Obama continues to ignore our Constitution and his own words as it suits him to do so. This Heritage Foundation article describes his most apparent and egregious actions to install himself as the modern day version of King George III.
By repeatedly enacting laws that have been rejected by a duly elected Congress and the voters, he is willfully damaging the office he currently holds and placing himself above the rule of law. Through executive and regulatory fiat he has unilaterally imposed his version of Cap-and-Trade, the Employee Free Choice Act, Internet regulation, and waivers to federal education laws. He has simply ignored immigration law (and actively attacked those who attempt to enforce it). He has thumbed his nose at existing narcotics laws, the DOMA, and other legislation as it suited him to do so. Most recently, his Attorney General has carried out a two year long campaign of stonewalling Congressional investigations, which Obama himself has now topped off by claiming executive privilege. He has effectively argued that his Department of Justice is exempt from responding to Congressional investigations.
As the Heritage article argues, although we currently have an imperial presidency, we don’t need a new Declaration of Independence from our modern day King George. We need a President that will humble himself and take up his proper role as a servant of the people. We need a President who will abide by the Constitution that he has sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend.”
Update: Reason magazine picks up on the same theme and adds to the list of Mr. Obama’s anti-Constitutional offenses. Worse, they are forced to explain to Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, why not getting his own way does not justify trashing the Constitution.
Amazing to watch an elected representative, in a public venue, openly admit that he believes the federal government can do pretty much anything it wants – Constitution be damned.
Pete Stark remains one of the clearest and most pressing examples of why voters need to clean out DC this November.
This video speaks for itself.
Hat tip to Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air
Today’s the big day. The SCOTUS will hear arguments in the District of Columbia v. Heller (D.C. gun ban / Second Amendment) case today. This is the first time since 1939 that the SCOTUS has considered the question of whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right.
The NRA has a good compilation of the arguments presented by both sides, as well as the Amicus Briefs filed by others in the case.
Project 21 and the National Center for Public Policy Research have a good editorial on why the D.C. gun ban is so wrong-headed.
As this Reason article describes, Obama is no friend of the American firearms owner and his understanding of little things like the Constitution are sadly lacking (or worse, have become purposefully distorted in the pursuit of his ideology).
In last year’s ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon review, the D.C. Circuit overturned a Washington, D.C., gun law that bans possession of handguns in the home and requires that rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” The law thereby effectively bars city residents from using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.
Obama evidently considers that de facto prohibition a “common-sense regulation,” since he recently cited Washington’s law as an example of constitutionally permissible gun control. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t borne out by our Constitution,” he said. …
It’s not surprising that Obama sees nothing unconstitutional about this situation, since he does not acknowledge that the Second Amendment has anything to do with self-defense. “As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms,” his website claims. “He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting” (emphasis added).
Here’s a few reminders of Rudy Giuliani’s take on the Second Amendment for those who might have considered voting for him.
If little things like the Constitution mean anything to you, you’ll probably want to look for another Republican presidential candidate.
Borrowed from Flahsbunny.org