“Obama Respects the Constitution” – What?! 08/26/2009Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Freedom, Government.
Tags: Bill of Rights, constitution, Declaration of Independence, first amendment, Government, McCain, obama, second amendment, Tenth Amendment
John McCain held a town hall meeting yesterday. He responded to one of the questions by saying that “He [Obama] respects the Constitution of the United States…I really do [believe he does].”
Here’s the video of this part of the town hall:
I have trouble with McCain. I can’t seem to decide whether I like him or not. I mean, he is respecting the President by saying this, and being nice, which is a good thing. But there’s a problem with him being nice and respectful – it makes him say statements that are downright wrong.
The US government has not shown any respect of the Constitution of late.
I don’t even know where to begin.
Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution states (emphasis mine):
Before he [the President] 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.”
So the President must obey and protect the US Constitution. Is he, and our government, doing such?
Article VI, Sec. 4 of the Constitution states (emphasis mine):
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
Really? A Republican? Not a Democratic? Hmm. That’s not what I was taught in school. A republican government is one entirely selected by the people it governs, and one that works for the people. Also, the republican state governments are supposed to be – gasp – separate from the federal government.
The federal government is not allowed to impose anything – whether it be laws or taxes – without the states’ consent (unless specified in the Constitution). I think we have that backwards in our current government. It seems to me that the government feels in can impose anything it wants on the states and the people without their consent. Yet, the Declaration of Independence states that:
That to secure these rights [the rights endowed by their Creator], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Personally, I don’t consent to paying a ridiculous amount of the money I earn in taxes to the government that apparently doesn’t understand what a budget is anyway. (9 trillion dollar DEFICIT? Not even just what they spend? Good God!) Not to mention that I don’t consent to having the government take over health care or spend billions in stimulus packages or pass the cap and trade bill or regulate what light bulbs I can buy.
But I digress.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states (emphasis mine):
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Amendment I of the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The government is not allowed to interfere with religion, yet they attack and force the removal of public displays of Christianity, such as the Ten Commandments. The government cannot interfere with free speech, yet the imperial-appointed Head of the White House Information and Regulatory Affairs wants to keep bloggers like me from speaking my mind. Not to mention the constant attacks on those like Rush Limbaugh. Oh, and apparently because I disagree with Obama, I’m a racist.. The people have the right to assemble and protest when the government does something that they don’t approve of, yet those going to town hall meetings are labeled as “Nazis.”
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The government is not allowed to regulate the sale of firearms. Yet Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor has ruled that the states have the right to regulate firearms. Um…fail?
Let’s jump to the big one, the Amendment easily the most broken of them all – Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Whoa, there! You mean that the government does not have the right to do anything that isn’t in the Constitution? Everything else is up to the States and the people? Who knew?!
Seriously, folks. The US government has constantly broken the Tenth Amendment. The Health Care Bill, the Cap and Trade Bill, the laws about what light bulbs you can buy, firstname.lastname@example.org, the Czars, the federal taxes on citizens, even Social Security and Medicare – it’s all illegal.
The statement “Obama respects the Constitution” is, judging by his beliefs, who he supports, what he does – is wrong. More than that, the US Government does not respect, support, or protect the Constitution.
This must change.
Sotomayor 2nd Amendment 07/14/2009Posted by Hotonis in Government.
Tags: constitution, Government, second amendment, sotomayor, supreme court
The new Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor has been questioned about her view of the second Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to a case DC v. Heller, Sotomayor judged that states have the right to control firearms that have nothing to do with militia.
The second amendment reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The idea that Nunchaku could be banned from New York was used in her case to say that firearms could be regulated.
I am no lawyer, but I believe that when something that says “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” means that they will not be infringed (or regulated). I shall be posting more on Sotomayor as she continues to be interviewed.