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.
Michael
Connelly
No comments:
Post a Comment