Skip to comments.Should Obama violate the Constitution to protect it?
Posted on 01/26/2013 9:12:19 AM PST by lowbridge
Our government is guided by the U.S. Constitution, the vital document created over 200 years ago that includes founding ideals which protect civil liberties of Americans. With the help of appointed and elected government officials, the United States runs on a set of unchangeable principles and carefully added amendments.
Recently, the debt ceiling debate called into question the Constitution and how the presidents power is demarcated in the original text. The issue lies in whether or not President Obama should bypass Congress and make the executive decision to raise the spending limit.
It is not unprecedented to violate the Constitution deliberately, with good intention. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln used this path when he suspended habeas corpus in an effort to save the country during the civil war. In doing so, President Lincoln was successful in reuniting the government. On Saturday, host Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel discussed when it would be necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to trump the age-old document.
The president needs to get his best legal advice and move forward [without Congress] said Seton Hall University law professor Mark Alexander on Saturdays Melissa Harris-Perry, urging that valuable time is being wasted in Washington debating the debt ceiling issue.
Right. Who needs messy give and take of debate to reach a consensus conclusion. What we need is a communist dictator to make things run efficiently without all that horrid discussion.
The number of commies coming out the past few years saying cancel elections, no term limits for Pres, Constitution is outdated, bypass the Electoral College, confiscate all guns, etc is very scary. It all adds up to totalitarianism.
Our dictator is very proud.
Yes, Obama can save the Union by causing a civil war, just like America’s Hitler.
No, but it WAS/IS illegal!
Who was brave enough to watch MSLSD long enough to glean this piece of swill? Eww.
I used to not question that the USA and its Constitution had survived the Civil War because that is essentially what we are taught to assume in school. But some patriots like me who study the Constitution and its history now regard the original USA as having collapsed as a consequence of the Civil War, the original Constitution made worth no more than the paper that it was drafted on; so much for the Constitution’s “insure domestic Tranquility” clause.
And since war is hell, the winning side, the North, got not only one of the traditional spoils of winning a war, the “license” to rewrite history to make themselves hero, but in the case of winning the US Civil War the license to also rewrite the Constitution which I personally call Constitution II. The arguably unconstitutional rewriting of the Constitution by the North is evidenced not only by Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, but also by the questionable ratification of the 14th Amendment which has remained controversial to this day.
But in broader perspective, the Civil War and the post Civil War rewriting of the Constitution by the North is arguably the turning point where the federal government had finally managed to do what the Founders had dreaded, the federal government having worked itself free from the shackles of it’s constitutionally limited powers, positioning itself to eventually destroy state sovereignty.
Sadly, generations of patriots have arguably been living their lives in the confusion of the ongoing post Civil War cold war without knowing it, Constitution-ignorant patriots oblivious to the idea that the federal government continues to ignore its constitutionally limited powers, usurping 10th Amendment protected state powers every opportunity that it gets.
I’ve a feeling you, like I, already pretty much do what you want. Wwithin reason.