Barry’s constitutional blunders

Barack Obama is respected for his scholarly knowledge of the Constitution, but apparently our nation’s founding document is nothing more than a piece of paper to the man.

Our president blatantly ignores the backbone of American law to serve an agenda destroying the country as we know it. Obama’s negligence with our sovereignty and liberty is reason to enrage both republicans and democrats, and for that matter, anyone else who claims to have an ounce of patriotism.

The Constitution was written by our Founding Fathers to ensure liberty and avoid a strong executive branch like those seen in European monarchs.

As you read this, however, Obama and other tyrants aim to rewrite the Constitution and distort America’s liberty.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is collaborating with Obama to reconsider the use of Article 2, Section II, the portion requiring the Senate to confirm Executive Branch appointments. The “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act” would take away the authority of Congress to review hundreds of Obama’s appointments.

The bill would purportedly make government more efficient but would actually strip America of its checks and balances. If the confirming of appointments is so burdensome, shouldn’t it just be a sign that the government is too big?

For the republican readers, you should be enraged that there are senators in your own party who support this, such as John Kyl from Arizona and Lamar Alexander from Tennessee. Democrats, however, should question how they would feel if Bush had this much unchecked power.

Would you still support the Obama administration’s tyranny if it came from the right? Both sides of the aisle should pledge allegiance to the Constitution before their party because the Constitution is the only permanent piece of protection for America. With that said, it’s hard to judge who or what Obama pledges his allegiance to.

When Obama cannot redefine the Constitution, he simply ignores it. Maybe he thinks it is easier to ask forgiveness than beg for permission, as we see through the Affordable Health Care for America Act and his hawkishness with Libya.

While we’re bickering over birther bills and a few hundred million dollars to Planned Parenthood in a $14 trillion debt, this is what’s actually happening to our liberty.

Invading Libya is in direct violation of Article 1, Section VIII, which requires Congress to approve acts of war unless America is directly threatened. Obama said it was OK to invade Libya without speaking to Congress because he consulted the U.N., but since when does the U.N. take precedence over our representatives? I know Americans vote for the Congress and Senate, but I don’t recall us ever voting for the members of the U.N.

Stepping on the Constitution to ignore Congress is one thing, but the healthcare bill takes it to the extreme of violating our individual liberty. The law perverts the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by compelling people to purchase health insurance. Although people are forced to pay taxes and get drivers licenses, it is because they choose to earn an income or operate an automobile. The health care bill requires people to get health insurance simply for being alive.

While the Constitution permits regulating commerce, it doesn’t allow anyone to force us to engage in commerce. This is partly why I consider mandatory flex dollars unfair, but I digress.

When dealing with the Constitution, the debate shouldn’t be reduced to the merits of universal healthcare. The argument is that violating the most supreme law of the land turns the entire healthcare bill into a sham, even any good parts.

The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution gives states the right to offer further protections to their citizens, but while many states try to fight federal coercion, the White House simply threatens to withdraw funding to them.

Under Obama’s rule America is turning into a country which hands the control over its military to the U.N., turns the authority of Congress into nothing more than a theory and makes every American the subject of federal bureaucracies. I could be wrong, but this isn’t the definition of liberty that Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers had when composing the greatest legal document ever written.

It may seem like common sense, but if Barry can’t do something constitutionally, it probably shouldn’t be done in the first place.