The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order

Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson,FloydReports.com

 

In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had,the process
by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted.
Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail,but those who
voted for the “Budget Control Act of 2011″(“BCA 2011″) were wholly unconcerned
about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana
of “bi-partisan consensus “to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of
the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.

First,the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process”in BCA 2011 Title III
unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.

The
Constitution’s Article I,Section 8,Clause 2
vests in Congress the power “to
borrow Money on the credit of the United States.”As two of America’s leading
constitutionalists,St. George Tucker and Joseph Story,observed,the power to
borrow money is “inseparably connected”with that of “raising a
revenue.”Thus,from the founding of the American republic through 1917,Congress
—vested with the power “to lay and collect taxes,duties and imposts,”—kept a
tight rein on borrowing,and authorized each individual debt issuance
separately.

To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World
War I,Congress established an aggregate limit,or ceiling,on the total amount of
bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of
setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each
individual debt issuance,it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was
not permitted. Thus,on February 12,2010,Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294
trillion,which President Obama signed into law.

However,a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on
August 2,2011. Title III of the Act reads the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval
Process.”Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to
“determine”that the debt ceiling is too low,and that further borrowing is
required to meet existing commitments,”subject only to congressional
“disapproval.”For the first time in American history the power to borrow money
on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise
revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers
have now by statute been separated.

Under the new process established by this bill,if the President determines,no
later than December 31,2011,that the nation’s debt is within $100 billion of the
existing debt limit and that further borrowing is required to meet existing
commitments,the debt limit automatically increases. The President need only to
certify to Congress that he has made the required determination. Once the
President acts,the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow $900 billion “subject to
the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted”by Congress.

But this is not all. Title III also provides that if Congress fails to
disapprove the debt ceiling increase in the amount of $900 billion,the President
may again certify to Congress that he has determined that the debt subject to
the new ceiling is within $100 billion and that further borrowing is required to
meet existing commitments. So the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to borrow
another $1.2 trillion. Indeed,the Secretary may borrow even more —up to $1.5
trillion if a proposed balanced budget amendment has been submitted to the
states for ratification. As was true of the first round of ceiling raising and
borrowing,the President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by
the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which,itself,is
subject to veto by the President.

By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to
determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation’s commitments,this
bill….

Read more.

Obama, the New Caesar

Obama, the New Caesar

June 17th, 2011

Jeffrey T. Kuhner, The Washington Times

President Obama has crossed the Rubicon. He now believes – and acts – as if
he is above the law; the Constitution no longer applies to him. This is the real
meaning behind the U.S. military intervention in Libya
. Mr. Obama is
abrogating the linchpin of our democracy: the rule of law.

He
is violating the War Powers Act
. Passed in 1973, the law clearly stipulates
that the commander in chief can only deploy U.S. forces for 60 to 90 days
without congressional approval. He must then receive authorization from
Congress. If he does not, he
is usurping legislative authority
and expanding
the prerogatives of the executive branch
– concentrating power in his
hands
, especially the
most important act of all: war
. In short, by flagrantly
transgressing the War Powers Act
, Mr. Obama
has sparked a constitutional crisis
.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio
Republican, is demanding that the Obama administration explain why it has passed
the deadline
without seeking or getting congressional approval for the
Libyan campaign. The White House’s response: Get lost. The administration sent a
report to lawmakers defending the NATO-led Libyan war. For Mr. Obama, the War
Powers Act does not apply because U.S. forces apparently are not engaged in
“sustained hostilities” with troops loyal to strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
Moreover, U.S. air and missile strikes are only being conducted in a
“supporting” role. Hence, there is no need to have congressional buy-in.

This is postmodern humanitarian interventionism. According to the liberal
apparatchiks in the White House, Mr. Obama can bypass Congress simply by
redefining “hostilities.” War is no longer war. It is whatever Mr. Obama says it
is – or isn’t. George Orwell warned that the perversion of language is the first
step on the dark road to authoritarianism.

Mr.
Obama’s policy contravenes our national interest, is inept, immoral and
illegal
. This is why members of Congress are in open revolt. A bipartisan
group of lawmakers led by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, and Rep.
Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, have filed a lawsuit demanding that
the courts force Mr. Obama to end the intervention in Libya. They are right. It
is time Congress reined in an out-of-control administration. There is a growing
alliance between conservative constitutionalists and anti-war liberals…

In addition, the hypocrisy of the liberal establishment is stunning. For
years, progressives, such as Mr. Obama, railed against President George W. Bush.
He was denounced as a “fascist” dictator and compared to Adolf Hitler for his
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Bush lied, people died,” went the slogan. Yet,
regardless of whether one supported those campaigns or not, Mr. Bush received
congressional authorization…

Read
more
.

Muslims Aren’t Terrorists; You Are

Muslims Aren’t Terrorists; You Are

April 11th, 2011

Doug Book, FloydReports.com

With the election approaching, Barack Hussein Obama has spared no effort in
proclaiming his undying love of his country (the United States, we are told), his
veneration of the Constitution, his enduring
belief in the power of prayer, and the
firm conviction that Americans have the
right to keep and bear arms
.
But we proletarians who manifest such sentiments had best beware of the
Department of Homeland Security and its commandant, Big Sis Napolitano.
A proud assertion of patriotism
by Americans who actually mean it may well succeed in marking one as a
Suspected Domestic Terrorist
….
Read
more
.

The Liberals’ Gun Control Crusade Targets…the Amish?

The Liberals’ Gun Control Crusade Targets…the
Amish?

April 4th, 2011

Kevin “Coach” Collins, FloydReports.com

The double-talking liberal Democrats in Illinois have
voted down a Republican measure to demand that those attempting to vote produce
a photo ID. The arguments they made were the same shopworn nonsense they always
use: “Such
a law will discourage voting”
; “It
disadvantage minority groups”
; etc.
In spite of the ever-increasing movement toward photo identification
everywhere we look, these people are able to kill photo ID bills. They have the
votes in the Illinois legislature and fear their fraudulent voters will not
be able to
keep supporting them if the system were to become honest.
Gun Control is the Liberals’ Religion
The same liberal Democrats who fight to keep voters from having to produce
photo ID have now passed a new law that will demand photo ID for those
who want to exercise their Second Amendment right
to buy a gun.
For most of the comrades living in a socialist-leaning state like Illinois,
assaults on freedom like this are part of life. Nevertheless, not all of
Illinois’ citizens can merely shrug off this law….
Read
more.

The GOP’s Political Salvation: Impeachment?

The GOP’s Political Salvation: Impeachment?

March
25th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

So far, the first person to seriously raise the issue
of impeaching Barack Obama over his
illegal,
unconstitutional war in Libya
is Dennis
Kucinich
. That means the man whose ideas may do the most to unite the
Republican Party is a Democrat.
To be clear, impeachment is a constitutional remedy for a president intent
upon violating its strictures. Unfortunately, it is also a political act, which
means politicians must feel they have sufficient support before undertaking it.
Many authorities have stated the Libyan intervention rises to the level of an
impeachable offense. However, it might simultaneously be the perfect storm
necessary to pluck Obama out of office, splinter the Democratic coalition, or
weld Republicans together.
Months into the new Republican Congress, the GOP Establishment worries it
will not be able to corral the Tea Party. Despite pseudoconservative attempts
to order Tea Party members around
and establishment
promises to “co-opt them,”
this citizens’ uprising induces fear and loathing
in the political class on both sides of the aisle.
To mollify their constituents, Congressional Republicans have tried to prove
they are serious about the Constitution and cutting the deficit. They have
passed bills requiring members to cite specific constitutional authorization. To
date, the Beltway Republicans’ miniscule budget cuts not satisfied the
disaffected populist movement.
What might work? Impeachment.
King Obama’s
war-by-decree
was launched with zero constitutional authority. Obama did not
obtain a declaration of war, nor even a Congressional “authorization of
force”….
Read
more
.

Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Phil Boehmke

 

Today we celebrate the Ronald Reagan Centennial. Revisionists on the left
have been busy reinterpreting and recasting the life of President Reagan in an
attempt to explain his continued popularity. Time magazine photo-shopped President Reagan with his hand on Barack Obama’s
shoulder for last week’s cover in a curious attempt to link the two polar
opposites.
The gulf that separates Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama cannot be bridged by
media hype and superficial comparisons. Perhaps no issue defines the differences
between President Reagan and Mr. Obama more closely than their views on
abortion. Last month Barack Obama marked the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade by
re-affirming his unyielding support of abortion. During his lack-luster career
in the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama revealed his extreme and radical pro-abortion
agenda.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak
against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term
labor-induced abortions…Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a
nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to
be a person who had the right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to
take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law
deemed a child who survived a late-term abortion had a right to live, “then this
would be an anti-abortion statute.” [1]
In stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s radical views on abortion, Ronald Reagan
as a Christian, believed in the sanctity of life and sought ways to educate and
convince pro-abortion supporters to consider the rights of the unborn. In The
Reagan Diaries the president relates that he had received a wire from a woman in
Peoria, Il in response to his State of the Union speech. The woman was unhappy
with his stance on abortion and felt that he wanted to take away her freedom of
choice. Rather than write a response, President Reagan called her on the
telephone and explained that “there were 2 people‘s rights involved in
abortion-the mother‘s & the unborn child.” After what he termed “a nice
visit,” the woman promised to give the matter further thought. Ronald Reagan
noted that “I think I made a friend.” [2]
During his presidency Ronald Reagan was impressed with the new ultra-sound
procedure and predicted that the new technology would have a powerful impact on
the abortion issue. In a meeting with leaders from the Right to Life movement he
viewed a short film which showed an ultra-sound of an actual abortion being
performed. President Reagan related that the Doctor who had performed the
abortion (and some 10,000 others) was so moved by the evidence that he joined
the pro-life movement. He wrote in his diary “The movie (28 minutes long) was
most impressive & how anyone could deny that the fetus is a living human
being is beyond me.” [3]
Of course President Reagan never met Barack Obama. Standing in stark and
bloody contrast to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama was never swayed by evidence which
would assert that a fetus is “a living human being.”
More than once, Obama heard Illinois nurse Jill Stanek testify before the
Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, relating the following story of an aborted
Down syndrome baby who survived a late-term induced-labor abortion and was
abandoned in the hospital’s Soiled Utility Room because the baby’s parents did
not want to hold him. “I couldn’t bear the thought of this child lying alone in
a Soiled Utility Room,” Stanek testified before Obama’s committee in the
Illinois Senate. “So I cradled him and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he
lived.” Stanek reported Obama was “unfazed” by the testimony. [4]
Ronald Reagan embraced life and had a confident and simple way of
expressing the importance of each life. On July 6, 1983 he wrote:
Nancy’s Birthday! Life would be miserable if there wasn’t a Nancy’s
birthday. What if she’d never been born. I don’t want to think about that.
[5]
On Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday if we pause to ask, what if he had never
been born? The response would clearly be, “I don’t want to think about that.”
The United States of America was truly blessed to have had President Ronald
Reagan at the helm for eight wonderful years.
[1] Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of
Personality (New York: Threshold Editions, 2008), p. 238.
[2] Douglas Brinkley Editor, The Reagan Diaries (New York: HarperCollins,
2007), p. 217-8.
[3] Ibid., p. 296.
[4] Corsi, The Obama Nation, p. 238.
[5] Brinkley, The Reagan Diaries, p. 164.
February 6, 2010

Page
Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/ronald_reagan_vs_barack_obama.html

at February 06, 2011 – 11:15:54 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Will AZ Shooter Kill the First Amendment?

Will AZ Shooter Kill the First Amendment?

January 11th, 2011

Joe Guzzardi, FloydReports.com

Immediately after crazed gunman Jared Lee Loughner gravely wounded Arizona U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, killed U.S. Judge John M. Roll, and six other people while wounding 12 innocent bystanders, the immigration rhetoric subtly ratcheted up.

Denouncing Gifford’s shooting, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others made it clear that what they referred to as “inflammatory speech” had made the political atmosphere in Arizona so toxic that acts of violence were inevitable.

Referring to talk radio hosts, Dupnik charged them with “inflaming the American public by those who get paid to do that. It might be free speech but it does not come without consequences.”

Ironically, Dupnik is the most skilled flamethrower of all.

Last year, at the height of the S.B. 1070 controversy, Dupnik called it “racist” and “disgusting” while claiming that Arizona is “the mecca of prejudice and bigotry.” Furthermore, Dupnik went on record that he would not enforce the measure if it became law, a blatant violation of his oath of office.

Dupnik never directly claimed that S.B. 1070 and Giffords’ support of it were linked to the shootings. But a close read between the lines strongly suggests that Dupnik blames Loughner’s multiple murders on “the haters,” a label that many automatically apply to Americans who favor enforcing federal immigration law.

Even though only a few hours had passed after the massacre before Dupnik pointed his finger and no evidence has yet surfaced that Loughner is anything other than deranged, more “hate” charges flew.

Read more.

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

 December 27th, 2010 Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

In a foretaste of outrages to come, the Obama administration managed to sneak out a federal regulation paying doctors to provide “end of life counseling” to those covered by ObamaCare. The Medicare rule, which Congress never voted on, may encourage thousands to forego lifesaving treatment. This move is a voluntary precursor to the inevitable rationing engendered by socialized medicine. Many conservative media outlets have objected to the pro-death aspects of this decision. However, they have ignored a vital aspect of this story: the way he implemented the policy. This federal regulation inaugurates Obama’s two-year strategy to rule by executive order. The New York Times reports…. Read more

Federal Judge Declares Part of ObamaCare Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Declares Part of ObamaCare Unconstitutional

December 13th, 2010

Matthew Boyle, The Daily Caller

A  federal judge in Virginia has determined that the part of President  Barack Obama’s health care overhaul that requires all Americans to  purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson deemed that part of the law  unconstitutional in the first part of what is sure to be a case that  will end up in the Supreme Court. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli led the fight in his state.

“I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this  will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical  milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said in a  statement.

Hudson said the part of the law that requires individuals to purchase  health insurance is unconstitutional because it “exceeds the  constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

Read more.

Crisis not ‘wasted’: Obama to nationalize oil companies?

Crisis not ‘wasted’: Obama to nationalize oil companies?

June 7th, 2010

By Drew Zahn, WND

 Will Obama Nationalize Oil?

While management of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has shaken many Americans’ confidence in the current administration, some voices in entertainment, news and academia see the crisis as reason to give the federal government even more power – namely, the ability to take over the oil industry.

The notion is catching on with the public, too. A CBS poll recently tabulated 63 percent of Americans believe the Obama administration should be doing more in response to the spill, and activists working through the SeizeBP.org website are planning protests in 50 cities throughout the week demanding the federal government take over BP, the company that owns and operates the leaking oil drill.

The Seize BP organization is demanding BP assets be nationalized not only to clean up the spill, but also to compensate families affected by what the organization calls “this capitalist-made disaster.”

Since BP’s offshore drill began gushing crude into the Gulf of Mexico in April, the Obama administration has deferred to the corporation’s expertise in seeking to stop the flow.

But as the ongoing environmental disaster has extended beyond 40 days and counting, entertainer Rosie O’Donnell, political pundit James Carville and former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich have joined those calling for a federal takeover of the situation.

On her “Rosie Radio” program earlier this week, O’Donnell quoted Carville, who told CNN’s John King, “This president needs to tell BP, ‘I’m your daddy, I’m in charge. You’re going to do what we say.’”

“James Carville said the best thing,” O’Donnell affirmed, adding that she’d like to see Obama say, “’I’m signing an executive order and I’m taking over the BP oil spill.’ Like, boom, boom, boom. Someone has to do it.”

Read More: