Senate to an appointment to the office. Therefore, they provided a means by which the Congress by law could decide which of the lesser offices of government could be filled by the President alone, a court, or a department head.

The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act removes these barriers between the branches and shifts the powers of appointment in such a way that the very foundation of our Republic is weakened under the crushing weight of a powerful executive branch.

In light of this impending imbalance, it must be inquired as to what could compel Congress to legislate away its own power? Why would so many representatives in the Senate and the House willingly abolish their role as bulwark against executive despotism?

Arguably, the answer is a desire to reduce its workload and improve the efficiency of government.

To the minds of many, however, the trade of rightful power for a more streamlined appointment process is a ripoff. As the Heritage Foundation says:

The Congress should not reduce the number of Senate-confirmed appointments as a means of dealing with its cumbersome and inefficient internal process for considering nominations. Doing so gives away Senate influence over a number of significant appointments, does nothing to improve the Senate process, and still leaves nominees whose offices require nominations mired in the Senate process. The proper solution to the problem of a slow Senate is to speed up the Senate rather than to diminish the role of the Senate. The Senate should look inward and streamline its internal procedures for considering all nominations. The proper solution also is the faster one, as the Senate can accomplish the solution by acting on its own in the exercise of its power to make Senate rules, while S. 679 requires approval by both Houses of Congress.

New American

Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 95 115 30
Democratic 166 1 24
Independent
TOTALS 261 116 54

—- YEAS 261 —

Ackerman
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Luján
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NAYS 116 —

Adams
Aderholt
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Canseco
Chabot
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crawford
Culberson
Denham
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McClintock
McKinley
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Rehberg
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Turner (OH)
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING 54 —

Akin
Alexander
Baldwin
Benishek
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Cardoza
Carnahan
Cassidy
Crenshaw
DeGette
DesJarlais
Dicks
Doggett
Duffy
Filner
Fleming
Gingrey (GA)
Gowdy
Hanna
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Hirono
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Kaptur
Kucinich
Labrador
Lewis (GA)
Mack
McCaul
Moore
Noem
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pence
Renacci
Richmond
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rush
Scott, Austin
Sutton
Towns
Walberg
Westmoreland
Young (IN)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml

 

Congressman tells Conservative Activists that fighting for the Constitution is a losing battle

Comments Off on Congressman tells Conservative Activists that fighting for the Constitution is a losing battle

This is unbelieveable that a especially Republican Congressman would say this. What is he thinking?…..I’ll tell you, he appears not to be thinking at all. We need term limits and to get these type people out of office as fast as possible.

What happens when a Republican Congressman tells Conservative Activists that fighting for the Constitution is a losing battle? Watch the fireworks as Unite In Action’s Director of Legal Affairs KrisAnne Hall and 912 Project National Co-Chair, Unite In Action President, Stephani Scruggs respond.

This took place at The National Republican Club of Capitol Hill, commonly known as the Capitol Hill Club, in Washington DC on June 28th, 2012 with Michelle Bachmann, Rep Gosar and several other members of congress as well as The Tea Party.Net. with syndicated talk show host Rusty Humphries as the MC. It was broadcast on LiveStream by The Tea Party.Net

Visit us at http://uniteinaction.org

Chief Justice Was Smart..BREAKING NEWS!

2 Comments

Did John Roberts KNOW this would happen? If so, he may have pulled the smartest coup in modern times…from the Manchester Examiner…

Breaking News

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation.

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase – not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.

Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law.

Chief Justice Roberts was Fair

6 Comments

I have been listening (over and over) to the right crying foul from SCOTUS today. I must point out that the overwhelming comments from the Republicans has always been conservatives on the bench to rule on law, not OPINIONS about the law. Chief Roberts eloquently, albeit begrudgingly, commented on just that. He alluded to the fact that SCOTUS does not make law, the Congress does, and they are subject to the ire of the voter:

The essence of Roberts’s ruling was:

•       “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote.

•       “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”

•       But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

Roberts made a point of noting that he and the other justices “possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

We knew how the other justices (except justice Kennedy) were going to align themselves…on the right and left. This is the problem with the court. Chief Justice Roberts said from the start that he wanted to stop that. He took a chance….a BIG chance…of putting the Court where it needs to be, and that’s using the tool of the Constitution.

Like I said, like it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts stepped onto ground that the Supreme Court hasn’t been on in a while – Impartiality. It may be bad public policy, but that isn’t the job of the court.

Now, it’s up to the side that you pick whether or not Obamacare lives beyond 2012. But Chief Justice Roberts move may have been a wise one. He just told you whose responsibility that it was to fix it.

You can at least now feel good that the leader of our SCOTUS is looking at the Constitution and using it to measure Congress. I think the founders would be happy right now. Not with Obamacare, but with an honest attempt at Judiciary…

The Imperial President…Could the Day of Reckoning Be Coming?

Comments Off on The Imperial President…Could the Day of Reckoning Be Coming?

Have you caught the talk on both sides of the aisle about Obama’s lack of respect for the Constitution? If not, let me share these two articles, first from Joseph Curl with the Washington Times who quotes a message from Charles Krauthammer. Following that will be an article from Congressman Allen West. Something may be “a-stinkin” in the pile….

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation — I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.*

“* Unless, you know, 224 years from now, whoever happens to president simply decides he really doesn’t want to do that.”

— Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of Barack Obama’s U.S. Constitution

The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation — the president’s top job is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it — aloud, in front of witnesses.

In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”

Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution.

From the very beginning, the president and his administration made clear they had no intention of enforcing laws they didn’t like. Mr. Obama and his minions decided that they would simply stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, no longer prosecute growers of “medical” marijuana, and let some states walk away from provisions in the No Child Left Behind law (which, by the way, was co-authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and passed the Senate by a 91-8 vote).

Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has even more flagrantly flouted the laws of the land. Out of the blue, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, reinterpreted America’s gambling laws (and dumped the decision on Christmas Eve so as to avoid scrutiny). More recently, Mr. Holder has decided to thwart congressional oversight by refusing to release documents on the disastrous “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme, and he is actively fighting Florida for trying to expunge dead people from its voter rolls.

Now comes Mr. Obama’s decision to stop enforcing America’s immigration laws. The new policy states that illegal immigrants who were younger than 16 when they entered the country are eligible for a two-year exemption from deportation. Of course, the “deferred action process,” as Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano called it, will apply to illegals up to age 30. (Think when they legally get their driver’s licenses they will also be handed a voter registration card?)

The increasingly desperate Mr. Obama, once a constitutional professor, knows full well he is circumventing Congress. In March 2011 he told a group of young Hispanics: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job.

“Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws,” he said. “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

So why now? Politics. The Hispanic population in Florida, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado may well decide the November election, and with working-class whites, religious blacks, disenchanted young people and Jews fleeing in droves, Mr. Obama is looking to shore up his support, even if that means violating his oath to protect the Constitution.

Continuing his nonstop campaign of division — black against white, rich against poor, straight against gay, religious against secular, race against race — the president is seeking to build whatever loose coalition of support he can. Forget bipartisanship; a coalition of the middle, Mr. Obama’s sole path to victory, he thinks, is to stir up so much discontent within different strata that he can win re-election.

Of course, the liberals who whined about President George W. Bush’s signing statements haven’t made a peep about Mr. Obama’s Napoleonic power grab.

“What’s ironic,” columnist Charles Krauthammer noted, “is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration — the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness.”

But that doesn’t matter when you are King Barack. The Founders were determined to make sure no American leader ever had the power King George III enjoyed. Which is why they also wrote this in the Constitution: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

And now, the article from Rep. West from the Weekly Standard….

Speaking this morning to talk radio host Laura Ingraham, Florida congressman Allen West, a Republican, blasted President Obama’s immigration plan to use prosecutorial discretion not to go after young immigrants who came to the United States illegally. Obama announced his new immigration plan on Friday.

“What country did we wake up in on Friday?,” West asked. “It just causes people to ask, where are we? You know, the last time we had this was with King George III, and we didn’t like it too much. And I think that you’re seeing the resurrection of an imperial presidency, and the arrogance thereof. To think that you can come out and basically tell the American people that this is what we’re going to do … and don’t question me.”

The big hold up for West seems to be Obama’s decision to bypass Congress and the law of the land. “America is not about ruling by verbal edict or just whims; the president has been elected to enforce the laws of this country. And he doesn’t get to pick which laws he likes or dislikes. And I find it very perplexing and ironic that when he had control of the House and Senate, this did not seem like a very important issue.”

West continued:

He could have brought [immigration] up back in 2009, and got it through. And also it was just not even a year ago — September 2011 — when his own admission, this is something he said he could not do, that he did not have the power and authority to do. So what has changed from September 2011 to where we are today? Political expediency. 

West said he hoped politicians would stop “pandering to the special interests” and instead find immigration solutions for the American people. 

Dems vow to Legislate against SCOTUS Decision

Comments Off on Dems vow to Legislate against SCOTUS Decision

Boy, some folks need to read up on the rules. Constitutional Rules. If SCOTUS rules that Arizona’s law is constitutional, and then congress does this, it would be an act of defiance of the final arbiter of the constitution. Do you think that falls in the realm of the definition of failure of their oath to the Constitution and sedition against the 10th Amendment? Whether it could be called Treason is shaky, but certainly within the realm of abuse of elected powers. From the Washington Post

 

Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court

By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: April 23

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration, Schumer will hold a hearing Tuesday on the impact of the Arizona law. The state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as will opponents of the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), the law’s chief proponent, was invited but declined to attend.

The Obama administration sued to prevent implementation of the Arizona law — which included a provision requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is in the country illegally — arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration laws and that the state’s statute interferes with federal efforts.

In response, federal courts have blocked key portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state has the power to pass the legislation because Washington has failed to deal with the illegal-immigration problem.

Schumer said he believes the court will side with the federal government. But if it does not, he will propose a new law requiring federal approval for new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere.

The legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he opposes the federal lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to block the Arizona law.

But he has been working to improve his popularity with Hispanic voters, who according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll favor President Obama by more than 40 points.

Those numbers come after Romney took a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary season, opposing the Dream Act — which would provide a path to citizenship for some young adults brought to the country illegally by their parents as children — and indicating that he supports making life in America tough enough for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport.”

His campaign has protested that his February comments describing the Arizona law as a “model” for the nation were misinterpreted.

Campaign officials have insisted that Romney meant only a provision requiring employers to use an electronic database to check the immigration status of potential employees. They have said recently that he believes states should be able to decide whether Arizona-style laws are appropriate.

A congressional debate on the issue would probably force Romney to take a more definitive position on Arizona’s statute and the broader issue of the proper balance of state and federal power in immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Republicans would surely cite the proposed legislation as another example of Democratic attempts to expand the federal government and squash state power.

“It’s a calculated decision,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School who has been following the case. “It would keep focus on an issue, but in a way that may or may not be a winner for Democrats.”

Older Entries