Showing posts with label Unconstitutional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unconstitutional. Show all posts

David Horowitz Is an IDIOT. [Tin Foil Hat Socialism at its finest.]

12/08/2008 11:52:00 AM

(0) Comments

New Image Horowitz published an article today titled “Obama Derangement Syndrome” with a by-line of “Shut up about the birth certificate.”  [Also found on his blog.]

“What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?  Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others.  But how viable will out Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”

Well Mr. Horowitz, this is what I have to say to you.  First on the point of the Supreme Court.  It would not be the Supreme Court that would void 64 million ballots, it would be the fact that Obama can or can not prove via a “Certificate of Live Birth” vs a “Certification of Live Birth”, which are two totally different documents in Hawaii that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.  Yes, yes, go ahead and quote “Fact Check”, but also remember that previously “Fact Check” had posted that Obama was a British Citizen…..  I’ll be more than happy to pull up a cap of the page when it stated that. 

Secondly, as to constitutional principle, lets take a look at the First Amendment, which allows you the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press to show your stupidity and Socialism.  If you don’t want to follow the Constitution regarding the next President of the United States, this also include abolishing the First Amendment soooo… say bye, bye to that right.  In other words….

SHUT UP ABOUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE HOROWITZ. And if you want to pick and choose which Constitutional rights and laws you want to follow, why don’t you EXERCISE YOUR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT?

Its not sore “loserism”, because I neither voted Republican nor Democrat.  In fact, I hated them both equally.  And it’s not “radical” to want to follow the Constitution of the United States.  Anyone who does not support the Constitution is un-American, is that what you are trying to say about yourself?

Since when is protecting the Constitution radical, unless your a Socialist.  Oh wait.. you were once a supporter of Marxism as well as a member of the New Left in the 1960s, and are the son of two life-long members of the Communist Party.. what was I thinking….

103105horowitzdavid Oh and yes, you once stated in an interview that, “I grew up in a community that was part of a vast international conspiracy, just as the anti-Communists said it was.  It was orchestrated from Moscow, funded by the Kremlin and it had treason in its heart.”  --- Ummm.. okay.. who’s wearing a tin foil hat now?

And let’s not forget about your friend Huey P. Newton of the Blank Panthers to whom you provided legal and financial assistance to.

The fact is that according to you, the birth certificate is a factual question, not a constitutional question.  Well, sweetie, lemme inform you of something.  If the birth certificate is void, null, bogus (choose your word here), and Obama can not produce a valid, certified (choose your word here) birth certificate, then it does become a Constitutional issue.

And the last time I checked, the Supreme Court, by history, has interpreted the Constitution of the United States, and interpreted Federal laws, as does ANY judge in the United States and jury in the United States.  Interpret the law as you understand it, and then judge on your interpretation and understanding of that law.

It would not undermine the unity of the country, it would show serious lapses in how one can legally become President of the United States.  There are NO checks and balances for this process.

Your claim to be a conservative, yet you do not wish to uphold the Constitution is an embarrassment to all conservatives.

Here’s the bottom line:

■  The point about Obama and his birth certificate is the fact that he has spent nearly $800,000 or $80,000 (I’ve seen both) on lawyers to NOT show the document.

■  Obama claims, in one of his books, Dreams I believe, that he found his original birth certificate in a book that belonged to his mother after her death.  It to stand to reason that he would still be in possession of it, since he was considering running for office when she died. 

■  The fact that his Grandmother in Kenya stated she was present at his birth in Kenya.

■  The facts that his sister stated he was born at two different hospitals in Hawaii.

■  The fact that you don’t have to be born in Hawaii, or even the US to have a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, but you DO have to be born in Hawaii to have a “Certificate of Live Birth”.  The two documents are totally different.

■  The fact that the man simply won’t show the document is the bottom line.  What is the problem with showing the document if you have nothing to hide?  Why fight showing it to end the debate and earn trust in those who don’t believe him?  What is there too loose, other than being shown as a fraud and loosing the eligibility as the next President of the United States?  Oh wait…..

■  It is not those who want to see the birth certificate that are keeping this alive.  It is Obama himself by not doing a simple task that everyone else in the United States has to do to prove citizenship.

horowitzcomiconly2 And oh yea, I’ve been compared to Michael Savage (although I originally had no idea who the guy was, and as of this moment, I’ve never listened to him) and told I make Rush Limbaugh look like a Democrat (whom I hated very much in the early 90s and haven’t listened to him since).  And no, I have no problem with unseating ANY PERSON, who has used bogus documents, no matter what position they held, to fraudulently obtain a position.  If that is radical and un-American, I guess it’s time for me to find a new country to live in.

Oh an you know I had to post the cartoon on the right, since Horowitz just LOVES it.  And it’s also protected by the First Amendment.

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

It’s Official, Obama Breaks Constitutional Law. Will the US Senate Be Next? [End of this Blog]

12/01/2008 09:00:00 AM

(0) Comments

UnitedSocialistStatesOfAmericaFlag Obama announced this morning that Hillary Clinton would be the next Secretary of State.

“I assembled this team because I am a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions,” he said.  “I think that’s how the best decisions are made.”

The only thing Obama forgot to say is that he also believes in violating the United States Constitution.  Hillary Clinton is NOT eligible for the position of Secretary of State via the Constitution.

I ask you how can a man ethically take the oath for Presidency which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, when he isn’t even following or respecting Constitutional Law?

The final step for Obama to truly break this law is for confirmation by the Senate for Clinton, along with Holder and Napolitano, to these positions.  I ask you, is this still a Democratic sovereign nation, if 1.  our next president willfully and voluntarily breaks Constitutional Law, and 2.  our own Congress willfully and voluntarily breaks Constitutional Law?

I urge everyone to email, call or write their Senator and demand that our Constitution be followed.

And, this is the end of this blog.  No one cares how many Constitutional Laws that Obama is trying to break.  It does not matter that he plans on violating the 13th Amendment with his required America Serves program.  It does not matter that Obama refuses to end the debate over whether he is a natural born US citizen or not, even if it is a crazy conspiracy theme.  He’d rather deal with it for the next 4 years instead of ending the accusations now.  Those who voted for Obama, you wanted “change” you got it.  The Constitution is dying.  Say good bye to all your rights.  But all the US citizens seem to care about is who wins “Dancing with the Stars” or who wins “American Idol” or what happens next week on “Desperate Housewives.”

A year from now, you will have no one to blame but yourselves for the destruction of the Constitution and the true beginning of Socialism.

And I am wasting my time trying to blog the truth. 

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Obama Ignores Constitutional Law Prohibiting Clinton As Secretary of State.

12/01/2008 04:14:00 AM

(0) Comments

unconstitutional-the-movie1Gee look, another instance where Obama ignoring Constitutional law, and thinks his word is golden, although the man has a law degree and formerly lectured on Constitutional law. 

One other thing to remember in reading all this is that Obama did sign an “American Freedom Pledge” during the Democratic presidential election, which encourages the restoration of basic Constitutional principles. [*KOFF KOFF*] On a side note, it took quite awhile for the Obama camp to agree to sign the pledge.

In this document it simply asked the candidates to affirm a statement that read:  “We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. [NOTE:  Does this include in times of declared war?] I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President.”  The only person who did not sign this document was Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton can not legally be Secretary of State due to a clause in the Constitution under the “Emoluments Clause”, or salary or other compensation for employment.  In other words, Congress cant create new jobs or give raises to existing jobs, and then take those same jobs for themselves.  In “regular Joe” verbage, this means that Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time that person held office in Congress. 

Article I, Section 6, Clause 2

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time:  and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

PAY INCREASE

By Executive Order dated January 4, 2008, President Bush ordered the salaries of Cabinet Secretaries to be raised from $186,000 to $191,300.  So thus, the pay for the Secretary of State increased this year.  This is the salary increase or the “emolument” increase .  Senator Clinton’s current term runs from 2007 to 2012, thus she is ineligible for taking said Secretary or State position until the end of her term.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Eugene Volokh, who is a Professor of Law at UCLA teaches free speech law, criminal law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law.  Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  He has also written three textbooks,over 50 law review articles and over 80 opinion-editorials.  Here is his take on things:

So, “Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?”  In a word, Yes – or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.

The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”  As I understand it, President Bush’s executive order from earlier this year “encreased” the “Emoluments” (salary) of the office of Secretary of State.  Lat I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time.  Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be appointed to an office for which “the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased” during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator.  The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment … if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn’t on these matters, of course).

But presidents Taft, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all ignored the Constitution, and used a loophole around it.  They did it by lower the pay, after the fact.  But still, this is not necessarily legal. 

In Nixon’s situation, he nominated Sen. William Saxbe (R-OH) to serve as his Attorney General after the Saturday Night Massacre, but the AG’s salary had been increased in 1969 during Saxbe’s term.  Nixon persuaded Congress to lower Saxbe’s salary to the pre-1969 level, and the “Saxbe fix” was born.

Volokh continues on this matter about the Saxbe Fix:

Then there’s the infamous “Saxbe Fix” precedent, which I discuss in Lloyd.  Couldn’t Congress pass a repealing statute, or President Bush (or even President Obama) rescind the executive order, selectively, as to Hillary and make everybody happy?  Nope:  The clause forbids the appointment of someone to an office the emoluments whereof “shall have been increased”.  A “fix” can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events.  The emoluments of the office have been increased.  The rule specified in the text still controls.

Additionally on the Saxbe fix, Sen. Robert Byrd was opposed to this fix, saying the Constitution was explicit and “we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

ANOTHER OPINION

Volokh hased John O’ Connor, who wrote an article on the subject, The Emoluments Caluse:  An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995) [PDF], for his opinion on the matter.

“I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State.  I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.

… Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been increased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected,” or until January 2013.

… By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been increased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased. … The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.

The more difficult question is whether Senator Clinton’s ineligibility for appointment may be cured legislatively through the “Saxbe Fix,” where Congress reduces the Secretary of State’s salary to a level at or below where it was when Senator Clinton’s current term began in 2007. …

It is in my view that the Saxbe Fix fails to remove an ineligibility for appointment.  I believe the Saxbe Fix is ineffectual based on the plain reading of the Emoluments Clause and is also contrary to the intent of that clause.  The Emoluments Clause provides an ineligibility for appointment to an office the emoluments of which ‘have been increased.’  Even if the emoluments of the office are later reduced, it seems to me that they ‘have been encreased’ during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term even if they are later decreased.”

NOT THE FIRST TIME FOR THE CLINTONS AND THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE

In 1993 President-elect Clinton sought to confirm Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) as his Treasury Secretary, despite his having been reelected to the Senate in 1989 prior to a Cabinet pay raise.  On January 5, 1993, Senator John Glenn and others introduced S.J. Res. 1, which read in its relevant parts:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the compensation and other emoluments attached tot he office of Secretary of the Treasury shall be those in effect January 1, 1989, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under--

(1) the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-194) or any other provision of law amended by that Act; or

(2) any other provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of January 3, 1989, and ending at noon of January 3, 1995.

[…]

This joint resolution shall become effective at 12:00 p.m., January 20, 1993.

It passed both Houses without objection, and was signed into law by President Bush on January 19, 1993.  Bentsen would receive an annual salary of $99,500 for his Cabinet service, far less than his colleagues at $148,400.  When the issue threatened to resurface in 1996 upon the nomination of Cong. Bill Richardson and Sen. William Cohen to UN Ambassador and Defense Secretary, respectively, the USDOJ Office of Legal Counsel mooted the issue by noting that the pay increase for Richardson’s position occurred prior to his current term in Congress, and that Cohen’s Senate term would expire before his being sworn in.

Again however, this goes back to what Volokh said on the matter that a"’fix’ can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events.  The emoluments of the office have been increased.  The rule specified in the text still controls.”

Additionally, President Bill Clinton re-wrote part of the Constitution in 1998.

BOTTOM LINE

The mostly Democratic Congress will just type up a new “bill” to fix everything, thus changing our Constitution so that Hilliary can sit in office.

Just like Obama not needing to show his "Birth Certificate” but instead choosing to show a document titled “Certification of Live Birth” which does not show his birthplace, thus a Constitutional violation.  Additionally his Aunt stated she witnessed his birth in Africa.  And the Kenyan Ambassador has stated that Kenya is planning on building a monument in Kenya at Obama’s birthplace.

Just like Obama wanting to require school aged children and college students to “serve” by doing hours of community service, which is a 13th Amendment violation.

And all of this before the man is even in office.

All I have to say on the matter, is that if Clinton is appointed to the Secretary of State seat, this blog will end as our Constitution is slowly being killed off by Obama.  The “change” will be that there will no longer be a Constitution, and thus all your rights including freedom of speech, right to freedom of religion, and simply your right to freedom.

And what is truly sad, is that no one seems to care.

SOURCES:

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)