SOME THINGS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION PRESIDENT BO (the child president) NEEDS TO KNOW

The Constitution of the United States of America was written to and for the American people. It was written in a way they could understand, that is, in elegant but simple American English.

It is only six pages long and is not too complex for anyone to digest.

Unfortunately, politicians, being who and what they are, have done a masterful job of convincing many that it is too complex to be understood by the “average” American, whoever that is.

Now it may be true that those who study “government” in today’s government schools never really get the chance to read their Constitution. In most cases, they are only asked to read what others have said about it, and to read only those who have written about it with a certain tilt and/or agenda.

In fact, students in high school are virtually discouraged from reading the actual document, as it is said to be too pedantic and boring.

Yet those same students are asked to vote for people who have sworn to “uphold and defend” the Constitution.

One might be tempted to ask, “If one has never read the document itself, how is one to know whether or not the person they vote for is upholding and defending it?”

Exactly.

That is by design.

If too many of the electorate actually knew what is in their Constitution, more politicians might be held accountable for their usurping of it.

As author, Lisa Fabrizio has written:

“One of the ways that lawyers and college professors have convinced the nation that the Constitution is way over their heads and way out of touch, is to claim that, as originally written, it is far too fragile to encompass the ways and means of modern D.C. mudslinging; as if politics weren't written into the document itself. The Founders did not live in some ivory tower where the stench of politics never befouled the sacred air. On the contrary, the system of checks and balances was established to create an electoral friction with this very thing in mind.”

James Madison, in Federalist 58 wrote:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

Ms Fabrizio continued:

“…the framers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final word in the day-to-day governance of America; that is the purview of the people through the two elected branches of government. But should the Executive and Legislative arms overreach the boundaries so carefully laid out for them by the Framers, it is precisely the job of the Court to chastise them for it.”

She quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

I know that my liberal readers feel cheated for never having been required to actually read the Constitution, but take hope! All is not lost!

Being members of the Information Age (read: Internet Age), even liberals have access to the actual words of the document.

One really good site is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

And if you want to know more, The Heritage Foundation has some very good learning resources.

I especially would encourage liberals to read the document and study its history, its use in legal decisions over the years and its application to the American way of life.

Go ahead! It won’t hurt!

It will, however, open your eyes to the light of our most important founding document.

(If you happen to know President BO (the child president), ask him to read it, too. Based on his recent comments, I’m not really sure he ever has.)

SOMEBODY ELSE TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, TOO!

Leave it to Judge Napolitano who taught constitutional law, to school the college professor (lecturer), on the facts of the Constitution of the United States and why our forefathers designed it and our Republic's form of government as they did, with divided but equal powers. 

The following is an article by the good judge. 

When it comes to the Constitution, the Obama administration can't lay a glove on the Supreme Court By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - Published April 03, 2012
FoxNews.com

Earlier this week, President Obama took a cheap shot at the Supreme Court by suggesting that because its members are ?unelected? they are somehow without authority to invalidate unconstitutional legislation. This is hardly a sentiment that should come from anyone sworn to uphold the Constitution, much less a public servant who is a lawyer, much less a person who once taught constitutional law at one of the nation?s best law schools.

The whole purpose of a life-tenured, unelected, independent judiciary is to be anti-democratic; to preserve life, liberty, and property from the tyranny of the majority. Without such a judiciary, nothing but brute force would protect us from a Congress that recognized no limits on its authority.

Suppose that Congress, over the president?s veto, declared Joe Biden insane and removed him from office, or directed that Mrs. Obama lose custody of her children because she sent one of her daughters on a foreign trip without either parent, or that the First Amendment does not apply to those who hate the Chicago Cubs? Wouldn?t the president expect that ?an unelected group of people? in black robes would interfere with those actions?

Has he actually forgotten that an unelected group of people overturned segregated schools which was the beginning of the end of Jim Crow laws, ordered the government to try or to free people it has arrested, prevented the prosecution of unpopular speech, invalidated the federal regulation of guns near schools, and ordered a president who thought he was above the law to turn over subpoenaed tapes to a federal district court?

The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called ?judicial review:? It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years.

The president is entitled to his own opinions, just like everyone else is. He is free to argue and to predict that ObamaCare should and will be upheld. But he cannot seriously suggest, with intellectual honesty, that the Court is without lawful authority to invalidate an act of Congress that the Court determines is repugnant to the Constitution.

Nor can he, with intellectual honesty, issue veiled threats to the Court.

The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that.

This Court, which has no army but does have a rich and unbroken tradition of commanding fidelity from the other branches of the government, cannot be intimidated by him. He can criticize it to his heart?s content; but he cannot lay a glove on the Supreme Court.


Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom." This column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. For more information visit Creators.com. Follow him on Twitter @judgenap and Facebook at Judge Napolitano.

(End of Article)

For your information and edification:

Andrew P. Napolitano joined FOX News Channel in January 1998, and currently serves as a senior judicial analyst. He appears daily on The Big Story with John Gibson, co-hosts FOX and Friends once a week and is a regular on The O’Reilly Factor.

Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987-95, he tried over 150 jury trials, and sat in all parts of the Superior Court — Criminal, Civil, Equity and Family.
For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor (not just a lecturer) at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence (and you liberals thought that President BO [the child president] was the only one ever to have done so). He returned to private law practice in 1995, the same year he began his career in broadcasting.

He is the author of several books about law and justice.

THE PROPHETIC PAUL HARVEY

SO...IS IT WORKING?

WHICH OF PAUL HARVEY'S "PREDICTIONS" HAVE NOT HAPPENED?

NEWSFLASH!!! SCOTUS NO LONGER ELECTED!!!

President BO (the child president) challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court on Monday not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

The fact that it is neither "extraordinary" nor "unprecedented" seems on the surface to be lost on the president.

But don't be fooled.

President BO (the child president) hates the Constitutional provision for the separation of powers, and if re-elected will, either by force or by "executive order (read: decree), demote the Supreme Court to non-entity status.

What did YOU think he meant when he promised to fundamentally change the way the U.S. functions?

Speaking of "ObamaCare," President BO (the child president) said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, but he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation.

He also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

He really believes that the federal government SHOULD be able to require people do buy certain things, whether they want to or not.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," President BO (the child president) said.

He noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an "activist" approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black (no race meaning intended).

Up until now, President BO (the child president) has been one of the most supportive people ever of an "activist" SCOTUS.

"I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

Tell me, liberal reader, has not the Constitution ALWAYS provided that Supreme Court members are appointed with the advise and consent of lawmakers?

Why, then, this sudden revelation that they are unelected? Haven't they always been?

Does their being unelected somehow diminish their role as the Third Estate?

Are there any Americans, educated in government schools, who did NOT know that the SCOTUS is unelected?

If so, why did they not know that?

What have you liberals been teaching our kids?

(Oh, yeah: sex education, self-esteem and political correctness)

Do you think this so-called "Constitutional Lecturer" (not professor, by the way), and former "editor" of the Harvard Review (after having only one article published in it) did not KNOW that the Supreme Court is not an elected body?

Let me warn you of something (and you may think of me as you wish for this): If President BO (the child president) is re-elected in November, it will be the last election you enjoy, because "for the good of the nation and its people" free elections will disappear, as will the remnants of this Constitutional Republic.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER-A Different Tale

Two Versions, Different Morals

OLD VERSION :

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:

Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN (newly updated) VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

Occupy the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, "We Shall Overcome."

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake, while he damns the ants. President Obama condems the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight..

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government GreenCzar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Be careful how you vote in 2012.

LEAD US NOT OUT OF THE DOLDRUMS

The following is an article from Hot Air by John Hawkins.

The article begins with a quote from President BO (the child president):

"We won’t win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we cling to this same old, worn-out, tired `you’re on your own’ economics that the other side is peddling. It was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn’t work then. It was tried in the last decade. It didn’t work. You know, the idea you would keep on doing the same thing over and over again, even though it’s been proven not to work. That’s a sign of madness.” — Barack Obama

Hear that?

According to the worst President in American history, “you’re on your own” economics, which apparently extended from the founding of the country until the day Barack Obama took office, didn’t work. Sure, it produced the most technologically advanced nation on the planet, the world’s largest economy, and made us into a super power, but that’s “madness” compared to Obamanomics, which cost us our AAA credit rating, has produced the longest streak of above 8% unemployment since the Great Depression, and is on track to produce 13 trillion dollars of debt over the next 10 years.
Listening to Barack Obama lecture ANYONE else on economics is like getting a lecture from Jimmy Carter on the proper way to execute a hostage rescue.

What’s up next? Will we have Bill Maher explaining civility? Will Keith Olbermann be coming along to explain proper workplace etiquette? Hey, Champ, maybe this wasn’t explained to you at Harvard, but when you’re in the process of decimating the country’s economy through your own incompetence, people may be a little dubious when you tell them going a different way would be “madness.”

John Hawkins is a professional writer who runs Right Wing News and Linkiest. He’s also the co-owner of the The Looking Spoon. You can hear more from John Hawkins on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, G+, You Tube, & at PJ Media.

End of Article

President BO (the child president) refuses to look at the results of actions by those who came before him (except, of course, for blaming George W. Bush for everything).

Why can't liberals see that the way out of these economic doldrums is to increase freedom instead of regulations and to reduce taxes, thus increasing the tax base which would result in an increase in revenues?

SUNDAY REAPITE-Hallelujah, Praise the Lamb-The Talleys