The Gift of Our Constitution

from the New York Sun:

As President Trump and Speaker Pelosi retreat to their corners for Christmas, we find ourselves thinking of the gift of the Constitution. It was ten years ago that the Sun started writing about America’s “constitutional moment.” We had just brought out — as “The Citizen’s Constitution” — our annotated guide to the national parchment. It was animated by a sense that our politics had become so divided, so bitter, that our factions would end up fighting ever more battles on America’s legal bedrock. read more

Podcast – Atheist Files Suit To End In God We Trust – Has Obama Given Us Donald Trump?

In this episode I discuss the silly atheist Michael Newdow and his latest anti-religion lawsuit attempting to rid America of the scourge of “In God We Trust.” He claims that this “Motto” and others are promoting Monotheism in our nation and he won’t stand for it.

In the second segment I discuss a recent article on the Guardian website that insists Obama is the cause of the rise of Donald Trump – that the American public is so angry at Obama and government they are now flocking to Trump, who he calls the anti-Obama. I also uncover a silver lining to a Trump presidency, as liberals promise to leave America should he be elected. read more

Articles of Impeachment

by: the Common Constitutionalist

According to the Constitution, you know the supreme law of the land; the President of the United States must ensure that laws be faithfully executed. This is something he has to do and has pledged to do whether he likes it or not.

The following is the presidential oath of office (emphasis added):

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, Washington Oath of Officepreserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States“.


The following is the Congressional (House and Senate) oath of office (emphasis added):

“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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: so help me God”.

I don’t know about you, but I could not help but notice the difference in the two of oaths. The one crafted by the founders (the presidential oath) is short, concise and uncluttered whereas the Congressional oath, adopted in the 1860s, is about double. Just imagine if it were written today. The oath would take an hour to recite with a lot of “yeah buts” plugged in. Just an observation.

When a president, or for that matter, a member of Congress doesn’t take care to defend the Constitution and laws be faithfully executed as described in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, he or she should fully expect not just impeachment but removal from office. The same could be said of any neglectful employee.Clinton

As many may not realize, impeachment and removal are two different things. One can be impeached (e.g. Bill Clinton) by the House of Representatives without being removed from office, which is determined by the Senate.

Recently a few brave souls in Congress have drafted articles of impeachment against King Barack for failure to execute his oath of office. Sadly it will go nowhere and they will, of course, be mocked for their attempt.

There are few “High Crimes” (Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution) more serious than the failure to protect and adhere to the Constitution or usurpation of congressional authority.

A wise man once said, to the low information citizen, history begins on the day of their birth. Even to those who think themselves informed, it seems that many believe that Barack Obama is our first president to fancy himself a monarch.

But this is not the first time a president has been referred to as King. Andrew Jackson was often called King Andrew due to his near Monarchical control of the country. He, like Obama, was often said to govern based on personal opinion and biases, rather than adherence to law, despite protests from Congress.

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Once you begin to look back on America’s political history you will notice nothing is ever really new, just recycled.

The difference between now and Andrew Jackson’s day is that unlike today, some congressional leaders of that era actually had the courage to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

King Andrew JacksonDuring the Jackson administration, Sen. Henry Clay spoke on the Senate floor for three straight days against the imperialism of Jackson. Clay warned America that Jackson’s actions were “dangerous to the liberties of the people” and if left unchecked would soon result in “a concentration of all powers of government in the hands of one man”.

Clay explained that throughout his two terms, Jackson did what he wanted, how he envisioned things ought to be, regardless of the legality or constitutionality of any given issue.

Does any of this sound even remotely familiar; the same as today’s real conservatives, warning of Obama’s want for concentration of power? It’s unfortunate that none of today’s elected Republican leaders would dare have the courage of Henry Clay.

Today most consider impeachment to be an impossibility. Why bother. Why even start down that road.

Well, the fact is, that when bills of impeachment were first filed against the hated Richard Nixon, only a paltry 25 members of Congress supported the idea of impeachment at that time.

So what offenses has the King committed that may warrant impeachment? Here are just a few examples, thanks to the help of Rick Santorum, that riseJackson, Clay to the level of impeachment:


  • Executive Order rescinding the “Mexico City Policy”
  • Unilateral decision to stop enforcing the “Defense of Marriage” law
  • The instruction to DHS to stop deportation of young illegal aliens as required by law
  • Instruction to the Justice Department to cease prosecution of the Black Panthers
  • Recess appointments without Senate in recess
  • Unilateral dismissal of the Second Amendment through executive orders


Now, do I really think impeachment is possible? Probably not. Removal by the Senate is a pipe dream, of course. So why try?

One tries because it is the right and Constitutional thing to do. It’s just unfortunate that there are so many progressives on both sides of the aisle that just don’t care to do the job that they all pledged to do.

Post-Constitutional America

“Issues” or America?

by: Thomas Sowell (my hero)

There are some very serious issues at stake in this year’s election — so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.

The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.

For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama’s recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.

The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States — and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.

No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained — not just the ones he happens to agree with. [emphasis added]

If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.

When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have “a government of laws, and not of men” but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.

When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution — and ourselves.

Whatever the merits or demerits of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is the law until Congress either repeals it or amends it. But for Barack Obama to unilaterally waive whatever provisions he doesn’t like in that law undermines the fundamental nature of American government.

President Obama has likewise unilaterally repealed the legal requirement that welfare recipients must work, by simply redefining “work” to include other things like going to classes on weight control. If we think the bipartisan welfare reform legislation from the Clinton administration should be repealed or amended, that is something for the legislative branch of government to consider.

There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.

ObamaCare imposes huge costs on some institutions, while the President’s arbitrary waivers exempt other institutions from having to pay those same costs. That is hardly the “equal protection of the laws,” promised by the 14th Amendment.

John Stuart Mill explained the dangers in that kind of government long ago: “A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement.”

If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.