Can They Really Sidestep the Constitution?

Image result for images of democrats shredding the constitution

First you rip up the State of the Union Speech, and then the Constitution

Can the states get together and chop a piece off the Constitution?

Democrats have made a lot of noise lately about abolishing the Electoral College, which protects 47 states from being dictated to by New York, California, and Illinois. Because there’s no longer any meaningful instruction in civics anywhere, most people don’t understand what the Electoral College is, how it works, and why we need it. That makes them easy prey to pious babblings about “making the country more democratic.”

So a bunch of blue states, Democrat states, have this thing going, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: by which, if they get enough states signed up, they can completely overturn the purpose of the Electoral College by providing for all the electoral votes of any state to go to the candidate that wins the popular vote, nationally–no matter how the people in that state may have voted. This is an end run around the Constitution.

For the sake of simplicity, what does the Constitution actually say? Do you need to go to law school for 17 years before you can begin to understand it? Let’s just see what it says (https://www.thoughtco.com/constitution-article-i-section-10-3322336).

Article 1, Section 10–we are interested primarily in the third clause, which says:

“No state shall, without the consent of Congress… enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power…”

I don’t think that’s so hard to understand. Do you? Like, the whole section is merely saying that states aren’t allowed to act like independent countries.

An immense amount of pettifogging lawyer lingo has sprung up around these clear and simple words, so that now no one is sure whether or not the states can drastically alter the Constitution without going through the amendment process. Our founders purposely made the amendment process long and difficult, so that foolish things should not be done in the heat of the moment–historically, a fatal failing of “democracy.”

But because our education system is a bad joke played on us, every day, by radicals, most people know very little, if any, of our country’s history, virtually nothing of her founding documents, and have little or no appreciation of what those things are that make the United States uniquely great among all the other countries in the world.

Trust me on this: you absolutely don’t want to trade our Constitution for the United Kingdom’s. Or anybody else’s. The United States grew great because it was different! And one of the most important factors in that difference was our Constitution. As written! As duly amended! And certainly not as “re-imagined” by slippery, conniving liberals and their sleazy lawyers.

Besides which, you’d think just about anyone would be smart enough, when he hears liberals recommend we do something, to realize that doing the very opposite is always best.

By Popular Demand: America Is Not a ‘Democracy’

See the source image

Democrats want to undo the 2016 election, they say, to “save the Nation” and protect America from threats to “democracy.” This is crapola. It has always been crapola, and always will be.

From the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” Not a “democracy.”

Our country’s founders knew their history. They saw in classical Greek democracy–vividly clear in Thucydides’ history of the war between Athens and Sparta–a recipe for self-destruction. To them “democracy” was a nice name for hysteria. For example: Athens self-destructed, and lost the war with Sparta that they were winning at the time, by picking a fight–for no reason but pure arrogant foolishness–with Syracuse. Athens sent her army to Sicily to attack Syracuse, which was richer and stronger and more populous than Athens. As for the Athenian expedition, no one came home; and before much longer, the Spartans were tearing down Athens’ walls and imposing a puppet government to replace the democracy. Attacking Syracuse wasn’t the only foolishness indulged in by the democracy in the war, but it was the worst folly they could think of.

Our founders wanted nothing to do with democracy. It’s pure majority rule: and not only does the majority sometimes get completely carried away with some self-destructive project from which no reason can deter them, but it also has a habit of riding rough-shod over the minority. Just imagine a whole country run as Democrats now run our House of Representatives, and you’ll get the picture.

Our founders also studied the example set by Rome. The Romans had a republic. Instead of rule by mere majority, Roman government was operated by elected representatives, with two main branches of government (executive and legislative) and a system of checks and balances. The Greek historian Polybius praised the Roman system for being more stable and more just than anything they had in Greece.

But Rome couldn’t keep her republic. Our founders knew that, and decided to improve on Rome’s model by adding a third branch of government, the judiciary, and by writing everything down, with changes only to be made by a clearly-defined amendment process. They also tried to protect the states from being engulfed by the central government. We’re still working on that today. The great weakness of Rome’s republic was that it was never finished; it was always a work in progress; there was always an element of making it up as they went along. In framing our Constitution, this was what our founders labored to avoid.

And so, you see, the United States is not a democracy but, by law and custom, a republic. The two terms are not interchangeable.

For anyone to prattle on and on about “America’s democracy” is either ignorant, dishonest, or both. We do not have a democracy, and heaven forbid we ever do.

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

http://www.worldhistory218.com/uploads/9/7/0/4/9704720/6757138.png

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.