Tag: Constitution

Supreme Court rejects Obama’s recess appointments

9:41 am

The law is such an inconvenient thing: In a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that Barack Obama’s fake recess appointments were unconstitutional.

Two and one-half years ago in 2012, Obama tried to slip-in appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without the constitutionally required Senate approval, claiming he had the right to do so because the Senate was in recess. There’s only one problem. The Senate was not in formal recess when Obama made the dictatorial appointments.

Now the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision that Obama doesn’t get to define when the U.S. Senate is in recess, the Senate does.

I am gratified that all the Democratic appointees to the court ruled against Obama, refusing to allow their partisan tendencies to overrule the plain language of the Constitution. More information about the ruling and its history here.

3 comments

The Democratic Party’s proposed constitutional amendment to limit free speech.

12:38 pm

Fascists: The Democratic Party’s proposed constitutional amendment to limit free speech.

More than 40 Senate Democrats have signed on to a constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Tom Udall’s (D., N.M.) that would fundamentally alter the right to free speech. Republicans are attacking the proposal, which would “give Congress clear authority in the Constitution to regulate the campaign finance system,” even though it has absolutely no chance of becoming a reality.

Key quote at the end:

It’s a reflection of today’s Democratic disrespect for free speech that an attempt would even be made. There was a time, not too long ago, when free speech was a bipartisan commitment.

It is important to note that this amendment is not being proposed by the fringe of the Democratic Party, but is endorsed by more than two-thirds of the party’s members in the Senate. It is in the mainstream of the liberal community, a community that increasingly relishes the idea of squelching free speech and blacklisting individuals because of their opinions.

4 comments

The University of South Carolina is closing its Women & Gender Studies department and replacing it with a program to teach the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.

11:20 am

Pigs fly! The University of South Carolina is closing its Women & Gender Studies department and replacing it with a program to teach the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.

It appears university administrators have decided that they don’t have the option to ignore a state law that requires them to teach these fundamental American documents, as they tried to do earlier What is especially interesting is their decision on what to shutter to pay for the new courses. I suspect they had enough of porno on campus.

7 comments

The student who was stopped from handing out copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day has won a settlement from the college that tried to stop him.

2:08 pm

The student who was stopped from handing out copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day has won a $50,000 settlement from the college that tried to stop him.

At the first link I had posted the video the student had taken of the event. It is worth watching again because it is so egregious. That he won so handily is a wonderful outcome.

One comment

University of South Carolina administrators refuse to teach the Constitution as required by state stature because they find it “inconvenient.”

1:08 pm

The law is such an inconvenient thing: University of South Carolina administrators refuse to teach the Constitution, as required by state stature, because they find it “inconvenient.”

State statutes maintain that all students at a South Carolina public school must spend a certain amount of time studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Failure to abide by the statute is grounds for the removal of the head of the public institution–in this case, President Pastides. “Willful neglect or failure on the part of any public school superintendent, principal or teacher or the president, teacher or other officer of any high school, normal school, university or college to observe and carry out the requirements [of the statute] shall be sufficient cause for the dismissal or removal of such person from his position,” according to South Carolina law.

The USC administrators say the statute is inconvenient to enforce, however, since it would disrupt the university’s current course requirements.

It might inconvenient, and the law itself might be foolish, but it isn’t up the administrators to decide this. They should be fired.

7 comments

“The lawlessness of Obamacare, root and branch.”

12:57 pm

“The lawlessness of Obamacare, root and branch.”

The author details one by one the numerous lawless aspects of this law and the administration that created it, illustrating bluntly that, as damaging as Obamacare is to the health insurance industry, it has been far more harmful to the rule of law and the American system of justice and Constitutional government.

Weep for our country if Obamacare stands.

9 comments

A physicians organization has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s decision to delay Obamacare employer mandate by one year.

9:26 am

A physicians organization has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s decision to delay Obamacare employer mandate by one year.

The AAPS lawsuit, which was filed today in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, asks the Court to enjoin the Obama Administration from imposing its “individual mandate” while delaying the “employer mandate.” The law that was passed by Congress in 2010 requires that the employer mandate go into effect at the same time as the individual mandate: Jan 1, 2014.

“The U.S. Constitution requires a strict separation of powers between the three branches of government, such that the executive branch cannot change laws passed by Congress,” AAPS’s lawsuit explains. By imposing the individual mandate in 2014 without the protection of the employer mandate, the Obama Administration has changed the legislation passed by Congress.

9 comments

The Obama administration has quietly decided to arbitrarily delay implementation of another Obamacare requirement.

9:25 am

The law is such an inconvenient thing: The Obama administration has quietly decided to arbitrarily delay implementation of another Obamacare requirement.

The New York Times first reported on Tuesday that the administration is giving some insurers and employers a one-year grace period to adhere to the limit, which otherwise would have capped individual costs at $6,350 a year. The full requirement will go into effect in 2015, rather than 2014. The change means some employers — namely, those with more than one benefit provider — could use plans with higher limits or no limit at all on out-of-pocket costs during that period. The grace period apparently was granted earlier this year, though was buried in reams of regulatory material and was not publicly reported until now. Department of Labor guidelines published in February had addressed the delay.

As Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) correctly notes, “The president doesn’t get to write legislation, and it’s illegal and unconstitutional for him to try and change legislation by himself.”

By allowing a president to do this kind of thing, we are losing our democracy.

8 comments

A third federal court has ruled that Obama’s fake recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Broad violated the Constitution.

9:23 am

The law is such an inconvenient thing: A third federal court has ruled that Obama’s fake recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Broad violated the Constitution.

The worst part of this violation by Obama and his cohorts is that, even after these rulings, the illegally appointed board has continued to issue regulations, ignoring the decisions of all the courts.

One comment

Republican Lindsey Graham said today that he’d be willing to censor our mail if he thought it would help catch terrorists.

2:51 pm

O goody: Republican Lindsey Graham said today that he’d be willing to censor our mail if he thought it would help catch terrorists.

“In World War II, the mentality of the public was that our whole way of life was at risk, we’re all in. We censored the mail. When you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored. When a letter was written back from the battlefield to home, they looked at what was in the letter to make sure they were not tipping off the enemy,” Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is.”

This guy hasn’t a clue. The example he gives does not apply, as a military officer is under a different set of rules than ordinary citizens. If we do as he suggests, we will lower ourselves to the level of the thugs and dictators and bullies we supposedly oppose.

Then again, I’m not sure we haven’t done this already.

4 comments

The state of Illinois illegally enters a beekeepers’ property, confiscates his bees, and destroys them.

8:27 pm

The state of Illinois illegally enters a beekeepers’ property, confiscates his bees, and destroys them.

The story is very complicated, as the state believed the bees were infected with a disease that could spread to other bees. Nonetheless, they entered private property without permission or warrant, and took private property without permission.

Read the whole thing. It illustrates the complexity of freedom and law, while also showing the risks inherent with giving up our rights, even when it appears to be a good idea.

2 comments

When the IRS harassed this tea party group in Toledo in 2011, demanding what books they read or discussed, they responded by sending the IRS a copy of the Constitution.

3:38 pm

Working for the Democratic Party: When the IRS harassed this tea party group in Toledo in 2011, demanding what books they read or discussed, they responded by sending the IRS a copy of the Constitution.

“They wanted a synopsis of all the books we read,” Bower said. “I thought, I don’t have time to write a book report. You can read them for yourselves.”

Sadly, I doubt the IRS did that.

4 comments

A bill in Congress would strip the Constitutional rights from any Americans being prosecuted by an American Indian tribe under Indian law.

9:14 am

Whose side are they on? A bill in Congress would strip the Constitutional rights from any Americans being prosecuted by an American Indian tribe under Indian law.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the language in this Senate bill, if enacted, means that “the Constitution will not apply” to Americans tried by Indian tribes for alleged acts of domestic violence. These Americans, according to the CRS, will not have recourse to the Bill of Rights.

In truth, Congress does not have the right to pass any law that voids the rights outlined in the Constitution. But this law will force citizens to go to court to fight for those rights.

More details about the law, which has already passed the Senate, here. It appears that the Republicans are once again folding like a house of cards on this battle.

11 comments

Another sheriff, this time in Missouri, has told the Obama administration that he will not enforce any regulations that violate the second amendment.

12:02 pm

A dozen sheriffs, all in Missouri, have told the Obama administration that they will not enforce any regulations that violate the second amendment.

I like this quote from the letter of one sheriff:

It appears to me and many Americans that there is a genuine desire on the part of your administration to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens in the interest of curbing gun violence in our nation. Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.

7 comments

“A profound disdain for the Constitution.”

9:17 am

“A profound disdain for the Constitution.”

The article quotes numerous Constitutional scholars, cites numerous examples of abuse by Obama, and repeatedly makes this same point:

Multiple experts interviewed for this article cited the Obama administration’s willingness to disregard laws for the sake of his policy goals as evidence that the president is disregarding the Constitution.

The last thing a free nation needs is a leader who has contempt for the law.

One comment

The EPA is attempting to enforce a regulation requiring ships to use low-sulfur fuel, despite the fact that the regulation has not yet been voted on by Congress.

10:27 am

The law is such an inconvenient thing: The EPA is attempting to enforce a regulation requiring ships to use low-sulfur fuel, despite the fact that the regulation has not yet been voted on by the Senate.

The treaty amendment at issue is a 2010 agreement under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL. The United States has signed onto MARPOL, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accepted the 2010 amendment. Domestic enforcement of the amendment is not permitted without ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

And the Senate has not voted on this yet.

Leave a comment

On Wednesday Obama announced he would overide Congress and release of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority, with no strings attached.

10:05 am

What could possibly go wrong? On Wednesday Obama announced he would override Congress and release of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority (PA), with no strings attached.

Not only is this insane, considering the murderous behavior of the PA, it seems to me that the U.S. has this document called the Constitution, which clearly stipulations that Congress, not the President, determines how money can be spent. If Congress says no, the President isn’t legally allowed to do it. The article above is vague about this issue, so it is possible that Obama is acting legally here. However, based on his previous behavior, I remain suspicious.

A more detailed analysis of Obama’s action can be found here. It appears my suspicions are correct.

Congress deliberately froze those funds, and not just because of the statehood demand through UNESCO. Hamas, a terrorist organization, reconciled with Fatah and has rejoined the PA, which means we’re putting almost $200 million into the hands of a terrorist organization. The language of the Palestinian Accountability Act could not be clearer: “[N]o funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama literally waived that statutory language off yesterday afternoon. [emphasis mine]

For this President, a supposed Constitutional lawyer, the law is always such an inconvenient thing. He somehow thinks that, under our legal system, he can rule by dictate, something that any legal scholar would tell him is wrong.

The faster we get this power-hungry man out of office, the better.

9 comments

“a train wreck for the Obama administration.”

9:59 am

“A train wreck for the Obama administration.”

Trying to determine what the Supreme Court will rule on any issue by analyzing the questions they ask beforehand has generally been a poor predictor of their final decision. Sadly, we really won’t know what the Supreme Court will do until they do it.

Moreover, from my perspective it would be far better for Congress to repeal the law rather than have the court rule it unconstitutional. In the former it will be done by legislative action, backed by the voters. In the latter it would be the decision of nine unelected individuals, essentially expressing their personal opinions. In a true democracy the former is definitely preferred.

Leave a comment
1 2 3