ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Since Barack Hussein Obama became President of the United States it seems that we have been a constant state of Constitutional crisis. He has repeatedly violated his oath of office, ignored the Constitutional balance of powers by bypassing Congress in order to rewrite or make new laws, and ignoring rulings by the courts. He has sought the destruction of our free market economy, tried to divide us along racial, ethnic and economic lines, and blamed the American people for all the ills of the world.
Obama has launched an all-out assault on the Bill of Rights, seeking to severely limit or completely destroy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, and all the rest of our God given rights. He has decimated the capability of our military to effectively defend us, has destroyed the morale of our troops, and caused the death of many of our heroes by imposing rules of engagement designed to protect our enemies.
He has provided “aid and comfort” to our enemies by releasing known terrorists from captivity to rejoin the fight against us, refused to identify our enemy as Islamic Jihadists, and provided access to the White House and our government to those who support our destruction and the imposition of Sharia law on the entire world.
With all of this being said, you are probably wondering what other Constitutional crisis we are facing that could be even more damaging. The answer is both simple and devastating. Obama is about to trash other key provisions of the Constitution and he is doing it with the active support of the Republican leaders in Congress. Remember them; they are the folks we elected to stop the Obama onslaught.
I am referring specifically to the treaty with Iran that gives this terrorist supporting nation a quick path to obtain nuclear weapons while receiving billions of dollars to finance terrorist attacks around the world. First, I believe a good case can be made that this agreement is in fact a treaty under the classic legal definition and therefore cannot go into effect unless consented to by two thirds of the U.S. Senate.
It has to be either a treaty or an executive agreement made by the President. A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries, made under international law that is enforceable by the parties. The so called agreement with Iran certainly appears to fit the definition. On the other hand, if it is an executive agreement or an executive order it can be rescinded by the next President. By its very language it is a long term agreement over the next ten to fifteen years. The wording of the document clearly indicates that there should not be any way for the parties to unilaterally rescind it. Yet, the leaders of Congress have acquiesced to Obama’s claim that it is an Executive agreement.
That is the first violation of the Constitution, yet there is a second one that can be even more devastating. Under the agreement reached by Obama and the Republican leaders of congress, the House and Senate will have sixty days to review the agreement and then approve or disapprove it by a straight up or down vote. If the Congress votes yes than the agreement goes into effect. If either the House or the Senate votes no than the President will be allowed to veto that vote and the Congress will have to get a two thirds majority to override the veto.
I think this is a clear violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution that allows the President to either sign or veto laws or bills “passed” by Congress. There is no provision in the Constitution and no legal precedent that I can find that allows the President to “veto” and therefor override a bill or law that does not pass both houses of Congress. The whole idea turns the Constitution on its head. If this was allowed to stand then the President would essentially be a dictator able to unilaterally put laws into place that Congress had voted down. I believe even some liberals on the Supreme Court would be hard pressed to approve of what would be a major amendment to the Constitution that did not go through the constitutionally mandated amendment process. I think a challenge to this procedure would be successful.
However, in order to get by the question of legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of this I believe a suit must be filed by a member of Congress, preferably a member of the Senate. Yet, it appears that no one is willing to do this, although it is clearly their obligation under their oath of office. If someone does step up to the plate I will offer my services and those of the United States Justice Foundation to assist in such litigation.
If no challenge is made than Obama will certainly get the votes of 13 left wing Democrats in the Senate to prevent the override of the veto. At that point we can say goodbye to the Constitution and our freedoms. We will be officially under a dictatorship with none of our elected members of Congress even willing to put up a fight.