Skip to comments.Constitution? What Constitution?
Posted on 12/01/2008 1:00:37 PM PST by Red Steel
In "Obama vs. National Symbols" I quoted Obama as saying, "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it." What I quoted was evidently written in an Arizona newspaper as a bit of satire and I got sucked in. I was wrong and apologize to Obama (not that he will ever see this) and my readers for failing to be more diligent.
Obama's actual words on the subject were: "I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead I'm going to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." Since then, under the pressure of the campaign he gained "enlightenment and wisdom" about wearing the flag pin, in order to gain votes, and for enough mindless lemmings it worked.
*Moving along* December 1st, 2008 I was awakened at 1:30 a.m. out of a dream that the Supreme Court was deliberating the case of Berg v. Obama, which challenges Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States.
Much has been written, including a number of articles by me raising the question of Obama's eligibility for the Office. Philip Berg pressed the issue to the 5th District Court where it was denied for a lack of "standing." On October 30th, Berg took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is docketed for today, December 1st, 2008. Despite the fact that it is of great public interest no one in the mainstream media, nor for that matter nowhere does there appear to be any interest. It is as though there is a vast conspiracy of silence although the basic information is available for even the most casual reader.
Whether or not the case has merit will soon be determined by the Supreme Court, and that is where the dream shook me awake. Unable to go back to sleep I bundled against the cool December house temperature and began to review the case that has become increasingly mysterious. Actually, it could have been resolved long ago if Mr. Obama had presented to those with more than a modicum of curiosity, the original birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. What he did present was a certified Certificate of Live Birth which is not the same as an original. Despite the posted certificate, which was ostensibly certified by the appropriate official and included the State's Official Seal, the question remains unanswered because Mr. Obama has evidently requested that the original certificate be sealed; that fact alone raises a "red flag."
If there is nothing to hide there should be no problem or reason for U.S. citizens to see the original certificate. After all, any potentially embarrassing personal information is already in the public domain. On the other hand, if there is an underlying problem with the certificate, then the problem not "should be," but must be resolved. Given the body of evidence that is available, it is evident that the Court is on the cusp of an historic decision. And yet, there is not even a ripple of interest in the media. Where are the "protectors" of the public's right to know? As one TV talking head likes to say, "They are hiding under their desks."
That the intrigue of the case is not of interest to the Washington Post or New York Times or for that matter anyone in the "media" to the extent that they have not given it one moments consideration raises a fundamental question about the integrity of the entire establishment. But, alas, that should not come as a surprise.
*Article II, U.S. Constitution states, among other things:* "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
*Article II also states:* "Before he 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.'"
The Constitution was devised and ratified as the pre-eminent document upon which all U.S. Law and Equity resides. The Supreme Court was established as a separate branch of government and vested with the authority to adjudicate all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution. So, the issue before the Court is fundamental to the Constitutional framework and national integrity.
For those who have not bothered to pay attention, Mr. Obama has gone on record that he is not satisfied with the Constitution when he declared that the Founders failed to spell out the responsibly of the Federal Government but rather limited the role thereof. From his remark, it is evident that Obama was aware of the Tenth Article of Amendment which states: "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." But evidently he failed to read the Preamble which states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Or if he read it, in his mind did not vest it with any authority. Would that form the basis of selective governance, or capricious, or arbitrary, or dictatorial?
If January 20th, 2009 rolls around and in fact Obama is ineligible, but because the people have "spoken" the Supreme Court fashions a decision out of whole cloth to allow him to take office, how can he swear to protect the very Constitution with which he evidently disagrees, and of which he will have succeeded in making a mockery? And how would the Supreme Court ever again have the moral, much less the legal authority to adjudicate the Constitutionality of any issue? Constitution? What Constitution?
Judging from their respective and separate remarks, if Mr. Obama and Chavez of Venezuela had their way, the U.S. would adopt a new Constitution more to their liking; or maybe not have one. What a novel thought and scary as hell.
In my dream, the Supreme Court ruled that Obama was ineligible to be President; maybe it was just a dream, then again, maybe a premonition of a pending crisis. We'll see how the movie ends.
That would be funny if it weren’t so close to the truth.
Coming soon: A New Constitutional Convention
I will always hum The Obama Anthem as provided by Glenn Beck, whenever I am forced against my will to give any respect to The One (piss be upon him).
Bow down and praise The One
Give him your money and your guns
Give us a country to make your wife proud!
Lord Barry heal the bitter ones
White and clinging to faith and our guns
Hope for the change of the hope of the change!
I haven't heard any apologies to Sarah Palin for "I can see Russia from my house!".
I don't expect to, either.
>>Coming soon: A New Constitutional Convention
Coming sooner: Second War Between The States.
Remember, The Obamunist is on record saying he found the U.S. Constitution to be fundamentally flawed.
“Coming sooner: Second War Between The States.”
Unfortunately, I fear it may very well come to that.
There is a difference. Read the essay for details.
I hear that sentiment thrown around a bit on FR but has anyone really considered the ramifications of such an event? Picture the Bosnia mess. Picture EVERYTHING as you know it coming to an end. You don’t just take up arms against the State and then go back to work on Monday. I for one am very nervous about the potential for such a thing. Let’s pray that we are being overly pessimistic about The One. That is something to HOPE for....
In modern terms, it would read, "Do you support the President, the Congress and the people, who have spoken and decided by an election? Or do you support the Supreme Court and the Constitution?"
I'll quote something Dennis Miller said in 1998, before he changed sides. "The Constitution is something a bunch of farmers scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin. Who the hell cares what it says?"
WE understand all that.
But to ‘change’ our founding documents, the opposition needs to scrap the whole thing and start over.
That’s why they are calling for a ‘Constitutional Convention’...for a NEW document.
Will report further, I am taking a class on the subject,”Does the US need a new Constitution?” You’d be surprised that some in the class DO think it’s time to scrap the old one to be ‘progressive’...
To start over with a new constitution, they would first have to amend Article V to allow it.
Obama is a lawless type of person, they don’t have to change the document, just keep disregarding it. If there are no consequences - he doesn’t have to show his original long form birth certificate, he can nominate a sitting Senator for a Cabinet post - to his actions, no one holds him accountable, then he doesn’t have to expend energy to change the document at all. He’ll just sidestep it and his stupid Obamabots won’t say a word.
We’ll all never agree on key points, namely, where does individual responsiblity end and social (government) responsibility begin. This is crucial to defining a new social pact, and I know I will never agree with the “liberal/leftist” view which reduces the individual to a resource/thing/number/member-of-a-group.
Not to mention puting your life between your "lov'd homes and the war's desolation". Then there is that part about "Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:"
I know he didn't say it, but he could have. The not often sung 3rd and 4th stanzas are very un PC these days.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Yes there is, but the first Constitutional Convention was originally called to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead they created a whole new, and much more powerful, government.
That's so 18th century though. Today they just ignore the old rag and do what they can get away with.
“And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message.”
Has this brilliant, sophisticated, cultured Haahvaahd gentleman ever read the text of the FRENCH national anthem?;)
I have been an avid student of history my entire life (my degree is in History, as well). I know full well what a civil war is about, what it entails, and the sacrifices and tragedies of such a thing. Hence, that is why I said I feared we might be heading toward one.
I do not want a civil war. I want the government to act responsibly vis-a-vis the U.S. Constitution, and not “invent” new powers for itself or “re-interpet” or “re-define” those parts of the Constitution the government may dislike or find to be too restrictive of its authority. HOWEVER, the People retain the right to resist an oppressive or tyrannical or out-of-control government, employing whatever means necessary to accomplish that resistance. Remember, as Patrick Henry said:
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
or, James Madison:
“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
or, Alexis de Tocqueville:
“A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.”
No, he, or someone in The Organization presented a Certification of Live Birth. A computer generated extract of the information from the real Certificate of Live Birth, aka long form birth certificate.
Two out of three ain't bad, and Obama, Pelosi, and Frankenfienstien will be working on the third, come January 6th, for signature shortly after January 20th.
I love what Mr. Madison said. Had to tweak it just a bit to become my new tag line.
Awesome! And so topical.
That assumes the Court would not be on the same side as the President, the Congress, and some fraction of the people (less than the 52.8% who voted for The One, because he is The One.)
My oath is to the Constitution, not any of those entities created by it.
1649 vs 1861 - the question is still the same. Will we live free with the government answerable to the people OR will we be allowed to have rights at the whim of the elected. It is NOT a question of supporting the elected; they are beholden to us, not the reverse.
As far as whether it will be an English Civil War or a Second War Between The States is still open and can be avoided only by obedience to the Constitution - AS WRITTEN, NOT INTERPRETED.