Democrats Attempt To Slaughter The Constitution

From The Wall Street Journal:

We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.

Blinded by an ambition that makes Genghis Khan seem restrained, the Democrats are pressing on with their attempt to shred the constitution by passing . . . I mean "deeming" to pass a bill that is opposed by the majority of Americans. And the tool of Pelosi's subterfuge is appropriately named "Slaughter."

The House Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter (D-New York), is being asked to add a "self-executing rule" into the Senate passed bill, which means that the Congress won't actually need to vote on the bill. They'll simply add their own high-dollar pork to the already bursting bill during what is referred to by Congress as "reconciliation corrections" but Americans who are aware will recognize as bullshit.

As the Journal points out, this will allow the Democrats in Congress to send the bill on to Obama for approval while still claiming that they opposed it -- a critical need for them since "knowingly" passing this monstrosity that is sure to make insurance companies immeasurably rich and unemployment lines simply immeasurable will be political suicide.

This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate." This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes. While sometimes one house cedes entirely to another, the expectation is that its Members must re-vote on the exact language of the other body's bill.

True, this is not the first time "reconciliation" has been used, but in the past it has been reserved for expediting amendments, not a bill that would seize control of 1/6 of our country's entire economy.

Where are you Jeffersonian Democrats?

Civilian Judge Tosses Evidence About Gitmo Goon

What happens when you apply the U.S. Constitution to enemy combatants who are not U.S. Citizens . . . besides revealing American intelligence information, providing a forum for radical terrorists to broadcast their warped philosophy to a broader audience and boosting the ratings at Court TV?

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism [sic] detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.

This is where the Left says, "Well, Bush allowed some terrorists to face trial in the Federal systems!" But didn't they promise to correct the mistakes that Bush made rather than use him as their chief defense witness?

Sotomayor Revealed Pt 1: Judicial Activist?

There's another code word in the liberal lexicon: "empathy." As described in the WSJ,

"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

In the same way "deficit reductions" means higher taxes, "assault weapons" was coined for gun control and "Choice" only applies to abortion, the liberals have debauched another discourse. So in the liberal mind it's just fine to subvert the separation of powers defined in the U.S Constitution as long as your doing so out of "empathy" (though empathy becomes a slippery term that is relative to the world view of the liberal).

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, has become their poster child for "empathy." In their world, "personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom." Instead of justice being blind, you have to become blind to justice and focus on your life experiences and how they make you feel. Woe be to the dairy industry of Sotomayor is lactose intolerant.

Obama's speech introducing Sotomoyar revealed his agenda:
"Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers . . . it is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court."

It's important to note that Obama is not saying that experience in and of itself it a necessary ingredient for justice. He is pointing to a certain kind of experience being necessary in the "kind of justice we need." So much for diversity. So much for equality in a blind justice system. Obama is looking for a "kind of justice" not as defined by the Constitution, but by his perception of the world.

Sotomayor's comments at Duke University on why students should clerk at the appellate court level reveals her agenda:

The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know.

Oh, yes, I know, I know, I know those of you who get your talking points from The Huffington Post or Media Matters will prattle that the comment was taken out of context. That she later said that she was not advocating that . . . and you (like your sense-free sources) ignore that she said she did not promote it with a chuckle and wink. So as a service to you, I am dropping the YouTube video of her comments below and you make the call.

Well, since this is my site I'm going to make the call first. Sotamayor concocts an interesting explanation of her comments concerning higher courts when she contrives that one is no longer looking at "the facts of the case" but how the law is developing along with the ramifications your decision will have over the next step of the law's development. In other words, a justice is no longer supposed to be judging the case based on its individual merits, the current law or constitutional framing, but instead should judge it on how they believe the law will develop (founded on their personal "experience" and belief system, of course), and the judge needs to predetermine the precedent they want to establish for future related decisions.

That, my friends, is the very definition of judicial activism . . . or as the left puts it, "empathy."

Oklahoma Is OK With HCR 1028

In fact, Oklahoma may just be the anti-Minnesota (which is to say, not inhabited by under-rock dwellers). Just 10 days ago Democratic Governor Brad Henry vetoed "House Joint Resolution 1003," a bill passed by the state legislation that criticised the Obama administration for violating states rights and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. But these folk aren't Minnesotans, rather than crumble with the veto and put their faith in a professional wrestler or rape joke foisting "comedian," they decided to find another way to wrangle the feds.

Enter HCR 1028

According to the resolution's author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City:

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other. I think our governor is out of step.” Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers. Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he
said.

Oh, no he didn't! Tell me that Key did not just use the C-word in front of Obama?

I would give one word of caution to Rep. Keys: while this resolution should not jeopardize federal funds, I wouldn't put anything past this administration. Barack Obama is proving that he is not the brightest guy in the world, but when it comes to vindictive attacks on those who oppose him, this guy is honor roll material.

"Is Barack Obama An American?" -- USJF

Here is an interesting letter circulation through Newsmax asking for help in gaining access to Barack Obama's actual birth records. We know that Barack Obama is not a fan of the Constitution, but would he and the Democratic Party knowingly skirt the Constitutional foundation of executive power?

Of course, the President could wipe away any concern by granting access to his actual birth records . . . and while he's at it, maybe he could practice a little of the transparency he preach by opening up his college records and his campaign contributions as well.

Dear Concerned Friend,

I dared bring Barack Obama into court to force him to produce his birth certificate and put an end to the controversy over his status as a "natural born" citizenship once and for all. And now he's coming after me and the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) -- the public-interest legal group that I founded over 30 years ago -- with a vengeance! Merely because we dare to seek the truth! And they must have something to hide, because Mr. Obama's attorneys have threatened to spend, and then sanction, USJF out of existence.

USJF has started efforts to convince State Attorneys General, all across the country, to investigate whether Barack Obama has committed perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers ... claiming to be constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the United States. As you know, the available evidence shows that he was born in Africa. A FAX to all 50 State Attorneys General is available for you to send right now.

You see, even though it's past January 20, 2009 -- inauguration day -- Barack Obama can still be stopped from becoming an illegal "squatter" in the White House.
FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Fraud https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag?a=2258

Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa -- not Hawaii as he claims - and, therefore, cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling.

• First, Mr. Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate. If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to allow the press to see the birth certificate?
• Second, the contention by Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later.
• Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama's grandmother, the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access to the one person then alive who would have been present if he was actually born in Hawaii.
• Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate.
• Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama's step-grandmother in Kenya, who claims that she was present at his birth ... in what is now called Kenya!
• Sixth, the "birth certificate" posted on the Obama campaign website and other liberal websites. Since Barack Obama was born in 1961, long before laser printers and office computers, his original birth certificate would be typewritten ... unlike the laser printed "copy" purported to be genuine.

The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President!

That's right. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is a "natural born" citizen, his high-priced LA-based "dream team" of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs! And they're loading both barrels! So, unless you help me and my team here at USJF to stand our ground in court, Mr. Obama's hired guns could blow a financial hole in USJF's ability to be the proverbial thorn in Mr. Obama's side!

Barack Obama continues to battle any attempt to see his real birth certificate - producing only a phony one posted on his website -- as well as fighting us tooth and nail as we seek access to his college records... records which we believe may prove that he was foreign born!

USJF served a subpoena upon Occidental College to gain access to Mr. Obama's college records and we are fighting to get at the truth on many other fronts, as well, including:

• Appealing a case filed by USJF in California, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary, on behalf of 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, calling into question Mr. Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen;
• Funding, and assisting local attorneys and Plaintiffs, in similar lawsuits, in Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi, AND we're considering filing more lawsuits in other states; and
• We have initiated a campaign demanding that your State Attorney General take action now, which I'll tell you about momentarily...

Select Here Donate & Demand Mr. Obama Show Us the Truth! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_demand?a=2258

You see, when Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency. Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is not legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a "natural born citizen." What's more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally be President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President ... and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility.

Quite frankly, this crisis must be ended! And it must be ended now! And that's just what we're fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution ... and your liberty.

Select Here Donate & Demand Mr. Obama Show Us the Truth! https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_demand?a=2258

We have to press our case to stop Barack Obama from, apparently, illegally holding the Presidency, despite the ongoing threats against us. We are speaking of filing additional lawsuits and administrative actions, over and above the dozens already filed, if you will help us today. I need your help right now in order to win this battle. We must raise the needed funds to continue our legal research, pay court costs and lawyer fees, and to contact all 50 State Attorneys General. Helping USJF with this campaign is your best shot, and, possibly your only chance, at finding out whether Barack Obama is legally holding the Presidency of our great nation, or whether he is a fraud, a usurper!

My friend, please take action immediately. Please FAX all 50 State Attorneys General and please send to me your best possible gift to help USJF stop Barack Obama from continuing his apparent theft of the Presidency!

FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Fraud https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag?a=2258

Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States? We will not be intimidated. But we MUST have your help immediately if USJF is to survive this fight to the finish -- and if the U.S. Constitution is to weather this crisis intact! Our country is on the fast track to disaster ... but you can help us keep the situation from getting worse. I pray that I'll hear from you today.

In His Name,

Gary Kreep, Executive DirectorUnited States Justice Foundation

Constitution? We Don't Need No Stinking Constitution

There are some traditions that presidents usually keep when they enter the White House. For example, there's the annual Easter egg roll, throwing out the first pitch at a ball game, and taking the advise of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel when it comes to Constitutional matters. I guess for the current administration, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. I just wish they'd have clung to that whole Constitution thing.

You see, in times past administrations approached the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) through the Attorney General to get advice concerning Constitutional issues. It makes perfect sense since the Just Department's primary role is to safeguard the Constitution. But nobody is ever going to accuse this administration of perfect sense.

Which brings us to this:

The Washington Post reports this morning that Holder has overruled OLC's objective, well-reasoned, constitutionally rooted opinion that the controversial D.C. voting-rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. OLC's conclusion, if accepted by the attorney general, as is customary, would likely have doomed passage of the measure

But Obama's crony couldn't accept the OLC's conclusion because it just doesn't matter to the current leadership in the Democratic party. It's not about constitutional vs. unconstitutional, right vs. wrong, or even tastes great vs. less filling. It's all about their insatiable lust for power. Getting Washington D.C. representative votes would guarantee additional Democrats in the congress. Constitution? They don't need no stinking Constitution!

Democrats Say, "Screw The Constitution"

What happens when you give the political party obsessed with acquiring enough power to silence debate total control of Congress and the oval office? They lip lock Lenin and proudly shout: "Screw the Constitution, we're Democrats."

With their new found control of Washington, the left is wasting no time acting like . . . well, like Democrats whenever they have unbridled power (c.f., Detroit). Like French whores armed with bottomless jugs of Chamarré Cabernet, they drunkenly stagger through Constitutional barriers to do whatever they want to do.

As Brooke over at PaleoCon Command Center observed, "Because apparently the left can do whatever the hell they want now that they control Congress and they have anointed the Lawrd Barack Hussein Obama as the godhead of America."

And in their latest maneuver the have taken steps to overrule the Constitution and give a voting congressional seat to the People's Republic of Washington D.C., which at last count wasn't among the 50 known U.S. states that are actually granted voting rights (though perhaps they are one of the 57 States Obama has referred to but yet to identify).

H/T to Brooke for the acutely accurate cartoon as well!

Joe Biden And The Second Amendment

“I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns. . . . I got two. If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it.”
--Joe Biden

"I'll tell you what, if that [gun] is his baby, he needs help. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun."
-- Joe Biden

I've already written about Barack Obama's take on the 2nd Amendment, but what about his sidekick, Joe the Dumber. Is he the swaggering soldier swinging a Beretta in each hand, daring Obama to pry them out of his fingers? (And before you write, yes, I am aware that Biden received five student draft deferments during Vietnam and wasn't actually a soldier.) Or is he the condescending school marm who feels qualified to determine who is or isn't qualified to own a gun?

As John McCain continues to recommend about the Democratic ticket, look beyond the well-written rhetoric and plastic promises to focus on their records.

• Biden voted to ban virtually all hunting rifle ammunition. (U.S. Senate, S. 397, vote 217; U.S. Senate, S. 1805, vote 28)
• Biden wrote and introduced one the the first bills to ban semi-automatic firearms. (Biden Bill, S. 1970, '89)
• Biden voted to ban hundreds of models of common rifles and shotguns. (U.S. Senate, S. 1805, vote 24; U.S. Senate, S. 1607, vote 375)
• Biden voted in support of liability lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the misuse of their products by others. (U.S. Senate, S. 397, Vote 219)
• Biden voted against confirming pro-2nd Amendment justices to the Supreme Court. (Samuel Alito, vote 2; John Roberts Jr., vote 245; Clarence Thomas, vote 220).

Given Biden's fatuous understanding of the Constitution, it could be that he just had all those crazy amendments mixed up in his plug-scarred head and was never really sure what he was actually voting for. But whatever the reason, it is certain that when gun legislation is on the docket, good ol' Joe is sitting in his blind ready to unload on sportsmen.

For more on Joe the Dumber's stance on the 2nd Amendment, see http://www.gunbanobama.com/