Is Any of This Legal?
By: Eddie Clements
President Barack Obama proposes fundamental and sweeping changes to America. These proposed changes are manifest in the proposed budget. We can only expect further changes in future budgets and attendant bills. The question we should ask, and deserves serious discussion, is, â€œWhat gives Congress the right to pass law confiscating property?â€
It would seem the whole purpose of the Constitution is to prevent such summary confiscation, regardless of the cause, other than some disastrous national emergency. Is that the rationale for proposed changes? The administration is calling the current economic problems â€œcrisisâ€. If so, is there any test that can be applied to determine whether that assignment of the term â€œemergencyâ€ is appropriate?
Default rates on housing loans arenâ€™t significantly large enough to truly cause financial collapse. Is there another reason? Has there been a run on banks so ruinous the whole financial system will fail absent federal intervention? If so, why were some banks allowed to go under and not others? Has the $350 billion applied by the bailout of September, 2008, not been sufficient? The bill authorized twice that level of expenditure but, but half was held back. Why, if an emergency existed? Banks have failed before and we have endured. What is so different?
Nothing here adds up to an answer that will withstand scrutiny. Therefore, we must conclude no emergency exists such that H.R. 1 of 2009 was really necessary. There are no riots, no widespread or even localized incidents of protests organized or occurring calling for such actions as those proposed by the administration. There are no compelling reasons to enact laws which will result in restrictions on behavior of people to conduct commerce freely. Why has this bill and other actions by this administration not been given objective examination? Why is such whim and caprice tolerated by adult citizens, shrugging their shoulders, saying things like â€œWhatâ€™re ya gonna do?â€ This has been the reaction favored by too many sheep and shepherds alike.
OK, I got an idea, how about this? Republicans point to specific members of Congress, like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and say, â€œThey caused most of this, or allowed it to happen. Voters in their respective districts need to call on these members to resign!â€
Republicans, or the press on the right or left, could say â€œDemocrat supporter Franklin Raines has not been singled out for his taking undeserved bonuses from organizations which collapsed, not in spite of his stewardship, but because of itâ€, or, â€œwhy does the Speaker of the House need a private jet?â€
How about this? There is no provision in the Constitution allowing Congress to make changes that have been signed into law. The Marsh Mouse is not as important as human beings. Therefore the funds used for research into the activities of this wild beast should be re-directed toward people who have been laid off from their jobs, if funds are to be appropriated at all, and if stimulus and helping people are the true purpose. How about this? Congress cannot force taxpayers to foot the bill for research into alternative energy sources. Alternatives energy sources have no current infrastructure for use or delivery. This will result in tremendous disruptions of existing energy structures, working against order and domestic tranquility.
How about this? Congress forcing states into mandated programs violates the separation of powers clause reserving certain rights to the states, and in turn their citizens. How about this? You wanna legalize drugs, so you can put a tax on them? You wanna turn Leninâ€™s words around and instead of saying “religion is the opiate of the massesâ€ say â€œopiates are the new religion of the masses?â€
Congress wants to contrive clever language allowing them to restrict speech, in spite of a strict, direct, prohibition against it in the First Amendment (â€œCongress shall make no lawâ€¦) Is anyone going to protest that? There are some parents out there, more than a few perhaps, who have children that have fallen prey to liberalism and will agree with restricting speech, if political correctness is any guide. Those youngsters who have never had any position of responsibility might argue that it is for the common good to restrict othersâ€™ rights. Will those parents stand up to their children, even, to say, shut up, thatâ€™s enough, donâ€™t go to that protest for shutting down the radio station that broadcasts right-wing talk shows? You go, you donâ€™t come back; youâ€™re out of here for good. If not, why? I submit that parents who wonâ€™t define limits for their own children will have no stomach to discipline errant members of Congress.
Sorry for the rant; this stuff is just making me mad. The whole intent of the Constitution is to prevent the very things happening now. There is no Constitutional imperative to distribute wealth according to Congressional, or Presidential, design. Shortly before the 2008 presidential election, we learn Barack Obama opined that the Constitution can be interpreted to mean â€œnegative rightsâ€, and not contain things government â€œmust doâ€. Thatâ€™s the point, BHO! What did you study at Harvard Law Fool? Fancy Rhetorical Techniques to Get Around Specific Provisions Anyone Literate Could Plainly Read 101??? We â€œdoâ€ for ourselves, without interference from the government. Ours is a government by, of, and for the people â€“ not for a few against the rest. Come to think of it, Democrats, party of the American apartheid, do believe people are supposed to favor them against Democratsâ€™ opponents.
BHO is clear proof of the ancient edict that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Lawyers have way too little knowledge â€“ and consequently have proven to be deadly dangerous. They do have something the celebrity culture values â€“ tricky rhetoric. In Obama, the MSM has a Celebrity-in-Chief. Say it so the literati in the MSM canâ€™t possibly fathom the meaning, and who canâ€™t reveal that they know even less, and presto! They declare the declarer brilliant, because they donâ€™t know what he said and hope no one else does, either. And we all know that if George Stephanopoulos, David Gergen, David Brooks, Paul Begalla, and Paul Krugman say itâ€™s REALLY brilliant, it must be!
There has been analysis by serious observers â€“ Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, and many others â€“ who lend perspective to the details they ferreted out. I appreciate their efforts at providing valuable insight. Analyzing details is necessary, and they are good at it. What disturbs me is that once their insights are provided, the source is not acted upon. Democrats, including the President and Congress, need to be held accountable for their rancid statements and actions. Why has no one seriously called for Tim Geithner to step aside? As in, like, a petition by a million taxpayers saying they ainâ€™t payinâ€™ out earnings to no tax cheat! Get somebody else, this one is unacceptable! If BHO refuses, petitioners withhold tax remittances. What will they do, arrest a million people?
The rich stand the most to lose. Are they going to go along to get along? Because if they do, it will be like appeasement. They will pay off the government extortionist, and then they will be left aloneâ€¦until the next time. And next time, the statist tax extortionist will want more. When the rich are drained, the extortionist will find a new target. You.