Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's contempt for the Constitution
The Summit Daily (CO) ^ | February 12, 2012 | John M. Kunst, Jr.

Posted on 02/12/2012 4:36:44 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

... Despite his oath of office, in a blatant effort to win the female vote and pander to the pro-choice movement, the president and his administration has mandated that all Catholic churches, schools, universities and hospitals must provide health insurance for their female employees that cover abortion and contraceptive services.

This was not a political miscalculation and it is not “women's health” my friends, it is a president and an administration that has determined he can tell any religion what beliefs it can and cannot hold. This is precisely the kind of authoritarian edict that prompted our Founding Fathers to adopt the First Amendment which our president now refuses to defend.

The president's recent effort to mitigate anger among true Americans is a mere ruse. He says the burden will be placed on insurance companies to approach women employed by Catholic institutions and ask whether they want the “free” abortion and contraception services. “Free?” How many billions are spent on abortion and contraception annually? So, who pays for this “free” insurance coverage? The Catholic Church. Now he thinks we are stupid while rubbing salt in an open, festering sore.

Had enough yet? What will be the next personal liberty, guaranteed to you by the Bill of Rights, that you will have to give up in the name of “Change?”

(Excerpt) Read more at summitdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: election2012; failure; obamacare; socialism


1 posted on 02/12/2012 4:36:53 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

There is a cost, to everything.


2 posted on 02/12/2012 4:43:35 AM PST by exnavy (May the Lord bless and keep our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“it is a president and an administration that has determined he can tell any religion what beliefs it can and cannot hold”

This goes MUCH further than the religious aspect. Thus far, he has dismanteled the Constitution piece by piece with no consequences. This is about pushing the envelope a bit further. Again, who will stand up for our country? Congress and the SCOTUS seem to have no interest in upholding our values.


3 posted on 02/12/2012 4:47:04 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Citizens of our great country had better take a good hard look at the things Obama wants to change in our country, and doing away with our Constitution is one of them. This man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and I pray that it is not too late for our nation.


4 posted on 02/12/2012 4:49:11 AM PST by FamiliarFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FamiliarFace

Constitution...schmonstitution! We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution. Just who the heck did those founding fathers think they were?


5 posted on 02/12/2012 4:50:38 AM PST by hal ogen (1st Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

It is most interesting that he chose mandatory birth control coverage as a base for his government run health care. There are free to low cost clinics (Planned Parenthood, county and state funded clinics) all over the country providing exams and birth control choices to to women at little to no cost. Of all things that might impact reporductive choices, cost isn’t it. But this gives him a grip to mandating health care according to his vision.
With his disregard for the constitution we had better be alert for him to cancel the next election if it appears he would lose.


6 posted on 02/12/2012 4:51:43 AM PST by midwyf (Wyoming Native. Environmentalism is a religion too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

You are exactly right.

Who is standing up for America.

The Supremes and Congress appear to go along with anything this Muslim wants.


7 posted on 02/12/2012 4:54:28 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Medical insurance coverage of contraception. What business of a US president is this?


8 posted on 02/12/2012 4:59:04 AM PST by Lady Lucky (Public education -- government cheese for the brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Even Obama's 'Compromise' Is Unconstitutional
9 posted on 02/12/2012 4:59:55 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
Again, who will stand up for our country?

Not Mitt Romney!

10 posted on 02/12/2012 5:02:06 AM PST by RoosterRedux (Go Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Sarah Palin stood up at the convention. Her speech was great. Wish she were running for President. Sadly, me thinks we’re in the minority in more ways than one.


11 posted on 02/12/2012 5:02:46 AM PST by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

My first thought after seeing this thread title - where the hell has Boehner been?? They could be talking impeachment over ane number of policies. Cowards. He needs replacing.


12 posted on 02/12/2012 5:25:22 AM PST by MomwithHope (Every American should read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MomwithHope

It will be up to the people to demand he step down for breaking his oath of office.


13 posted on 02/12/2012 5:54:39 AM PST by maranatha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The only drawback to term limits is that in a second term, a President who has no reason to curry favor with voters can attempt to impose unpopular measures with political impunity. As we all know, it would truly be a disaster for this particular White House occupant to get a second term.

Is it just me, or is our current President not acting as if this IS his last term?

I began to feel this way when he decided to take the 10 day Hawaii vacation at a time when no political advisor would have approved.

The Ossowatomie speech represented a complete “coming out of the closet” on his socialism, something he had been careful to hide to that point.

His State of the Union speech can be summed up as “re-elect me, and you’ll get more of the same”. Not particularly shrewd, given the polling he must see on a daily basis.

In nixing the Keystone Pipeline, Obama had to know that he was not gaining enviro-nut votes in the same quantity that he would lose union and independents over his stance on the issue.

Now we watch as he alienates the Catholic Church, a voting bloc he carried in 2008, and absolutely must carry in 2012 to have a prayer (pun intended) for a second term.

Is it not possible that those who claimed our President was a “puppet”, controlled by some powerful, nefarious interests, are right? Is it so hard to believe, given what we don’t know about the current occupant of our White House, that they know something on him that gives them the power to tell him to take a hike?

Our President is acting as if he has a very small window to both enjoy the trappings of the Presidency, and impose his will.

Let’s remember that LBJ’s “I shall not seek...” speech occurred on March 31, 1968, a mere seven months prior to that year’s election. There’s still time for a replacement candidate for the party.

We now know Obama’s gone rogue. His Vice President and Chief of Staff were both against squaring off against the Catholic Church. Are his “handlers” now pulling the strings, to get what they want now, instead of waiting for what must look like to them a defeat in November?

Or, if the conspiracists are wrong, and he has no “handlers”, he most certainly is acting as if he feels he won’t be re-elected, and he’s trying to impose as much of his agenda as he can before he leaves office.


14 posted on 02/12/2012 5:56:18 AM PST by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright

He has handlers, I would bet my last dollar on it, there is no way imaginable that he has gotten to where he is by his own efforts. He couldn’t earn enough money to put food in his own mouth without handlers. Go to youtube and spend an hour searching and listening to him, he is very far from the brilliant mind that the left tries to pretend he is.


15 posted on 02/12/2012 6:09:41 AM PST by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

[ Had enough yet? What will be the next personal liberty, guaranteed to you by the Bill of Rights, that you will have to give up in the name of “Change?” ]

The 2nd Amendment. If Obama gets a second term he’ll go around Congress and enact dictatorial gun control laws.


16 posted on 02/12/2012 6:59:31 AM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Exactly. It is the House of Representatives’ duty to impeach .


17 posted on 02/12/2012 7:01:53 AM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
The Constitution is a brilliant document in that it provides for separation of powers and includes checks and balances on that power.

The crisis now is that no one is willing to pursue checks and balances against the executive branch. Applying logic, one would assume the GOP wants to exercise the same powers if and when they hold the executive branch again. It ain't just the current resident of the White House.

18 posted on 02/12/2012 7:46:06 AM PST by buckalfa (Confused and Bewildered With a Glass Half Empty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
No one, not even every elected official, possesses a constitutional right to "alter" or "change" the United States Constitution without "the People's" consent, in accordance with the provisions contained within the Constitution itself.

Dr. George Carey wrote an essay which deals with the so-called "living constitution" question. In that essay, reprinted with permission, below, he cites the Founders' own words on that question:

   







 

 

 

 
 

 

Do We Have
A Living
Constitution?

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton

In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:

"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."

The Congress, unlike the British Parliament, was not given final authority over the Constitution, which partly explains why the judicial authority was lodged in a separate and in­dependent branch of government. In Britain the supreme judicial authority is exercised by a committee of the House of Lords, which is appropriate in a system of parliamentary supremacy, but, although it was suggested they do so, the Framers refused to follow the British example.

The American system is one of constitutional supremacy, which means that sovereignty resides in the people, not in the King-in-Parliament; and the idea that the Constitution may be changed by an act of the legislature--even an act subsequently authorized by the judiciary--is simply incompatible with the natural right of the people to determine how (and even whether) they shall be governed.

Unlike in Britain where, formally at least, the queen rules by the grace of God (Dei gratia regina), American government rests on the consent of the people; and, according to natural right, the consent must be given formally. In fact, it must be given in a written compact entered into by the people. Here is Madison on the compacts underlying American government:

  • "Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt.

  • "The original compact is the one implied or presumed, but nowhere reduced to writing, by which a people agree to form one society. The next is a compact, here for the first time reduced to writing, by which the people in their social state agree to a Govt. over them." (In a letter to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830)

Neither civil society (or as Madison puts it, "the people in their social state') nor government exists by nature. By nature everyone is sovereign with respect to himself, free to do whatever in his judgment is necessary to preserve his own life - or, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, everyone is endowed by nature with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness that he defines for himself. Civil society is an artificial person (constituted by the first of the compacts), and it is civil society that institutes and empowers government. So it was that they became "the People of the United States" in 1776 and, in 1787-88, WE, THE PEOPLE ordained and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."

In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.

  • What THE PEOPLE were not permitted to do in 1787-88 was to deprive - or pretend to deprive - posterity of their natural right to do in the future what the founding generation had done in 1776. Nor could they, by pretending to delegate it to Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court, deprive them of their sovereign power to change the Constitution. Instead, that power was recognized in the Constitution's provisions in Article V.

The Framers had designed a constitutional structure for a government which would be limited by that structure - by the distribution of power into distinct departments, a system of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, a system of representation, and an enlargement of the orbit "within which such systems are to revolve" And to the judges they assigned the duty, as "faithful guardians of the Constitution," to preserve the integrity of the structure, for it is by the structure (more than by "parchment barriers") that the government is limited. It would he only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the judgment of the Founders, the Constitution would "live" as long as that structure was preserved.

The Enduring American Constitution

Now, almost 200 years later, one can read Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 1 and conclude that, under some conditions, some "societies of men" are capable of "establishing good government," but that most are not. This is not for lack of trying; on the contrary, constitutions are being written all the time - of some 164 countries in the world, all but a small handful (seven by the latest count) have written constitutions - but most of them are not long-lived.

In September 1983, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an international conference on constitution writing at the Supreme Court of the United States; some twenty-odd countries were represented. With the exception of the Americans, the persons present had themselves played a role - in some cases a major role - in the writing of their countries' constitutions, most of them written since 1970. Only the con­stitution of the French Fifth Republic predated 1970; and the Nigerian, so ably discussed and defended at the 1983 conference by one of its own Framers, had subsequently been subverted, much as the four previous French republican constitutions had been subverted. It would seem that many peoples are experienced in the writing of constitutions, but only a few of them - conspicuous among these the people of America - have an experience of stable constitutional govern­ment. In that sense, we surely have "a living Constitution." That is not, however, the sense in which the term is ordinarily used in the literature of constitutional law as shall be explored herein.

Treating The Constitution As
A Thing Without Form or Substance:
New Definitions Of 'Living'

In the language of many today, a "living Constitution" is not first of all one that is long-lived; rather, its longevity is a secondary or derivative quality which is attributed to its "flexibility" or better, its "adaptability." It is this quality--"adaptability"-- that allows it to be "kept in tune with the times," as the members of this school of thought sometimes say. According to them, a living Constitution is first of all a protean constitution - one whose meaning is not fixed, but variable.

In this respect, it is similar to the Constitution as understood by the "judicial power" school. Some judicial power advocates go so far as to say that, until the judges supply it in the process of adjudication, the Constitution has no meaning whatever. Here are the words of judge Lynn D. Compton of California, writing in 1977 in the pages of the Los Angeles Times:

"Let's be honest with the public. Those courts are policy-making bodies. The policies they set have the effect of law because of the power those courts are given by the Constitution. The so-called "landmark decisions" of both of U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court were not compelled by legal precedent. Those decisions are the law and are considered "right" simply because the court had the power to decree the result. The result in any of those cases could have been exactly the opposite and by the same criteria been correct and binding precedent.

"In short, these precedent-setting policy decisions were the products of the social, economic and political philosophy of the majority of the justices who made up the court at a given time in history .."

So extreme a view of judicial power is not likely ever to be expressed in the official reports; there (perhaps in order to be dishonest with the public) even the most inventive judge will claim to be expounding the Constitution, if not its ex­plicit provisions then, at least its emanations, penumbras, or lacunae (Griswold v. Connecticut). What is of interest is that a judge should be willing to express it anywhere - for what it means is that a constitutional provision can be interpreted, but not misinterpreted, construed but not misconstrued. More to the point here is that it means that the Constitution is a living charter of government only because it is repeatedly being reinvented by the judiciary.

  • "Creating" Constitutional Rights and Dworkin's Influence

The 'Living Constitution' school and the 'Judicial Power' school may be indistinguishable at the margins, but they derive from unrelated and distinct sources. 'Judicial Power' is a product or an extension of legal realism, the school of thought whose advocates, from the beginning of the twentieth century, have argued that the essence of the judicial process consists not in interpreting law, whether statute or constitutional, but in making it. Its advocates today speak with a certain nonchalance of "creating" constitutional rights (Moore v. City of East Cleveland), and, when pressed to cite their authority for doing so are likely to point to the work of contemporary legal theorists like Ronald Dworkin and his book Taking Rights Seriously . It is Dworkin who has purportedly given this sort of "constitutional lawmaking" what it has always lacked ­ a philosophical underpinning. As he sees it, rights cannot be taken seriously until there has been "a fusion of constitutional law and moral theory," and to make it clear that he is not referring to any particular moral theory that may have informed the Constitution as written, he finishes that sentence by saying that that fusion "has yet to take place."

As it turns out, however, the moral theory he propounds, and which he hopes to "fuse" with constitutional law, proves to be nothing more than a fancy way of justifying what the judge Comptons among us have been doing all along. And what they have been doing is, essentially, treating the Constitution as a thing without form or substance, except insofar as it authorizes the judges to give it substance.

  • The 'Living Constitution' School's Distortion of Marshall

The living Constitution school also claims to have a source more venerable than legal realism or Ronald Dworkin - justice John Marshall. A former president of the American Political Science Association argues that the idea of a " 'living Constitution'...can trace its lineage back to John Marshall's celebrated advice in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 'We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs' " The words quoted are certainly Marshall's but the opinion attributed to him is at odds with his well-known statements that, for example, the "principles" of the Constitution "are deemed fundamental [and] permanent" and, except by means of formal amendment, "unchangeable" (Marbury v. Madison). It is important to note that the discrepancy is not Marshall's; it is largely the consequence of the manner in which he is quoted - ellipses are used to join two statements separated by some eight pages in the original text. Marshall did not say that the Constitution should be adapted to the various crises of human affairs; he said that the powers of Congress are adaptable to meet those crises. The first statement appears in that part of his opinion where he is arguing that the Constitution cannot specify "all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit;" if it attempted to do so, it would "partake of the prolixity of a legal code" (McCulloch v. Maryland), In the second statement, Marshall's subject is the legislative power, and specifically the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the explicitly granted powers.

Neither Marshall nor any other prominent members of the founding generation can be 'appropriated' by the living Constitution school to support their erroneous views. Marshall's and the Founders' concern was not to keep the Constitution in tune with the times but, rather, to keep the times to the extent possible, in tune with the Constitution. And that is why the Framers assigned to the judiciary the task of protecting the Constitution as written.

They were under no illusions that this would prove to be an easy task. Nevertheless, they had reason to believe that they had written a constitution that deserved to endure and, properly guarded, would endure. Hence, Madison spoke out forcefully against frequent appeals to the people for change. Marshall had this Madisonian passage in mind when, in his opinion for the Court in Marbury, he wrote:

  • "That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental: and as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

At this point, it is well to remember Hamilton's strong warning about unwarranted presumptions by those in government of a power to depart from the people's established form as quoted in the title of this essay.

Marshall referred to the "principles" which he called "permanent," and the "basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected" Yet Marshall also chose to address the much broader issue of the general scope of the national powers. The Constitution must be construed to "...allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." It is these powers, not the Constitution, which are flexible and adaptable to meet the crises of "human affairs."

Ironically, the very case cited by the "living Constitution" school, when properly read, demonstrates that John Marshall, at least, saw, no need for flexibility in the Constitution.

Summary: Do We Have A Living Constitution?

What has been undertaken here has been providing (within a very brief compass indeed) an accurate statement of the principles underlying the American Constitution: pointing to (but by no means elaborating) the political theory from which they derive and the constitutional conclusions to which they lead. Among the latter is the untenability of the proposition that constitutional limitations can be jettisoned, constitutional power enhanced, or the constitutional divi­sion of powers altered, by means other than formal constitutional amendment.

It will not be argued that it may sometimes be convenient to allow the Senate to originate a bill "for raising revenue," but convenience is not a measure of constitutionality. There is much to be said in favor of the legislative veto - Who would, in principle, deny the need of checks on administrative agencies? - but, as the Supreme Court correctly said, the Framers anticipated that Congress might find reason to employ such devices and, when designing the so-called "presentment clause" in Article 1, Section 7, forbade them ( Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha). And from a particular par­tisan perspective it is understandably frustrating, simply because the required number of states had not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, to be denied the power to pro­mote the cause of sexual equality; but frustration alone cannot justify a judicial attempt to preclude the necessity of for­mal ratification, as Justice Brennan is said to have wished to do. In Frontiero v. Richardson (411 U.S. 677, 1973) the Supreme Court was divided on the issue of whether sex, like race, should be treated as a suspect classification. We are told that Justice Brennan circulated a draft opinion in which he proposed to declare classification by sex virtually impermissi­ble and that he knew this would have the effect of "enacting" the pending ERA. "But Brennan was accustomed to having the Court out in front, leading any civil rights movement," a major publication stated. Hence, we are further told, he saw "no reason to wait several years for the states to ratify the amendment." No reason, that is, other than the fact, which Brennan implicitly acknowledged, that the Constitu­tion as then written, and which had not yet been rewritten by the only people authorized to rewrite it, did not support the role he would have the Court hand down.

Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."

We are told that it is unreasonable - even foolish - to expect that the Framers could have written a Constitution suitable alike for a society of husbandman and a society of multinational corporations, to say nothing of one as well adapted to the age of the musket and sailing ship as to the age of intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles. As the problems have changed, the argument goes, so must the manner in which they are confronted and solved, and the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Indeed, there is no reason to allow it to stand in the way, we are told, because the Framers intended it to be flexible. And we are told that John Marshall would support this position. But it was Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, who stated: "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported." The United States, in this view was not intended to be a simple society of husbandmen, and Marshall Clearly saw that the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was required to meet the crises of the Republic, and to maintain the Constitutional structure intended by the Framers, changing it only when such change would be in keeping with the structure itself.

That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.

Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987) (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5       (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)


19 posted on 02/12/2012 3:58:16 PM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
We the people...

Lew: Obama's latest stance on birth-control mandate final, puts issue to rest (CAPTION)
Pat Buchanan: 'Obama is trampling on God's turf' (Video)
W.H. official: Contraceptive rule stands
Obama chief of staff: No more compromise, contraceptive rule is done deal
Bishops Reject White House’s New Plan on Contraception (Obama continues his "War On Religion")
Faith/Pro-Life Leaders to Challenge Mandate by Praying and Risking Arrest in Front of the WH
Catholic Bishops: Don't Revise, Rescind
Obama's contempt for the Constitution
US Bishops: Obama's 'Compromise' Has No Clear Protection...(Needless Government Intrusion)
Protests Continue Over Insurance for Contraception, Abortifacients (Feds Under Increasing Pressure
Bishops to Obama: No dice
Paul VI: “danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities ...”
Michael Moore Goes On Anti-Catholic Twitter Rant, Distorts Contraception Debate
Another Catholic college vows it will ‘not violate conscience’ on Obama mandate
Lutherans join chorus of voices slamming HHS contraceptive mandate
The Obama HHS 'Compromise' Switches the Tiger for the Lion (Not all Catholics buying Obama's bull)
Hannity on now with Priests, Pastors and Rabbis. Please watch

EDITORIAL: Obama’s free abortion pills
U.S. bishops ‘express concerns’ about Obama mandate ‘accommodation’
What Compromise? This Policy Leaves Religious Liberty in Peril and Planned Parenthood Smiling (Albert Mohler Opinion)
Bishops Renew Call To Legislative Action On Religious Liberty
Southern Baptist leader: Obama gave Christians ‘the dismissive back’ of his hand
Obama's Act of Tyranny
Bishops Were Prepared for Battle Over Birth Control Coverage
'Accounting gimmick' -- Obama compromise still threatens religious liberty, leaders say
Bishops ‘concerned’ over reworded mandate; other Catholic leaders slam as ‘insult to injury’
Obama Bows to Pressure, but His Religious 'Accommodation' Even Worse

Don't Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!
Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test ("It doesn't change a thing")
Compromise or Accommodation, it’s still unacceptable. (updated from Catholic Vote)
Pres. Obama’s “Plan B” compromise, Sr. Keehan, and the Magisterium of Nuns
Land Says Obama Mandate Most Anti-Catholic Government Action in 150 Years
Motive, Means and Opportunity: Obama’s Assault on Catholics
(Exempt Catholics) Joe Biden, Bill Daley warned of contraceptive backlash
(Tim) Thomas makes second political statement (Stands With Catholics)
Southern Baptist leader: If Obama mandate isn’t changed, Christians will go to jail
Over 150 congressional leaders demand repeal of HHS mandate

Boehner vows to overturn Obama’s birth control coverage rule
Boehner: Congress to overturn birth control policy if Obama does not reverse course
O'Brien says Archdiocese of Baltimore won't offer birth control coverage
Archbishop of San Francisco says Obama ruling strikes at religious freedom
How Obama Lost the Catholic Vote
‘I am going to stick with fellow Catholics’ in Pres. Obama’s war on Catholics. Wherein Fr. Z rants.
Unholy War
Six Things Everyone Should Know about the HHS Mandate
Santorum: Obama Hostile to Christians
Understanding Oppostion to the HHS Mandate (Part 1): Why the Church Won’t Pay for Contracept

The Bishops Chickens Coming Home to Roost.
65 Orthodox Church bishops call on Obama to ‘rescind’ the ‘unjust’ contraception mandate
Doug Kmiec Writes Obama: 'Friendship Will Not Permit Me to Disregard Duty to Faith and Country'
Catholic Outcry Over Obama Administration's Birth Control Decision Could Factor In Presidential Race
Standing with the Bishops [Catholic Caucus]
Updated: *167* Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate
Outrage!… Military Tells Chaplains What They Can and Can’t Say About HHS/ObamaAssault on Religion
Updated: *153* Bishops (Over 80% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate
An Affront Catholics Agree On [Liberal and Conservative Catholics Against Obama Mandate]
Army Silenced Chaplains Last Sunday

Catholic Military Archdiocese & Chaplains interfered with last Sunday by Pres. Obama’s Admin
The Anti-Catholic President v. the Catholic Bishops
Sen. Rubio introduces bill to reverse Obama birth control mandate
Churches balk at birth control rule - Catholics won’t comply, Bishop Kevin Rhoades says
Protestants and Jews declare to White House: We stand with Catholics
Checking the Air Outside [Bp. Zubik's follow up to Obama's “To Hell with You”]
Mohler [Southern Baptist] Says Insurance Mandate Not Just 'Catholic' Issue
An Open Letter to President Barack Obama Concerning Recent Tyranny (With Pictures!)
Lincoln bishop: prepare for 'suffering' under HHS mandate
Bishop David Zubik confronts Obama
Obama’s ‘war on the church’

Pope hits out at 'radical secularism'
‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate
‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate
Bruskewitz: Fight Insurance Ruling [Sebelius a "bitter, fallen away Catholic"]
Letter from Archbishop John G. Vlazny on the matter of freedom of conscience and decisions by HHS
Bishop Olmsted's Letter to Catholics [Catholic Caucus]
Liberty for the Amish & Quakers but not Catholics. . .
Contraception mandate prompts Peoria bishop to instate St. Michael Prayer (Catholic Caucus)
Phoenix bishop (Olmstead): defy feds on birth control
A letter from Archbishop Dennis M. Schnurr concerning HHS edict

Speak honestly: abortion is ‘the killing of tiny human beings in the womb’ – Denver bishop
Bishop [Daniel Jenky] Blasts Secularist Intolerance, Calls For ‘Assertive Action’ to Defend Church
(Pittsburgh Bishop Zubik comments:) HHS delays rule on contraceptive coverage
Dolan: Natural law, not religious preference, dictates all life sacred
Religious leaders blast HHS over contraception mandate
Mandated Contraception, Sterilization: Caesar Demands Church Violate Conscience
OBAMA’S CONTEMPT FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (mandates coverage of sterilization & contraception)
Implications of Obama Admin move to force Cath hospitals to provide contraception and sterilizations
Catholic doctors’ group launches petition against contraception mandate
Contraception mandate tramples religious freedom, US bishops say

20 posted on 02/12/2012 4:32:23 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Great post! Thanks.


21 posted on 02/12/2012 4:33:44 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

We can complain all we want,If the American People elect this Marxist again Then thats it,thats what the American People want,Period end of story.
Problem is we have a Bunch of Cowards in Washington who only want to keep the Gravy train running,Just as Sarah Palin said in her speech,The Washington area Is Doing just fine


22 posted on 02/13/2012 4:34:19 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

23 posted on 02/13/2012 6:31:31 AM PST by do the dhue (WARNING: this site is not liable for the things I say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright

He does not care since he knows that the 50% of welfare parasites in this country will vote for him regardless of what he does.


24 posted on 02/13/2012 6:47:32 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright

He does not care since he knows that the 50% of welfare parasites in this country will vote for him regardless of what he does.


25 posted on 02/13/2012 6:52:04 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson