“... As Thomas Jefferson said, “Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.”...”
And this is what Obama and the radical left is doing with
this administration, we see it happening, and refuse to
accept it.
At bottom, I think what we "refuse to accept" is the deliberate, fully conscious gutting of the Constitution — the foundation of our rule of law, and the means whereby the sovereign people delegated authority to the federal government to carry out a very limited set of responsibilities on our behalf. Nowadays, however, 90 percent of what the federal government is doing is being done without any constitutional warrant or authority whatsoever. And so the question becomes: Which is the "nullity" — the federal government as presently constituted, or the Constitution itself?
My own view is that the president is clearly acting in violation of his Oath of Office — to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and, by implication, the People of the United States. He is, therefore, acting wholly without constitutional authority and thereby is actively violating the will of the people so eloquently expressed in the Preamble of that document.
The Framers had a word for a president (or congressman or senator or any other public official) who would do such a thing: usurper.
In short, this is an unconstitutional president who is clearly eligible for impeachment on the basis of a litany of specific unconstitutional acts.
Not that Congress can be expected to act in this regard. For Congress is presently just as unconstitutional as the president, in the degree to which it acts without clear constitutional authority. Which is most of the time nowadays. There are very few, if any, Congress critturs who have not themselves willfully and knowingly breached their own oaths of office.
What would the Framers say about a situation like this? They would likely say that if the federal government is acting outside the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers, it is usurping the God-given rights of the People. It is acting as a tyrant. To the extent that it ignores the Constitution — which is the foundation, not only of our rule of law but also of the very framework of our government, and the only basis of the legitimate authority of our public officials — then we are technically in a state of anarchy — of "no government." That being the case, any and all unconstitutional edicts and regulations are "nullities" having no force of law; they simply are not binding on citizens.
The Framers would have concluded that, under such circumstances, only the sovereign People themselves can restore a just public order. We'd once again be fully justified in saying, "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security...." [emphasis added]
Well, that pretty much looks like our present situation to me. The big, so far unanswered question is: What will the People do about it?
Then there is yet another nagging question: Do the People feel they have any responsibility in this regard? How that question is answered likely will determine whether we Americans and our posterity are to live as free men or as slaves.