- Thread starter
- #41
1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.
But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.
2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2
3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.
4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.
5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:
"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard
Hamilton was ahead of his time. He knew that allowing too much power to a federalist system would result in tyranny. Look around you. It has taken 50 years - but it has now come to fruition. A president that says "to hell with Congress and the American people". Get used to it. It has only just begun. It's "Change we can believe in" and, of course, the "fundamental transformation of America".
May God have mercy on us.
I'll never say 'get used to it".....
....but I'm ready to light a candle for the late, great nation.
And that's why I wrote "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care."
You can see proof of same in the thread.
Understood. But you have to keep in mind...this didn't start with the faculty lounge communist. It started nearly 50 years ago where each successive president was allowed to "stretch" the law to suit his needs. It has been a slow, insidious movement by those who are "actually" in power to turn this country into a tyranny. Screw freedom. It's all about amassing fortunes - on our backs. Freedom is nothing more than a word now. Our "Freedom" has been gone for the last 30 years.
Funny, I was talking to some friends the other day and the subject of illegal immigration came up. I recall, back in the late 50s (living in Arizona) that there were hardly NO Mexicans in that state. Some would be brought in to harvest cotton and onions, but then sent back to Mexico. Practically every town I lived in (old man was in the Air Force) had zero Mexicans in them. Hell, it was like this up until the 70s. Now? look around you.
Same thing with these "so-called" laws. What exactly do they do? In the majority of the cases during the 60s on - they give to one group while taking away from another.
We have been hoodwinked by multi=national billionaires and their puppets in Washington DC. Disagree with your "government"? You, my friend, are now a "Domestic Terrorist". Keep that term in mind for the next 10 years. It will be used EXTENSIVELY in the future. Watch and see. Just like the Scots who disagreed with England were labeled "Enemies" and the Irish were called "Terrorists" because they wanted a foreign country out of their land - get ready to be labeled.
And the Left? Well, just like the good "loyalists" who turned against their countrymen in the early Colonies - These same folks will be more than happy to support this countries demise.
I can find problems beginning with John Marshall, and the aggrandizement of the executive and judicial branches.
And, of course, Franklin Roosevelt treated the Constitution the way Italians treat red and green lights....as merely a suggestion.