For as long as I have been writing a column, either in this sector, or in various other columns, books, or whatever; I have always held to the Constitution of our great nation, as to what should or should not go on in America. The Founders created a document which has been copied all around the world, as a wonderful example of how to govern and limit powers of governments. Our Constitution is a positive document, and was created as such by the Founders. The Constitution tells government what it can do and is to do, not what it cannot do. This was an incredible foresight by the writers. In 1782, who could have thought of electricity, cars, the internet, telephones, planes, trains, or most of what we have and enjoy today? By making the Constitution a positive document, future economic, technical, transportation, and communication developments, were covered. How smart they were! Those who would act contrary to the Constitution, often say that it doesn’t say they cannot do this or that. To me, it should seem obvious that if it tells you what to do, it is not necessary to tell you what you cannot do. Patents, technical inventions, and other civilized progress, are therefore covered.
Let’s then go to the Constitution and see how it may affect President Obama, or for that matter any past Presidents. Fair? I think so. The very first words of Article One, say, “All legislative Powers granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Could it be any simpler? Could it be any more of a condemnation of what goes on in D.C.? When bureaucrats by the tens of thousands make laws, which they conveniently call ’rules,’ but which have the total structure of laws, combining force, prosecution and punishment, aren’t they ’laws?’ According to the Constitution, do bureaucrats have a Constitutional power to legislate? By any stretch of meanings in the English language, could a department which enforces, prosecutes, and punishes for violators, be any other than a law or law maker? Yet the very first words, after the introduction of the Constitution say that “All legislative Powers…are vested in a Congress.” Not a bureaucracy, in other words. This is why I have often written that 90% of the federal government should be abolished. We would not be without government if 90% of the Federal government were abolished. Remember the Tenth Amendment? American would have 50 individual, independent state governments, which is what the Founders wanted and wrote into the Bill of Rights.
Article Two, concerns the President, and has Four Sections, which give what qualifications he or she must meet, that he or she must be compensated, due process in case of death, and the oath of taking office, giving a report to the nation of progress, etc. Section Four says that the President shall be Commander in chief of the armed forces, shall have power with advice and consent of two thirds of the Senate to make to make treaties, and appointments which shall be established by law, and other phrases, telling the President what he or she may do. No where in Article Two of our Constitution, doe it say that the President may make laws, since that power is vested in the Congress. He may veto laws passed by the Congress, but may not make laws. He may obviously propose laws, veto laws, and advise, but the Congress has the power vested in it to make laws.
No where in the Constitution, does it give permission for “Executive Orders,” which are, in any stretch of anyone’s possible imagination, making laws. Obama has done it over and over again, as have previous Presidents, including Roosevelt., Reagan, Truman, Wilson, and most all of them. What Constitutional permission, does any President have, for making an ’Executive Order?” I can find none. Roosevelt issued an executive Order in 1933, ordering everyone to exchange their gold for paper money, or face fines and prison. A few did, but it was never enforced. Had it gone to the Supreme Court, I am certain it would have been quickly negated. I contend that ALL EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, regardless of which President issues them.
As far as the current outrage on immigration by Obama, it is purely a political act, designed to get Hispanics to vote Democrat in two years. For Obama’s first two years in office, both houses were held by Democrats, and such a law could have easily passed, but he never suggested one. 25 times, Obama has said that he doesn’t have the power to do what he just did. He is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, and supposedly taught the Constitution at a famous university. Since no one knows anything about Obama’s scholastic records, or for that matter anything about him, his records of teaching, seem to be suspicious to me. Will Republicans challenge his unconstitutional order? They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Obama’s unconstitutional order was a master stroke from a drowning man.
“I HOLD THESE TRUTHS”: 355 pages, 89 chapters, $9.95 mailed to you, U.S. only. Check to “I Hold These Truths” Box 256, 236 S. 3rd St. Montrose, CO 81401. I can send 12 for $7 each, ($84), if you have a shop or gift list, due to much lower cost of shipping in a flat rate box. If you like my columns, you will love the book, since I have written what I think about 89 subjects. This is a totally non-profit deal. I make NOTHING on these books!