Presidential Power Explained

By Bob Greenslade | Tenth Amendment Center

Let’s cut to the quick. I am sick and tired of hearing people get excited over the Republican presidential debates that seem to take place every other day. For the most part, they are a pathetic joke because they only perpetuate the usurpation of power. The general election debates in 2012 will be more of the same.

Under our system of government, the powers of the federal government and the president are defined and limited by the Constitution. You would never know that listening to the questions and analysis by media pundits. What’s next? Asking the candidates if they can use the powers of the federal government to part the Red Sea or resurrect the dead?

The group discussions that follow are equally troubling because they focus on perceptions and misconceptions concerning the powers and duties of the president. Hasn’t any one of these people taken a moment to review the Constitution before participating in a focus group or have they been so dumbed down by the education system that they are incapable locating the clauses in the Constitution?

Since presidential debates are an ongoing series of job interviews, how can the candidates apply for the office of president of these United States unless they know the 13 powers and duties of the president? If I were running the debates, each candidate would be given a piece of paper at the first debate and asked to write down the constitutional powers and duties of the president. The results would be announced before the first question was asked. Not only would it expose any imposters and tie ignorance to their tail, but it would educate the audience and frame the debate. It would also shine the light of usurpation on the sitting president for his transgressions.

That being said, the 12 original powers and duties of the president are:

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Defeating Obama’s Socialist Propaganda (johnmalcolm.me)
• The Man Who Should Be President (ephraiyim.wordpress.com)
• Promises, Promises: The Reality of Campaign Speak (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards “Image” As Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
• Duties of the Vice President of the U.S.A. (cincinnatipoliticalactivism.wordpress.com)
• Cruz Brings Tea Party Flavor To Texas Senate Race (dfw.cbslocal.com)
• Barack Obama Un… (bubbabutt.wordpress.com)
• Barack Obama Unable to Register for State Primary As Alabama Reviews His Eligibility to Be a Candidate for the Presidency (usamericanfreedom.com)
• Interview with Constitution Party Presidential Candidate JL Mealer (alakhtal.wordpress.com)
• Georgia Judge Demands Obama Prove His Eligibility For Prez (onthearizonaborder.wordpress.com)

Defeating Obama’s Socialist Propaganda

By Mark Alexander | February 2, 2012 | The Patriot Post

The Fallacy of the Left’s ‘Fairness’ Doctrine

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams, 1787

Barack Hussein Obama centered his recent State of Disunion campaign speech on the worn socialist refrain of “fairness.”

“We can go in two directions,” Obama said. “One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for … building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”

His subsequent 2012 stump speeches include a variation of these words at his most recent whistle stop in Michigan: “I want this to be a big, bold, generous country where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share, everybody is playing by the same set of rules.”

Let’s briefly review our nation’s history in regard to Liberty, taxation and “fairness.”

The first American Revolution was galvanized by a Tea Party protest against a small three pence tax surcharge on imported tea.

Our Founders were uniformly concerned about government power to lay and collect taxes and, accordingly, enumerated specific limitations on taxing and spending.

James Madison addressed the issue of unlimited spending, and his words are applicable today: “It has been [said], that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.” Rejecting that “misconstruction” of our Constitution, Madison went on to write, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”

To ensure that federal taxation would be limited to these constraints, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of our Constitution (the “Taxing and Spending Clause”), as duly ratified in 1789, defined the “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” but Section 8 required that such, “Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” This, in effect, limited the power of Congress to impose direct taxes on individuals, as further outlined in Section 9: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

That Constitutional limitation survived until 1861, when the first income tax was imposed to defray costs of the War Between the States. That three-percent tax on incomes over $800 was sold as an emergency war measure. In 1894, congressional Democrats tested the Constitution, passing a peacetime tax of two percent on income above $4,000. A year later, that tariff was overturned by the Supreme Court as not complying with the limitations set forth in Article 1.

However, the greatest historical injury to economic Liberty was dealt in the presidential campaign of 1912, when the father of Democratic Socialism, Woodrow Wilson, was elected on his mastery of class warfare rhetoric, as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto in the mid-19th century. He used Marx’s populist redistribution theme, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” to gain passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which stated, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Read the full Article here.

Related articles

• Politics and commentary Share A People’s Primer on the Essentials of U.S. Constitutional Law (revolutioninmedia.com)
• Obama is No Ordinary Socialist (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• Relax citizen, we’ll take care of it… (faithorfiction.wordpress.com)
• The Big Lie Of Obama/Buffet Rule (myvoice2012.wordpress.com)
• Bob Goodlatte and the Constitution (truthn0tfear.wordpress.com)
• Judicial Review v Judicial Activism (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Obama calls Ronald Reagan a ‘wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior’ (rawstory.com)
• Sen. Mike Lee: All Entitlement Spending Is Unconstitutional (thinkprogress.org)
• Why Income Tax Was & Is Not Necessary To Fund the U.S. General Government. (politicalvelcraft.org)

Obama Puts Out Figurative Bounty on Supreme Court

By Rush Limbaugh | April 03, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Obama and his attack on the Supreme Court yesterday.  It happened toward the end of the program in the last half hour and it was happening on the fly.  I didn’t really have enough time to listen in detail to what Obama said, and thus I didn’t have a chance to, in detail, reply.  I’ve now listened to what Obama said.  I’ve got three sound bites here.When I got home yesterday at about six o’clock last night I got a flash encrypted message from a friend who says, “You know, somebody in the court leaked to Obama. That’s why he went out there and did this today. Somebody called him. He lost the vote, the preliminary vote on Friday. He lost it, and somebody leaked it.” And that became an active theory that began to be bandied about amongst a lot of people that I know. Because people were saying,

“Why go out,” as Obama did yesterday…? It was in the form of a question. We must remember that he was asked a question about this. He didn’t launch into this on his own, but once he got the question, it was, “Katie, bar the door,” and he was off to the races.

And the question everybody was asking is: “Why do this? Why attack the court? Why intimidate them, why threaten them if they had voted to uphold the mandate?” And I have an answer for that. See, I know these people. I know liberals. I don’t want that statement to sound bombastic. You people here — new listeners to the program — that’s not a braggadocios statement. It’s not bombastic. It’s not outrage or any attempt to shock. I just know them, and so when somebody asks me, “Why would Obama say that if he didn’t have to? If he had been told that the preliminary vote on Friday was in his favor, why take the attitude that he took?” There is an answer to that. I don’t know if it’s right, but there is an answer.

He’s a thug.

And again, I’m not trying to be provocative when I say this. I’m just quoting Bill Clinton, folks. Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama as a Chicago thug during the 2008 presidential campaign. This after Clinton some years earlier had told Juanita Broaddrick, “Put some ice on that lip” after she said he raped her. (I mentioned that for this “war on women” that supposedly the Republicans are waging.) But there’s every possibility that Obama feeling his oats, being told that the vote went his way, would still go out and do this, ’cause he knows there are more votes to come. I’m not predicting it. I’m just saying I could understand it.

It’s easier to understand that somebody leaked to him that the preliminary vote went against him and that the mandate fell by whatever the preliminary vote was and that explains his attitude yesterday. But I can see him saying what he said if the vote went in his favor as well, as a means of further intimidation, making sure they don’t change their minds or whatever. You might say, “Well, how would that work? Wouldn’t that just kind of make them be more resistant?” The reason this is all a crock in the first place is that (and we will go through this as we play the Obama sound bites) it is obvious that to the left this is an entirely political process.

There’s nothing judicial going on here. There’s nothing legal. This isn’t even really about the Constitution. This is about politics, pure and simple, and Barack Obama’s reelection. It’s all it is. But he says things in these sound bites which you’ll hear coming up and they’re chilling to me. “The court has to understand…” “The court must understand,” is one of his sound bites. No, the court must not — does not have to — listen to you. What is this, “The court must understand”? That is a threat! How many of you think it possible that Obama will make a trip to the Supreme Court before the vote, before the final vote? Can you see it happening? I can.

I’m not predicting it. (interruption) You’re shaking your head. You don’t think it would ever happen? Why would he be…? Why would Obama visiting the Supreme Court between now and June be any more unconscionable than what he did yesterday? (interruption) It’s a visual? No! He’s just going up to say hi to Kagan. He’s going up to say hi to Kagan and Sotomayor, to see how they’re doing. (interruption) He called ’em out of the State of the Union right to their face. Remember that with Justice Alito? Anyway, let me take a break. We’ll come back and we will get into some of these sound bites and we’ll tear this down as it happened sometimes line by line. Mike, be prepared when I say, “Stop.” There might be some frequent stops and starts as we go through this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Reuters was just as excited as they could be over what Obama did. “Obama Takes a Shot at the Supreme Court Over Health Care — President Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping health care law would be an act of judicial activism that Republicans say they abhor.” Warning? Warning? And Reuters is happy! (That’s right! You take it to these conservatives!) Judicial activism? You know, the debate is constantly held: “Is he really this ignorant or naive, or is this just strategic?”

Everybody knows that judicial activism is not what Obama is explaining it to be. Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law. What Obama is trying to say here is that the court will be engaging in judicial activism if it judges the law according to the Constitution. That’s not what judicial activism is. I know exactly what they’re doing. They’re trying to take this term, and they’re trying to redefine it publicly to fit their needs and redefine the language (as they constantly are). But, folks, I’m gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it’s even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar.

This is a man, Barack Obama, who was once paid to teach law, constitutional law, and he doesn’t even know the meaning of the term “judicial activism.” No one ever accuses any judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution! Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law. This is basic knowledge. Now, maybe this is why we’ve never seen Obama’s grade transcripts, if he really doesn’t know the difference. But I suspect that he does know the difference, and I suspect that he’s trying to redefine terms here to fit. Because this has become a template argument for the left.

You remember Jeffrey Toobin? You talk about a guy who’s done a 180 here, turned on a dime. During the week of oral arguments, Jeff Toobin, CNN legal analyst, was in an abject panic. These people on the left… And again, ladies and gentlemen, this is the solid truth. They do not expose themselves to any ideological thinking other than their own. They have assumed that conservatism is racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, all of these cliches they attach to it. And they’re not interested in talking to anybody that they think is a conservative. They really are not familiar with other ideas. They don’t speak the language. We, of course, can speak liberalism as well as they do. We understand it.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
• Romney smiles at Obama’s ‘judicial activism’ charge (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Liberals and Conservatives and “Judicial Activism” (glitternight.com)
• Judicial Activism 2012 (wnyc.org)
• Obama Predicts Health Care Victory, Labels Vote Against Law As “Judicial Activism” (danmillerinpanama.wordpress.com)
• The Dictator Wannabe (thecheeseheadconservative.wordpress.com)

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]