Respectful Response to Tomlet

A question was posed in Tomlets latest blog to show where our current president has violated the Constitution.  Here are six big ones that I would like to list as follows and not necessarily in any order of importance:


1) Government ownership in private business: The seizure of private business is unconstitutional and Obama has taken over GM and Chrysler.  He is also mandating how much Wall Street execs can earn and is capping income on ceos.  This issue has been beaten to death so there is no reason to go on any further about this one.


2) Redistribution of wealth: The redistribution of wealth in GM stock is unconstitutional.  The stock holders ended up with about 10% of their investment, the government 50% and the unions 40%, plus the unions received approximately $10 billion dollars in cash.


3) The Czars: Appointing czars by Obama is unconstitutional.  These czars report to no one but Obama, they have far reaching powers and congress cannot stop a single decision they make.  That is a grievous violation of the checks and balance set up by our fore fathers.


4) Health care: Obamas health care plan is unconstitutional. Obama wants to raise taxes for the wealthy to pay for this plan, but remember the redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional.  Also Obama has stated he plans to put private insurance out of business in order to achieve his goal.  The constitution says nothing about guaranteeing the right for health insurance, but Obama said to Tom Brokaw that healthcare "should be a right for every American."  But never fear, Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. has introduced H.J. Res. 30 which calls for the a Constitutional Amendment "to establish the right of citizens of the US to health care of equal high quality."


5) The bailouts: The constitution gives congress the power to spend tax payers money.  The president cannot do this without the consent of congress.  "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in the consequence of appropriations made by law."  President Bush used TARP money authorized by congress to fund the first bailout.  Obama didn't use TARP money, but declared he would get the money somewhere by using the power and authority of the Executive Branch.  Where does Obama get the authority to use tax payer money to bailout GM and Chrysler?  Bush used TARP funds in the first bailout with congressional approval, but TARP is to be used only for ailing financial institutions.  Auto makers are not financial institutions.  So Bush's use of TARP was very questionable as well.  The bottom line is the federal government does not have the authority to use tax payer money to bailout troubled financial institutions or to take over ownership of private businesses.


6) Supreme Court: Obama has stated he would like to see his Supreme Court nominees "embrace empathy in their decisions and opinions."  Justice is supposed to be blind and there is no room for a judge who uses empathy to determine cases.  Supreme Court nominees have to swear an oath that basically states they will administer justice equally and impartially to all and they will do this with the authority given to them by the constitution.  The constitution does not provide the Supreme Court with the oath, but it does state they "shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution."


If activist judges are appointed it will allow them to interpret the constitution as a living, breathing document and open an avenue for a judge to insert personal opinions and empathy which is unlawful.  This makes the constitution useless and unable to protect our rights as citizens.


Uploaded 08/06/2009
  • 0 Favorites
  • Flag
  • Stumble
  • Pin It