Can Our Constitution Survive?

In the last article, a Justice of our Supreme Court stated that our Constitution is outdated.

The New York Times reported that: The U.S. Constitution … it is terse and old … guarantees relatively few rights.

Progressive movements is nothing new, it has been seen on the political right just as it has been embedded in the left; however, in the case of the political left, it is progression towards socialism – a form of socialism that liberals think of as democratic. I guess one has to be part of today's American liberal crowd in order to understand that one, sort of like protesting outside of Wall Street instead of the White House where the policies are made, the bailouts are configured, and the people who work and reside in Washington, DC – our elected officials work constantly at different ways to waste OUR money, and then make us pay for the bloated deficit it by increasing our taxes – especially upon the part of society that actually creates jobs for others, the wealthy.

The Constitution is being put down because there is an undermining reason, as with most reasons why Sociocrats do anything.

It all began with the 112^thCongress sponsoring a reading of the Constitution of the United States, which caused the New York Timesto rebuke the GOP for wasting the people's time. The people attending that session of Congress, that is. But was it a waste of time? Does your senator or representative actually understand what is in the Constitution and why it was written so?

The article in New York Timesstates that the Republican from Pennsylvania, Mike Fitzpatrick participated in the reading before he was sworn in, and made an issue of that. The proceeding was then interrupted by what the left call a “birther” which means that it was someone who believes that Barack Hussein Obama is not a citizen, born in the US, but in Kenya and that his birth records were doctored to appear that he was born in Hawaii. If it was proven true, Barack Obama would have been disqualified to be the President of the United States, according to constitutional law. But the way of the liberal-progressive Sociocrat, they have a record that if a rule or law does not fit their agenda, then it must be either ignored or changed.

That reading of the Constitution was the first time it occurred in the history of the House of Representatives in its full text. It was meant to awaken Congress to the fact that the Constitution was written as rules that limits government for good reason(s).

On the opinion page, January 4^th, 2011, an article was published entitled Pomp and Little Circumstancethat began with:

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber. And in one particularly self-important flourish, the new speaker, John Boehner, arranged to have his office staff “sworn in” on Tuesday by the chief justice of the United States.

“Theatrical”?

But wait, there's more:

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

Then, the New York Times, in its own pompous bias, stated:

There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it. The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.

First, the ObamaCare fiasco is a perfect example of a big money social engineering program proclaiming to be best for the people. And, secondly, it is true the judiciary “ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional.” However, it is the responsibility of the legislative body and the executive power (president) to predetermine if a bill is going to be unconstitutional. If a president receives a bill whose wording needs to be changed or the entire bill requires change in order to meet the articles and amendments of constitutional law – then he sends it back with a note as to why he has used his/her veto power. This system IS part of the constitutional system that the left has been undermining, abusing, and outright ignoring during the entire term of Barack H. Obama. They, New York Timesincluded, mock what was attempted in the early 112^thCongress sessions; when in fact they are mocking the constitution and its drafters' wisdom in producing the best document that civilization has encountered in human history.

But the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not used as a guideline by those WE elect to operate OUR government for US. The major problem is that we tend to elect lawyers who are trained to constantly find loopholes, which also pleases the progressive Sociocrats in their plan to reconstruct the Constitution to a point it would be unrecognizable – and truly “flexible” as the Left claims.

As usual, President Obama blames others, and in this case, the Constitution for the reason why he has not been able to make the “Change” he promised before election. As the Investor's Business Daily wrote:

The president ... recently lamented that the Founders 'designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.' ... A lack of respect for the Constitution isn't peculiar to Obama. It's shared among Democrats, in particular, even Democrat-appointed Supreme Court jurists.

So, the “Change” Obama planned has been stymied by the articles of the Constitution and its amendments, which this president has ignored on more than several occasions (and still Congress is not preparing impeachment charges and organizing an impeachment hearing that should lead to a trial to oust this perpetrator of deceptive policies – along with his cronies and army of czars. When voters excitedly elected this president, thinking that change would finally come, they forgot to make Obama tell us in detail just what those “changes” would be – they were too busy drooling over the fact that Mr. Obama was an icon and the first African-American President of the United States.

Investor's Business Daily also mentions the recent rhetoric that came from a Supreme Court Justice (who the New York Times says we must leave to decide what bill is constitutional or not) – who dissed on an Egyptian TV interview our Constitution saying it is outdated and suggested that Egypt use another nation's constitution:

A lack of respect for the Constitution isn't peculiar to Obama. It's shared among Democrats, in particular, even Democrat-appointed Supreme Court jurists. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee, said last week on Egyptian television that if she were drafting a constitution in the year 2012, she wouldn't look to ours. She reportedly recommended the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

And then in agreement with my thoughts …

We're not ashamed to declare the U.S. Constitution a magnificent document that, along with the Declaration of Independence, forms the greatest national charter in human history. No other document has ever guarded freedom the way it has, and no other contract has provided such a foundation for prosperity. It's not perfect, but it's as close to perfect as man has come.

Winston Churchill stated the same thing when discussing the choice and difference between democracy, socialism and communism:

It's not perfect, but it's as close to perfect as man has come.

My father used to say, a phrase credited to Bert Lance, If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

The Constitution is not broke, nor is it out of date. It was written to be “flexible” – not in the manner that it can be construed as to whatever policy one can come up or action a government wants to take – but flexible in that it can conform to changing times. The article of the Constitution was written to put in place the rules our government is to follow, its power and its limitations. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights back then, were an afterthought because the founders saw that while there were articles that governed the government, there wasn't anything put into writing the rights and liberties of the American people. After much deliberation and discussion, the first ten amendments were written in a manner that would make them concise and understandable and survive the march of time.

That is why, along with its content, that the US Constitution is considered a landmark document, along with the Declaration of Independence, in human history.

Barack H. Obama, the dysfunctional members of Congress, and the corrupted justices of the Supreme Court would have us believe that OUR Constitution is no longer applicable in the 21^stCentury. But then, all tyrants, in the long history of humanity, have used excuses like this to oppress the people of a nation.

That is why the American colonists who were deciding whether or not to declare independence and war against a tyrant across the sea; asked amongst themselves if they were not trading one tyrant for 13 tyrants, the number of colonies who were not as yet united under one nation and subject to the same law of the land. It is why Jefferson said that our nation must be a nation of rules, not the law of the mob or the law of an elite group of tyrants or a president who chooses to ignore the law and abuse executive order privileges.

It doesn't look like there are any plans for impeachment proceedings, and there certainly isn't much of a possibility that Obama will adhere to his campaign promise, out of many broken:

I'm pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office' and 'If I don't get the unemployment rate under 7%, I deserve to be a one-term president.

So, our stakes in this presidential election year are that he will be defeated come November of this year. But many are worrisome because so much is riding in obtaining the best of the best candidates running out of the bunch now debating.

My two personal picks was Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, the latter only making me worried about his isolationist foreign policy, which since I have remembered that candidates don't know the nitty-gritty details that presidents have at their bequest - Ron Paul is a sure thing for real reform. 

I am sure he will continue with his policy that America needs to back off and reduce our intrusive foreign policy, standing aside with advice if asked, but not funding or committing the lives of our armed forces as quickly as has been done in the past. I am not saying that we should back off from removing the organized terrorism that has brought its hatred and violence to our homeland, but that maybe if we quit pushing ourselves upon other nations and quit telling Israel to continue to give up its real estate in the name of “peace” (and just let them take out the aggressor-tyrants like in Iran) – we can stay focused upon domestic affairs here at home that need full attention. If our economy gets back on track and it is for the benefit of America (as a nation and for its people) – we can possibly afford to aid other nations with monetary help. For now, we need to focus on becoming self-sufficient, quit trying to buy friends, and get our dollar back to its proper value.

We need the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, we need to continue offshore drilling (safely and fine/stop operations if not), drill in Alaska (like the Alaskans voted for at 75% approval) – and at the same time be more responsible and serious about alternate energy that I know our marvelous scientist, inventors and engineers can come up with; as well as improve our educational system by limiting government intervention and turning it back over to state and local authorities working with the parents of communities to produce better Americans who will become scientists, engineers, inventors, et cetera.

This should be an era, at the beginning of the 21^stcentury, to reapply and reinstate the laws of the Constitution of the United States, not discussing ways to dissolve it or change it to be unrecognizable. Too often people believe just because technology brings us great wonders, useful things, and a new way of doing things that we must give up our traditions, values, sense of character, including our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Only a devious tyrant would suggest such a thing – or a person who has been seriously brainwashed into giving up their rights along with ours.

American voters: Vote responsibility and vote in the primary elections, not just the national general elections; voting is not a privilege, it's your right. Be proud to vote and perform your homework in order to make a logical decision, not an emotional one egged on by the type of tyrants aforementioned.

That is the “change” that is required – not what Barack Obama and others like him have planned.

John Stossel wrote at Patriot Post …

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the pursuit of happiness an unalienable right. This was a radical idea. For most of history, most people didn't think much about pursuing happiness. They were too busy just trying to survive. Then came the liberal revolution based on the idea of individual freedom. Only then did they start thinking that happiness might be possible on earth. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the right to pursue happiness has been perverted into a government-backed entitlement to happiness.

It is up to the people to pursue greatness for themselves and their nation; it is not an entitlement nor is it achieved without hard work and perseverance. Just as we can identify what made America great, so must we work together to bring that greatness back. It cannot be done by progressives, Sociocrats, or people who believe they are entitled to something for nothing or an entitlement paid by someone else. Welfare programs should be a “hand up” not a “hand out”. Taxation should not be intrusive, pinpointed upon one segment of society, or used as a punishment or social engineering program like the tobacco tax. Taxes pay for the operation of government, and our government, those who operate it and we elect to do so, should be constantly working in maintaining a limited government so the private sector can have the funds and tools to bring our economy back on track.

Don't let Barack H. Obama get his way – his reign should end at the end of this year. Congress must remember why they were put there. The Supreme Court and lower courts must remember why they were appointed and be faithful to and protect the greatest document ever conceived – the Constitution of the United States. A document only as good as the people who use it and protect it.

And, if you don't believe Obama's intentions are tyrannical, here is a quote for you:

What's frustrated people is that I've not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction. And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on.

Funny how liberals (progressive Sociocrats) always blame everyone and everything except themselves and are so busy making everyone else look bad, they forget why they are there in the first place.

Obama has to go – and so does the RINOs who also reneged upon their promises to the People.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

[Edmund Burke]