Tag Archives: u.s. constitution

Repeal This Amendment!

See the source image

As usual, leftids and noozies are clamoring for the repeal of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. They want only criminals and the government to be armed, and normal people to be defenseless.

Forget about it. The amendment most in need of repeal is now, as it has been ever since it was adopted in 1913, the Seventeeth Amendment.

Originally the Constitution provided for each state’s two U.S. senators to be selected by their respective states’ legislatures. That was because their job was to represent their states.

But in 1913 this was changed so that from then on, senators would be elected by popular vote. This has been an inexhaustible source of mischief and corruption.

Now, instead of representing their states, U.S. senators represent national and even global special interests. Every time a lobbyist buys a senator, he becomes the proud owner of 1% of the total vote. And you’d better believe the senators are for sale. And it’s really hard to get rid of them. If you’re a senator and the National Education Assn. is supporting you, that means virtually unlimited funds for your re-election campaign.

Out-of-state money and even foreign money pours into key elections, with the people of those states at best a minor consideration. It’s become a disgusting spectacle.

You can talk about draining the swamp from now till Doomsday: but the popularly-elected U.S. Senate is the very heart of the swamp. The Senate is the Swamp. If it were returned to its original, pre-17th Amendment form, the swamp would find it hard to stay in business.


Yes, the Supreme Court Does Exceed Its Authority

A reader, Invisible Mikey, has taken me to task for not understanding the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review and for saying that the court, far exceeding its Constitutional authority, makes laws. You can see his full statement as a comment appended to the previous post, “Libs Move to Protect Religious Liberty.”

I have just re-read, twice, Article III of the Constitution, which defines the role of the Supreme Court. There is nothing in there about court decisions becoming “the law of the land” without benefit of legislation.

But we don’t bother with legislation anymore, do we? The court makes a ruling, or the president issues an executive order–“stroke of the pen, law of the land: cool!” And, as if by magic, marriage suddenly becomes the union of two persons of the same sex.

During my lifetime, politicians have used the Supreme Court to do their dirty work for them. Thus school prayer gets abolished, the state religion of the USA becomes secular humanism, abortion becomes “the law of the land” and snuffs out 50 million babies, and now even the most basic institutions of society are not safe from the court’s tampering.

All of these innovations were given to the court to execute because the politics for any one of them just wasn’t right. Introduce a bill in Congress to ban school prayer and see what the voters think of that.

I do not believe the polls that supposedly tell us that the American people are “overwhelmingly in  favor of gay marriage.” If that were so, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for politicians to ride the crest of the wave and redefine marriage using the ordinary legislative process, right under the dome of the capitol building. But again the dirty work was left to the court.

This is not to excuse Congress. Congress makes some truly horrible laws. But the strictly Constitutional remedy, when they do that, is to vote ’em out. Judicial Review was only established years after the ratification of the Constitution–and not by legislation, or amendment, but only by custom and public acceptance of the court’s expansion of its powers. It seemed like a good idea at the time!

I wonder what will be left of the Constitution by this time next year.


Can the President Raise Your Taxes?

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives… (Section 7)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises… (Section 8)

–Article I of the United States Constitution

When Valerie Jarrett, back in 2008, said Obama was “ready to rule,” no one realized she meant it literally.

Fresh off his stroke-of-the-pen “executive amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens, President *Batteries Not Included now contemplates a “unilateral tax hike” by means of yet another executive order ( http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/03/02/obama-very-interested-in-raising-taxes-through-executive-action-n1964629 ).

The Constitution–laughingly referred to as the supreme law of the land–gives Congress the exclusive power to raise taxes. So what does this president think he is doing?

We can shed some light on this thanks to an exclusive interview with a presidential adviser named Carbuncle, who normally appears to be nothing more than a small growth near the president’s armpit. While the president is asleep, or otherwise insensible, Carbuncle can take the form of a large insect and move about independently.

“He will tell you he only wants to raise a mere $100 billion–chicken-feed!–by closing off tax loopholes and punishing those big corporations that everybody hates,” said Carbuncle. “This is going to happen in all 57 states, and that $100 billion is only the first installment.

“The president is distressed that some vestiges of the Constitution might remain intact after his final year in office. He is also keen to establish many more vacation residences for himself in various countries of the world. That will cost lots of dollars! So far he is looking at places in Costa Rica, Dubai, Switzerland, the Maldives, and some 90 other undisclosed locations.”

How can the former community organizer get away with such blatant violations of the law?

“Easy! Simple!” answered Carbuncle. “He knows no one in America will dare to demand his impeachment, because everyone in America is terrified of being called a racist. They would rather bow down to a tyrant than run the risk of being slammed by the media. So he can do anything he wants.”

Besides which, he whispered, while suggestively waving his antennae, “He has help from a place that many Americans don’t believe in but that all are afraid of.”


Why Executive Amnesty is Morally Wrong

For the time being, a federal judge has put the kibosh on President *Batteries Not Included’s “executive amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens. But of course, once “progressives” have an evil work in hand, they never drop it. And the headlines are full of Republican surrender monkeys who seem to think the last election didn’t count.

Let us disregard, for the sake of argument, the probably irreparable harm that would be done by trying to digest, all at once, millions of unskilled poor people who come here from a foreign country and can’t speak English. Indeed, let’s go farther–even farther than Fat-head Jeb Bush, who thinks erasing our borders will somehow “lift our spirits.” Let’s say this wholesale amnesty will be altogether a blessing: guaranteed to get our economy moving again, re-invigorate a rotting culture, refresh our social institutions, and result in each and every one of us getting a highly-paid no-show job with a big fat pension that kicks in when we turn 35.

Executive amnesty would still be wrong.

Why? Because, as the president himself has remarked many times, during lucid intervals, the Constitution simply doesn’t give a president that kind of power. He cannot exercise such power without way overstepping his bounds. He can’t do it without violating the law and threatening the continued existence of our republican form of government.

Should the chief executive of a modern, civilized country also be its chief law-breaker?

And if Congress is willing to let a president function as a king, at the expense of its own Constitutional prerogatives and sphere of authority–well, then, what does that make them?

At the moment, it seems that all that stands between America and monarchy is a single federal judge.

That, and our prayers.


%d bloggers like this: