A Jewish congregation’s letter to George Washington welcoming him to Rhode Island in 1790.

On Washington’s birthday: A Jewish congregation’s letter to George Washington welcoming him to Rhode Island in 1790.

Washington had come to Rhode Island in celebration of that state’s ratification of the Constitution. This paragraph, written by these immigrant Jews, speaks directly to today’s far less tolerant government and society that now believes it has the right to squelch religious freedom:

Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People ~~ a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance ~~ but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: ~~ deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental Machine.

A private organization is now taking the White House to court over the president’s decision to install three new members on the National Board Relations board without Senate approval.

The court suits begin: A private organization is now taking the White House to court over the president’s decision to install three new members on the National Board Relations board without Senate approval.

Once again, President Obama’s decision to make these appointments in this unprecedented manner, when it was obvious the appointments would be challenged legally, was a terrible decision that will do no good and a great deal of harm. At minimum, it puts a cloud over anything these appointees do.

Above all, this action is further evidence that this President is an arrogant man with no interest in running the government in a manner that is reasonable or fair.

The New Authoritarianism

The new authoritarianism.

If Obama does win, 2013 could possibly bring something approaching a constitutional crisis. With the House and perhaps the Senate in Republican hands, Obama’s clerisy may be tempted to use the full range of executive power. The logic for running the country from the executive has been laid out already. Republican control of just the House, argues Chicago congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., has made America ungovernable. Obama, he said during the fight over the debt limit, needed to bypass the Constitution because, as in 1861, the South (in this case, the Southern Republicans) was “in a state of rebellion” against lawful authority. Beverley Perdue, the Democratic governor of North Carolina, concurred: she wanted to have elections suspended for a stretch. (Perdue’s office later insisted this was a joke, but most jokes aren’t told deadpan or punctuated with “I really hope someone can agree with me on that.” Also: Nobody laughed.)

Read the whole essay. It is a remarkably concise and accurate description of the beliefs and desires of my liberal readers, which was further illustrated by their quick willingness in the comments here, here, and here to excuse an unconstitutional power-grab by Obama. This quote says it all:

Let leaders lead.

Very depressing.

Playing Politics with the Constitution and the Law

Playing politics with the Constitution and the law.

All of Obama’s appointments yesterday are illegal under the Constitution. And, in addition, as too little noted by the media, his appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legally futile. Under the plain language of the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, Cordray will have no authority whatsoever.

The Dodd-Frank act explicitly requires Cordray’s confirmation by the Senate in order for his authority to go into effect. Prior to that confirmation he has no authority.

Once again, the issue here is what Obama’s actions tell us about him as an elected official, suggesting that he an arrogant man who is willing to trash the Constitution and create legal hell for business and the government all for the sake of election-year politics. Not a good recommendation at all.

Is the Senate in recess? The Constitution says no.

Is the Senate in recess? The Constitution says no.

Article One, section Five of the Constitution states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”

The House has refused to adjourn. The Congress is therefore in session. This kind of gamesmanship has been done many times in the past, but never until now has a President made believe he could simply ignore the plain words of the Constitution.

I know my liberal readers like to make excuses for Democrats when they ignore the law, but the law remains the law. Just because you happen to like what Obama is doing is a bad reason to let this pass. Just remember that if we ignore the law when you’ve got your guy in office, the other side will then have a free pass to ignore the law when they are in office. Sooner or later, we will all pay for that evil.

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that refusing to open your door does not allow the police to enter without a warrant

Stating the obvious: The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that just because you refuse to open your door to the police does not give them the right to break it down, without a warrant.

The Constitution is very plain about this, and that the police and prosecutors don’t understand it is very disturbing. Just because they want to enter does not give them the right to do it. Only if the police have reasonable cause they can get a warrant from a judge, but they need that warrant before entering.

Colorado woman who refused TSA groping accused of groping TSA agent

Two wrongs don’t make a right: A Colorado woman who refused a TSA patdown has been accused of groping a TSA agent.

Though her behavior appears to have been an assault and therefore the arrest apparently justified, why is it that this woman gets charged with a crime while all around her TSA agents freely do exactly the same thing repeatedly to innocent Americans and are never charged as well?

The answer has to do with power, wielded by the government to dominate its citizens, and done so in a complete defiance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Obama and ignoring the War Powers Act

Obama and ignoring the War Powers Act.

If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.

The point here has nothing to do with whether the military operation in Libya is wise or foolish. The point is that Obama has now committed American troops to a war without legal authorization.

Bill would set aside $60 million to develop in-vehicle alcohol detectors

There are so many ways this is wrong and illegal I can’t begin to count them: Senators Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) want to set aside $60 million to develop in-vehicle alcohol detectors that could be installed in all cars. You would have to use it before your car would start.

Putting aside the constitutional issues, isn’t there that federal debt to worry about?

Amtrak police chief bars TSA from some security operations

Maybe the airlines should consider this option: The Amtrak police chief has barred the TSA from the railroad’s security operations.

[Police chief] O’Connor said the TSA VIPR teams have no right to do more than what Amtrak police do occasionally, which has produced few if any protests and which O’Connor said is clearly within the law and the Constitution. More than a thousand times, Amtrak teams (sometimes including VIPR) have performed security screenings at Amtrak stations. These screenings are only occasional and random, and inspect the bags of only about one in 10 passengers. There is no wanding of passengers and no sterile area. O’Connor said the TSA violated every one of these rules.

Are Health-Care Waivers Unconstitutional?

Are the more than 700 waivers to Obamacare that the Obama administration has handed out unconstitutional? The final paragraph sums it up well:

Waivers can be used for good purposes. But since the time of Matthew Paris [around 1251], they have been recognized as a power above the law — a power used by government to co-opt powerful constituencies by freeing them from the law. Like old English kings, the current administration is claiming such a power to decide that some people do not have to follow the law. This is dangerous, above the law, and unauthorized by the Constitution.

1 2 3