Posted on 08/18/2009 12:57:17 PM PDT by pissant
I notice that you can't even try.
Those on the Left "feel" that it is the Federal Government's job to "help people." The Right feels Government's job is to run the government according to the Constitution and that by doing so, enable "people to help themselves."
The ancient Greeks figured this out: the inherent weakness in democracy is the inevitable discovery that access to the public funds enables those in power to directly reward (The Democrat Party version of "helping people") those who can keep them there. As night follows day, it is also inevitable therefore, that every democracy will eventually go broke.
Our founders tried to get around this by making this a restricted central-government republic with democratic processes based in the states. IMHO, our best chance for halting, or at least slowing the slide away from first principles, is a drive for restoration of States Rights, starting with repeal of the 17th Amendment that called for popular election of the Senate. That rightly is the duty of State Legislatures and governors.
The States must also attempt to regain fiscal control of the Federal Government with Senators who are beholden to locally, not federally.
I wish us luck. But it looks to my jaundiced eye that we are beginning the entropic slide that ended every previous democracy on this planet, it's just that ours will take longer and give us more chances to stop it, or slow it, if we are still the people we so recently were.
BTW, I don't consider what the Euro-cousins have to be very democratic. They have all-controlling Socialist governments. They share many of our freedoms ... for now.
I think there's only one person left on my lines who tacks left, and he's a business partner. He's not a hardcore liberal, and is mostly politically agnostic. Truth is, he simply does not pay attention to anything but sports news, and is completely clueless about politics.
As in the case of your friend, this man is a friend of 35 years, and not someone I would lightly disconnect from. But, if he were a committed liberal, I'm afraid we just would have come to loggerheads by now, and I would have snipped the cable.
Like I said, it's not "politics as usual" any more. The left is already at war with traditional, patriotic America. There is no doubt that they mean to destroy every remaining vestige of the "old" America, and usher in their new Leftist Utopian age.
We discount these people's intentions at our peril.
SCOTUS is a court like any other. It does not make pronouncements unless a case is brought before it. It then rules on the case.
SCOTUS' only power over Congress is the Constitutional duty to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by that body and signed into law by the Executive. But, it can only do that if a case is brought before it challenging the constitutionality of the law. SCOTUS chooses those cases carefully, most rulings allowing the judgements of lower courts to stand.
The College of Electors now has the power, at its discretion, to document eligibility. It has not chosen to do so, because no law requires it.
The US Military cannot constitutionally act without Congress, or Congress and the Executive's authorization. The "US Military" is not empowered to decide anything. The President is Commander in Chief. If a case were brought before the courts, and the President were found finally to be ineligible to have been a candidate, it would not then be the court that removed him from office, but the Congress.
Our best, and probably our only, bet for removing Obama is that he is ruled ineligible for 2012 by a state or states that makes documentary proof of eligibility mandatory before placing him on that state's ballot, or giving him that state's electoral votes.
If he accepted that state's ruling, there would be no reason for any other state to accept him as eligible. If he did not accept the ruling, he could challenge it in court, finally giving the courts the ability to hear the case, finally deciding what a "Natural Born Citizen," is, etc..
If Obama has stacked the court by then, it is entirely possible that they will interpret Article 2 in a way I guarantee we will not like.
“He’s lying about something-hence the cover-up”.
For all those who think that this is nothing but a “get obama” effort, why is he hiding so much of his previous life, why is he paying huge piles of cash to lawyers to keep this stuff under wraps and why is his party and his media fighting like hell to keep this issue down?
If his history ever comes out, there will be lots of problems to be solved. Those that lied about his qualifications, including obama, should be put on trial. NO ONE should be allowed to subvert the US Constitution or else we have no Constitution.
This issue needs to be resolved and quickly.
Hey barry, whatcha hidin?
Yes, I know that.
The "US Military" is not empowered to decide anything.
Actually, yes they are. They have the power to decide whether they accept the authority of the SCOTUS and/or the person claiming to be POTUS. If they decide the person currently claiming to be POTUS is in fact not POTUS (perhaps based on a ruling made by SCOTUS,) and decide to act on that decision using more than just words, then that person will not have the power of POTUS. Period. That's reality, regardless of what any laws or lawyers may say. It would be very unwise to fail to recognize the reality of which I speak.
If a case were brought before the courts, and the President were found finally to be ineligible to have been a candidate, it would not then be the court that removed him from office, but the Congress.
That is self-contradictory. If the person claiming to be POTUS is Constitutionally prohibited from being POTUS, then it is logically impossible for anyone—including Congress—to remove him from an office he does not (and has never) held. In the same way that unconstitional laws were never laws in the first place, unconstitional "office holders" never held the office in the first place. So not only is there no need to "remove" them from office, it is logically and legally impossible to do so.
At this point, it highly unlikely that SCOTUS will agree to hear any case where they would have to decide whether Obama can Constitutionally be POTUS. It is also highly unlikely that the the US military will make any such decision on its own, without prompting by SCOTUS. Although it could happen. Realistically, I don't expect it, and I certainly don't recommend it.
The context here is that the posted article raised the spectre of a Constitutional crisis that would be caused by SCOTUS ruling that Obama cannot Constitutionally be President. And it also made the wrong claim that Congress would then have to impeach the President.
My point was that a) removing the President from office pursuant to such a ruling by SCOTUS would be both legally unecessary and logically impossible, and b) ultimately, no one can exercise the full sovereign power of the US unless those who actually wield the weapons decide to respect the claimed authority—in this case, the claimed authority of POTUS/CIC.
I keep thinking of Pres, Jackson, who said of the SCOTUS ruling on the Cherokee Treaty, ""That's their ruling? Well, let them enforce it."
I am also unclear on how "The Military" would have the constitutional ability to accept or reject a SCOTUS ruling, or exactly how "The Military" could decide on POTUS' eligibilty. I agree that the spectre of force majeure is very frightening.
Well, this is one fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. In Honduras, their SCOTUS found Zelaya unable to continue as President, because of crimes against the Constitution. Then their Congress used the ruling to vote the bastard out, at which point their military was authorized, one hopes, to frog-march him out and dump him in Costa Rica.
Never thought of that scenario happening on the Potomac!
No. The fact that Congress passes a law, and the President signs it, does not make the law real if it's in fact Unconstitutional. Once found to be Unconstitutional, the law legally never existed, and there is no need to repeal it. The same would hold for an Unconstitutional office "holder."
I keep thinking of Pres, Jackson, who said of the SCOTUS ruling on the Cherokee Treaty, ""That's their ruling? Well, let them enforce it."
Yes. That's my point, exactly. Obama might say the same, were SCOTUS to rule that he is not, and has never been, President. Those who wield the weapons would then have to decide what to do. That's the crux of the matter.
The Right feels Government's job is to run the government according to the Constitution and that by doing so, enable "people to help themselves."
You've hit the nail on the head.
The hardest thing in the world seems to be convincing liberals that running the country their way is essentially a violation of our Constitution.
I don't know how many times I've explained to liberals that if they want a Socialist government, then they should either move to a Socialist country, or work to change our Constitution so that it aligns with their way of thinking.
It also makes no difference to liberals that Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. They think that "their brand" of Socialism will actually work.
You'd think that with a perfect example of what Socialism does to a country, just 90 miles from Florida, that liberals would have noted the basic facts about that system by now, but no.
There is a certain segment of our population that will never stop demanding more government, and greater entitlements. We seem to have failed in our efforts to educate them through reason, so the only solution remaining is to force them to cease and desist, i.e., we have to enforce the provisions of our nation's senior policy, the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.