New York Times: Throw Off Bondage of ‘Evil’ Constitution

The biggest liberal newspaper in the country has printed a column from a top progressive scholar calling on the American people to ignore the Constitution with its “evil provisions,” revealing the far-left agenda for what it is and making sense of several major actions of the Obama administration.

Those who love liberty and our Constitution need to speak up and be heard. The Constitution is the cornerstone of the United States of America as a nation. It holds us together, gives us our national identity, and is the surest safeguard against an all-powerful government.

That is why every officer of federal and state government must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution before they can assume the powers of their office. Every military officer must swear to support the Constitution, including the words “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

And every lawyer—as an officer of the courts—takes an oath to support the Constitution. I have taken such an oath ten times in my career, including one standing before the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

So did Professor Louis Michael Seidman of Georgetown, but now he evidently thinks taking such an oath was a mistake. In a New York Times column, he calls for America to free itself of “bondage” to the Constitution. Speaking of what’s wrong in the country today, he laments that “no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

Looking through American history, Seidman claims that “flagrant disregard of the Constitution [has] helped us to grow and prosper.” He lauds governmental systems like Great Britain that have parliamentary supremacy, where the government can vote to do absolutely anything it wants. This is precisely the form of government we rejected when we revolted against Britain and declared independence in 1776. Perhaps Seidman thinks the American Revolution was a mistake.

Read more here.

The Real Target of Obama Birth Control Mandate is the Constitution

Warning! Progressives’ NPV Plan for White House Control, 2012 & Permanently

While the lamestream media holds public attention on GOP candidate rivalries, a “progressive” strategy is underway to eliminate the role of the states in electing a U.S. President. By transferring electoral votes to a “national popular vote” this “Compact” would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally.

This may be the most vital – and time sensitive – expose WAM has ever uncovered and shared! And it’s happening now, under the radar, with the general public in the dark. This “ultimate vote fraud” is intentionally complicated to keep it obscure until it’s too late to stop it.

This complete expose on the “National Popular Vote Compact” won’t be found elsewhere. Because of the complexity and urgency of this issue. read it through completely. See who is behind this scheme and what its intended consequences are.

Then spread the word in your blogs, forums and forward to all your contacts now. There is still time to block the NPVC sufficient states passage – only if we act now!

All of US urgently need to contact our State Assemblymen, State Senators and Governors to vehemently oppose this covert measure! See below the real facts of this manipulation of the Constitution and American electorate. See Your State Status and action needed in last column.

Read more here.

Court of Appeals finds ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional

A second federal circuit court of appeals has spoken in the ObamaCare case, the one brought by 26 states. A split three judge panel for the Atlanta-based 11th Citcuit has found the individual mandate unconstitutional, but leaves the rest of the law intact, though crippled and financially not viable.

Jennifer Harberkorn of Politico:

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton. (snip)

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton. (snip)

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

This ruling all but guarantees that the Supreme Court will review the case, as the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the mandate in a similar suit six weeks ago.

S. 679: To Remove “Advise and Consent” Function of Senate for Numerous Federal Appointments

This, introduced by Chuck Schumer on 30 March 2011, looks like a very, very bad idea, from the perspective of anyone who wants government to be smaller and less intrusive – and wants the executive to be policed better by the legislative branch. President Obama and his czars are the obvious counterargument to this bill. They make a powerful one.

More than 200 appointed positions would be excused from the advise-and-consent requirement by S. 679. Among them are the following:

The Agriculture Department’s Commodities Credit Board
Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service Administrator
The Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Commerce Department’s Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
The Defense Department’s Assistant Secretary for Networks and Information Integration
The Assistant Secretaries of each of the armed services for financial management
The Education Department’s Assistant Secretary for Management
Education’s Commissioner of Education Statistics
All 7 of the Assistant Secretaries of Energy
The Department of Homeland Security’s Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness
Homeland Security’s Assistant Administrator of FEMA for Grant Programs
The Department of the Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer
The Treasurer of the United States
Director of the US Mint
The Governors and Alternate Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (amending Section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act)
Governor and Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank (amending Section 3(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act)
Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund (amending Section 203(a) of the African Development Fund Act)
Managing Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service
The Office of Management and Budget’s Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management
Director of the Community Development Financial Institution Fund

That’s just a sample – and it represents an awful lot of policy, money-handling, and benefit-management, with your tax dollars. The Senate proposes to let the president appoint people to these positions without explicit prior oversight. The sheer possibilities for graft and bribery here are colossal – and that’s before we even get to the possibilities for covert policy implementation.

The Senate may be naïve enough to think presidents “should” simply be trusted to appoint honest brokers to these positions. With the Obama administration’s record of attempting one executive end-run after another around due-process law, such senatorial sentiment seems like willful stupidity. But Obama is not the first president to appoint questionable individuals to second-tier federal positions. There is a long history of problems or perceived problems in this area of executive privilege. And that’s the point of consensual government, checks and balances, and separation of powers.

The list in S. 679 includes all the legislative affairs directors for the federal departments, which would mean that a president’s appointees to these positions would be entirely loyal to him, not Congress. Add that to all the key positions in which money or statistics could be mishandled behind the scenes. (The Chief Scientist for NOAA could well be the most important appointment in the US federal government these days. The Commodity Credit Board and the Community Development Financial Institution Fund would be extremely efficient vote-buying vehicles in the wrong hands. The skullduggery that could result from unreviewed appointments to the IMF and the Asian and African development funds doesn’t bear thinking about.)

Now is not the time to express this kind of confidence in the executive. In fact, the case is the exact opposite. In terms of political administration, S. 679 would be a good head start on turning all of America into Chicago. Here are the Republicans who co-sponsored it with Chuck Schumer:

Alexander (TN)

Brown (MA)

Collins (ME)

Johanns (NE)

Kyl (AZ)

Lugar (IN)

McConnell (KY)

Freshman Senator Backing a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

Buoyed by strong Tea Party support during his campaign, freshman Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has arrived in Washington and says he’s determined to take significant steps to rectify the staggering U.S. deficit. Lee talked to Fox News on Sunday about his proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

In order to propose such an amendment, several steps would need to be taken. The first option, which Lee says is the path he will choose, is for both houses of Congress to pass a two thirds majority vote. The second option would be a Constitutional Convention, which would also require a two thirds vote from state legislatures. The proposal would then need to be ratified.

When asked about cutting government programs, including those that could be lifelines for Americans, Senator Lee took a strong stance, saying “no program will be held immune from review” and that Congress needs to consider “categorical across the board cuts” regardless of a program’s perceived importance.

If the U.S. government’s budget functioned more like a typical American household, Lee says “the credit cards would have been “cut to pieces” a long time ago. While acknowledging that a serious reduction in spending would not necessarily help ease existing debt, Lee said its still time to start “paying off the bill. It may take time but we need to stop accumulating new debt.”

Speaking during his weekly internet and radio address over the weekend, President Obama called for bipartisanship among both parties in Congress, citing reduction of the budget deficit as a top priority.

A Patriot’s Pause

On Thursday, as part of the new House rules package, members of the United States House of Representatives will read the United States Constitution from the House floor. This is a reflection of a call from “the genius of the American people,” as Alexander Hamilton so aptly described the American people in The Federalist, that Congress not forget the guiding principles set forth in our nation’s Constitution. After all, in a republic it is the people who rule through their representatives. Even James Madison, who believed that “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire,” would be thrilled that Congress has taken the time out of bickering to remember the foundations of our country.

George Washington would be especially pleased. He stressed in his farewell address that Americans should not let divisiveness drive the country into demise. “The ultimate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissensions, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” What better way for Congress to unite than to honor the document (brought about by a providentially inspired unity of 13 wildly divergent states in 1787) that so aptly defines the handbook for governing and so brilliantly beholds our liberties?

This historic reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor, something that was introduced by the new House Republican leadership and has never been done before, is not just for show. These new House rules have teeth: they hold proposed legislation up to the light of the Constitution, requiring that each bill or joint resolution introduced in the 112th Congress be accompanied by a “statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

Read more here.