In theory, the Constitution of the United States has a unique role in American life. It is supposed to serve as a sort of “blueprint” for the US government, the foundation of Law in the US and a symbol of the enduring strength of our nation.
Our Constitution defines our the basic structure of the government, and determines how the three branches (president, lawmakers, and judges) are chosen and removed. It also establishes the separation of power as a watch-guard between these three branches and between the federal and state governments. The Constitution also does more than just outline the structure, it sets up a standard against which all other laws are to be judged. Article VI states that the Constitution, together with the other laws and treaties of the United States, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”
So what happens when the President of the United States AND the Congress AND the DOJ conspire together to disregard the word and intent of the Constitution? What recourse is defined?
noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
We, the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union, (improve government)
establish justice, (define a national court system)
insure domestic Tranquility, (maintain order)
provide for the common defense, (defend the country against enemies, both foreign and domestic)
promote the general Welfare, (create a good climate for commerce and industry)
and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …
FREEDOM: Use it or lose it!
A bill that would give residents of Washington, D.C. a Congressman is unconstitutional, lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded. But politics overrode law as Attorney General Eric Holder, who has a contempt for constitutional safeguards, ignored their conclusion and decided instead to declare it constitutional. The bill was passed in slightly different versions by both Houses of Congress on largely party-line votes, although differences between the two versions have to be ironed out before it can be signed by Obama, who supports the bill (the Senate added a provision protecting gun-rights in the District to the bill, enraging liberal House leaders). READ MORE
The Obama administration is on the offensive again in their zeal to protect labor unions, showering them with corrupt deals and political favoritism. The National Labor Relations Board, an agency of the Obama administration, is expanding its authority well beyond that which is its legal charter by bringing lawsuits seeking to overturn constitutional amendments in at least two states. READ MORE
Once again we have Obama and his fellow travelers attempting to interfere with law-abiding citizens and their God-Given rights to self-defense — and their Constitutional Second Amendment rights to own and bear firearms.
Most progressives follow the socialist/communist dictum that individuals in the United States must be disarmed in order to bring about a change in core political ideology. At stake is the promotion of socialism/communism and the defeat of capitalism. Many believe, and rightly so if one follows historical precedent, that gun registration is a prelude to taxation and then confiscation. READ MORE
Last week, The Chimes reported that the Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, had decided to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act because it deemed Section 3 of the law unconstitutional…
Nevertheless, the Obama administration supplants constitutional dictates by declaring DOMA unconstitutional. The executive branch has no authority to make such a declaration or to determine the legitimacy of the law, even if the law is truly unconstitutional. Only the judicial branch has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. READ MORE
Supreme Court: Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare’s creation recuse herself from the court’s review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn’t be on the court anyway.
But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice takes himself or herself off a case. READ MORE
These are just a sampling of the attitude and disrespect given the “Law of the land” by the current administration. This is not a NEW thing; it has been escalating for decades, a slow evaporation of our personal freedoms as our rights are diminished and the government control increases. And STILL many Americans don’t care, don’t wanna know, or feel powerless. Sticking our heads in the sand won’t help! We have a VOICE, a collective VOICE, and it’s not on Wall street amongst the filth, debauchery, and anarchy! Our VOICE happens every November … EVERY NOVEMBER, not just every 4 years! Have we become so numb we can’t see tyranny when it happens?