Ignoring the Law

by M. Richard Maxson*

   The President, when he is sworn into office, takes the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the the United States. Mr. Obama’s first term shows his repeated disregard and contempt for the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold. He has continually circumvented Congress’s constitutional role and he has denigrated the job of the judiciary. These repeated infractions seem to stem from a fundamental disregard for the rule of law and the text of the Constitution.
    Our framers established three distinct branches of government so that each would serve as a check on the others, and so that none could trample on individual liberty. For instance, our Constitution gives the Senate a key check on executive power by requiring the president to seek Senate approval to appoint senior officials. Article II provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ... officers of the United States.” The president may bypass the Senate under only one circumstance: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” This winter, the Senate did not go into recess and on January 3 conducted a pro forma session. But the next day, the president simply declared the Senate to be “in recess,” though it plainly was not. Then, he purported to appoint several officers, evading the Senate’s constitutional role. It was the first time in U.S. history that a president attempted to make recess appointments when the Senate -- by its own lights -- was not in recess.
    These appointments have been challenged in court, and it is likely that they will be declared unconstitutional. Making illegal appointments is just one way Obama has undermined the separation of powers. He has also skirted his duty to fairly implement the laws. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact legislation but requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Obama failed to do this when adherence to the law would not reach his desired result.
     Policy results seem to trump law when it comes to the role of the judicial branch as well. The Supreme Court is the final word on the Constitution. Mr. Obama has disparaged the judiciary’s constitutional function when the court has not rubber-stamped his agenda. Mr. Obama does not believe in the Constitution. To him it is just an obstacle in his way to a new America. It must be pointed out to him by critics that judicial review has been part of our constitutional system of separation of powers for over 200 years.
    During oral arguments on ObamaCare, many of the Justices asked pointed questions about the law’s constitutionality. Several justices were clearly troubled by this unprecedented intrusion upon individual liberty.
Their fear is that if this stands then government would be allowed to  regulate “every human activity from cradle to grave".
     When he is not denigrating the work of the judicial branch, Obama has found it convenient to sidestep the judiciary altogether. Last September, the administration targeted and killed U.S. citizen. Five months later, Attorney General Eric Holder asserted unchecked power to target and kill U.S. citizens. Recent reports that Mr. Obama makes the final targeting decision acting as judge, jury and executioner. He claimed that judicial review was not needed because the executive branch had done its own internal evaluation.
     Due process is essentially a judicial check on executive power, which safeguards citizens’ life and liberty. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “the words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the proceedings of courts of justice.” The administration’s position undermines the judiciary’s constitutional function and turns the Due Process Clause into a dead letter, eliminating a core constitutional right. And Obama’s manipulation of “due process” – like his manipulation of “recess” undermines another fundamental check on executive power.
     Again and again, President Obama bypasses the Constitution to enhance his own power, sidestep the other branches, and reach the outcome he wants. The notion that public servants – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – may substitute their own judgment for the rule of law subverts the axiom that our country is “a nation of laws, not of men.” We have agreed to be governed by an objective body of law that our elected officials have a duty to evenhandedly uphold and apply.
    Our framers understood this concept, which is why they created a system where no person – including the president—is above the law. If the President cherry picks which parts of the Constitution to obey and which to ignore, our Constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper.

*Special thanks to  Stephanie Hessler

 

Most American Voters Worry About the Constitution.

Comment By,
  

     M. Richard Maxson

    Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging Obamacare, five Supreme Court justices — a majority — asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional. They think the document is too old and doesn't apply well in the 21st century. So the Constitution — and the limits it places on Congress' powers — is once again part of our politics. And will continue to be, whichever way the Court rules.

    The assumption by the Democrat party is that the federal government's power to regulate the economy has no limits. Fortunately for Americans the arguments, developed by Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett and others, that it is beyond the powers conferred by the Constitution for Congress to mandate the purchase of a commercial product — health insurance in Obamacare — were certainly taken seriously by a majority of Supreme Court justices last week and the government's lawyers were unable to answer the questions of both liberal and conservative justices, if Congress can do this, what can't it do? (Refer to the US Constitution)

     Members of Congress may reasonably regard themselves as bound to vote against measures they conscientiously believe unconstitutional. Barry Goldwater did this when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though he had integrated his own business many years before, on constitutional grounds.
    Goldwater's constitutional argument, predictably, wasn't accepted by the Supreme Court. And his vote gave the Republican Party an unfair reputation for being anti-civil rights. But I think he was entitled to think his oath required him to vote that way.

    Clearly, the two parties are divided on the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate. Polls have shown large majorities of voters think the provision is unconstitutional.

    Voters can and should reasonably ask candidates for Congress their views on this and other constitutional issues and call on them to vote against measures they consider beyond Congress' constitutional powers.

    The constitution is the foundation of our society and has proven over the centuries to be rock solid. True Americans should continue to oppose these Progressive/Liberal/Democrat, or whatever they want to call themselves, that are hell-bent on making our constitution irrelevant.

McNaughton responses to Criticisms of " The Forgotten Man"

Comment By,
   M. Richard Maxson

This is a painting by Jon McNaughton and below is his reasoning for the endeavor. It is a powerful piece so make of it what you will. His explanation is also listed along with his latest project and a short video.

             McNaughton responses to Criticisms of
                          The Forgotten Man

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.

1. Why did I paint this? Like many Americans I feel shock at the direction our country is heading. There is a great polarizing effect taking place in America today. There are many who swoon over Obama's policies of redistribution of wealth. What will the government give me? If you believe this is the proper role of government you will certainly see great CHANGE in your lifetime. I wanted to paint a picture that portrays the plight of the common man. Perhaps the FM is already experiencing this now or will in the future. My hope is that he will "wake up!" now before it is too late.
2. There is no racial meaning or undertone that the FM is not black. This is not a racial painting; it is about the vanishing of the American dream.
3. It is not a partisan painting. I take no favoritism of Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are guilty.
4. The only solution I offer is to take a 180 degree turn and return to the principles of the Constitution, which define a limited government, protect individual and states' rights and make no allowance for any of the baggage we have accumulated over the years in the form of entitlement programs. The only way to cure the cancer is to root it out and endure the painful healing. Perhaps, with God's help, we will survive.
5. Is it disrespectful to have in my painting the President of the United States standing on the Constitution? Is the President without reproach? I am simply one American speaking to another American. The painting symbolically suggests the actions of Barack Obama as well as other presidents. Yes, their actions speak louder than words—as do the brushstrokes in my painting.
6. I have endeavored to keep this information simple and to the point. The information is historical, if it is not familiar to you—Google it.
7. I picked the trashed papers based on the issues that I believe have been the most damaging to America. These issues have been trampled by politicians of both parties for over a century. When will the American people decide to defend the Forgotten Man? Let us raise our voices together and demand the kind of CHANGE that will truly save our way of life.
8. Why did I not mention critical information about some Presidents which defined their presidencies? My only purpose is to identify each President and with simplicity express what they have done to either help or hinder the Forgotten Man. I invite all to search deeper into the history of the painting's message and discover if what I paint is true. Can you truly say our house is in order when our debt is stealing away the future of every man woman and child in America?

www.mcnaughtonart.com

                                                                            

“’I pledge allegiance to the United States of America,
And not to an ideology, which can never stand,
One nation under socialism, divisive,
With no liberty or justice for anyone.’
This November, you will make a choice. Will you choose One Nation Under Socialism?”

 http://youtu.be/qtHQE2zNpwc

Are Most People to Dumb to Vote?

 by M. Richard Maxson

     Constitutionally speaking should everyone be allowed to vote? Is this what the founding fathers visualized? It wasn't like this at the beginning of our Republic. Only men who were supposedly intelligent had that privilege. Today the rules are different. The United States touts itself as a Democratic Republic where it's one person, one vote so we must ask ourselves  is democracy wasted on humanity?
      That’s the conclusion of a new study led by Cornell University psychologist David Dunning, which shows that the vast majority of voters are not only too stupid or ignorant to know that they are stupid or ignorant. They are also too stupid or ignorant to tell when the same is true of a candidate. People who aren't talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. Their political polarization blinds them to good ideas or candidates. As political analyst Thomas Sowell observed in his book,  Vision of the Anointed, "disagree with someone on the Right and he is likely to think you wrong, obtuse, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the Left and he is likely to think you insensitive, selfish, a sell-out, possibly evil."
     This may impede the democratic process, because the assumption is that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can not recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. A growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to prove this notion. Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills.
      It’s almost inevitable whenever any political group loses an election that they blame the stupidity, gullibility and/or lack of moral character on the part of their opponents for the loss. When George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, liberals infamously tried to say that stupid people preferred Bush by a 4-to-1 margin over Kerry.
     He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. The research shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments. " In the concept of democracy; truly ignorant people may be the worst judges of candidates and ideas, Dunning said, but we all suffer from a degree of blindness stemming from our own personal lack of expertise."
     As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea or a candidate really is."

WHY OBAMA WILL BE RE-ELECTED - No Matter What

Guest Column

By Dr. Walter Williams

Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going
on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.
The media won't tell you this but the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012.

The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets
reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win.
Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins.
The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins.
War in the Middle East ? He wins a second term.

America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Just what he wants!
The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to
sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to
inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? No matter.
Obama wins handily.

Many will say, “You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining?” Sure I do and that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.

                                                           

Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics that Obama and his supporters in the media use to explain why it isn't his
fault.
 

Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider
the following:

1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he
does. It's a race thing. He's one of us.
That’s why the media destroyed Herman Cain so handily. Too big a threat.


2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be
offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more
complex than that.

3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope.

4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party
and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide.

5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are here illegally and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to
the USA in fewer than five years.

6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key
to money and power in business, state and local politics.


7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more every day. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.

8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. 

 After all, to not love him would be racist.(sic)

9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him.
Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him
because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him.
Homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly…

10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he
doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups
previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.

It's believed the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
 Please think this through. And then vote. The future of our Republic is literally at stake

-- Dr. Walter Williams

An American for America

 by M. Richard Maxson*

  The year was 1968. The war in Vietnam was raging in full force. There were riots in the streets of major American cities. Assassination of politicians had been controlling this country's future since 1963 and it was an election year. The Democrats were running Hubert Humphrey who was the current vice-president who promised more of the same. This infuriated many which was evident as riots broke outside the Democratic National Convention.
   There was a third party, the American Independent Party who had Gov. George Wallace of Alabama as their candidate. His platform was that of pro-segregation and to returning America to the past.
   The Republicans had a number of candidates with Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, and the early front-runner George Romney, the father of their current front-runner. George Romney was a  four term Michigan governor who had a fatal problem for a politician, he told the truth!
   Initially a  pro-war candidate he had his suspicions so during the campaign Romney personally went to Vietnam. His return was momentary historic. Romney stated that, unlike the propaganda that the American people were being fed, we were losing the war! Romney told a news reporter that he had been "brainwashed" by the military and the diplomatic corps about the Vietnam war. The remark set off the shadowy American press to destroy his campaign. After weeks of ridicule in the national news media his popularity fell and he dropped out of the presidential race.
   In 1992  under the heading "An American for America," he begged voters to "subordinate their partisan affiliation and economic interests to their God-given responsibility as citizens."Romney offered a 10-point manifesto spelling out in precise language the principles that would return America to greatness.
                                    
                     Still relevant, it should inform his son's campaign.

- Our principal problems are within and not without.

- America's unprecedented success has spawned unprecedented problems; in particular, horrendous social problems.

- Too many of our children are not being educated and trained for the future.

- To remain great we must emphasize politically, economically and socially those basic methods that made us great in the first place.

- It is the individualism that freedom permits that makes superior American teamwork possible.

- It is free competitive enterprise that produces the greatest economic progress — not, primarily, government regulation and control.

- The power of monopolies and excessive special interests stifle education, economic growth and social problem solving.

- It is people helping people, not money, that most effectively solves social problems.

- Excessive reliance on government to solve social problems has become counterproductive.

- No family, no enterprise, no government can continue to spend beyond its income, as we are doing, without becoming dependent, bankrupt or impoverished.

   From father to son, a gift: A message to help Mitt Romney clarify his vision for the country and rally Americans to the simple truths that would set the nation on a better course.

*With thanks to Nolan Finley.
   

Do You Believe?

by M. Richard Maxson

  Do you believe in the United States of America and its ideals, as expressed in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation? Do you believe in the American Dream: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Do you believe being an American is an honor, as well as a great responsibility – and a wonderful adventure?
   Do you  believe we live in a great country, a welcoming refuge for legal immigrants who want to contribute their talents and abilities to make our way of life even greater? Do you believe we should enjoy the company and support of each other, delighting in the creativity, ingenuity, and work ethic of one and all, while observing the rules of civility and mutual respect and, most importantly, strengthening our diverse society by striving for unity?
   Do you believe in  the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and fair and balanced coverage of the news? Are you opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship?
                                 Then you have come to the right place.