Friday, March 26, 2010
In the context of speaking about slavery that existed during the Founding era, Obama told us that the Constitution is an “imperfect document.” It has now become apparent that the flaw that Obama sees with our governing document is much more fundamental and goes well beyond what he said related to the early slave experience. For Obama, that flaw is that the Constitution is obligatory, is a strong check on government power, and cannot be changed by just one person.
We have seen Obama brazenly ignore the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We have seen how Obama has the audacity to be President and Commander without honoring and respecting the Constitution by showing that he is at least born in Hawaii as he claims and satisfying the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as originally intended by the Framers and Founders. That is a violation of the document he swore twice to “preserve, protect and defend.”
Such conduct by Obama lead many to ask if Obama does not respect and defend the Constitution and so publicly defies it once, what will stop him from doing the same a second and third time. These Americans were right in expressing such concern, for now we have Obamacare which is just another example of Obama flouting and ignoring the Constitution.
Now he wants to force upon the nation a health care system under the guise that the Federal Government can do so because that system does nothing more than regulate interstate commerce. Additionally, he wants to accomplish his plan without even adhering to legitimate legislative process. How he can honestly believe that a person who does not buy a good or service (such as health insurance) or who the government compels to do so under the threat of a camouflaged income tax is engaged in interstate commerce or gives the government the right to interfere in such personal decisions based on some other constitutional provision defies reason and common sense. Treating people’s refusal to buy health insurance as interstate commerce or triggering some other constitutional governmental power would in effect give Congress unlimited authority to control every aspect of people’s lives. When something defies logic, we have to ask ourselves what is the real motive involved. Upon close circumspection we can see that Obama’s health care plan is nothing more than the government taking more money from productive members of society and giving it to those who need money but do not have it for various reasons, with the central government in the process usurping great powers and control over the people’s lives including but not limited to violating their privacy rights over their own bodies, their medical and financial privacy, their right to decide how much medical care one needs, their right to free speech and association, their right to exercise their religion, doctors’ right to earn a living as they see fit, their right not to be illegally taxed, and their right to make end-of-life decisions. This is nothing but Obama and his Congress declaring a socialist revolution upon the American people and attempting to sneak that revolution right by them by dressing the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
There exists proof in the form of Obama’s own words that his health insurance plan is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth which the government has no power to do under our Constitution. Obama made some appearances as a guest on Odyssey, a talk show at Chicago Public Radio. Obama, then a State Senator and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, was on the program 3 times between 1998 and 2002. Here is an excerpt from the call-in segment for the Slavery and the Constitution show that aired in September of 2001. Here is the transcript from 2001 as posted at Free Republic at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2116060/posts:
“MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.
“OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.”
Indeed, there we have it in Obama’s own words. There is little doubt that Obamacare is nothing more than Obama’s means of achieving what he perceives to be “political and economic justice in this society” by using “redistribution of wealth.” He even concedes that redistribution of wealth is a “radical” idea. He admits that the Warren court could not achieve such “political and economic justice” because it could not break free from the “essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” And here is the real flaw that Obama sees with the Constitution: “it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
We can see that Obama does not accept that the Tenth Amendment says that whatever powers the Constitution does not give to the federal government or prohibit to the States is reserved to the States or the people. What is it that Obama wants the government to do “on your behalf?” One can only wonder why Obama believes that a government must do some unspecified thing for people. Is it love of power and control over people that compels him to harbor such ideas? We can see that Obama realizes that my right to sit at the lunch counter is freedom “as long as I could pay for it.” Hence, comes his plan to redistribute wealth. Obama admits that such radical change has not yet been accomplished through the courts. He also does not accept the “essential constraints” the Founders and Framers wrote into the Constitution. Hence, he offers a plan on how to get around those limitations. He tells us that such radical change must be accomplished through “political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change.” So there you have it very loud and clear. Obama admits that the Constitution does not allow him to engage in any such “redistribution of wealth” and that the Courts have never gone as far to permit it. But his plan is to accomplish it by changing the political structure of America which would give him the power to accomplish what is currently unconstitutional. Obama’s fear of the courts is evidenced from provisions that provide that no company can sue the government for price fixing and there will be no judicial review of government monopoly of health care. Of course, Obama’s plan necessarily includes also changing the current make-up of our courts. Maybe this is the “change” that he had in mind when he said that if he won the Presidency he was going to “change” America.
Obama has totally ignored the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The problem with that violation is that we have a person sitting in the President’s and Commander’s seat who is not eligible to be there. Practically speaking, that is a grave national security matter that puts America at risk not only from attack from enemies both foreign and domestic but as we can see also threatens America’s basic political institutions and freedoms. I believe it is a fair question to ask whether we would have an attack on America’s fundamental political, social, and economic institutions from a President who was a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders and Framers included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution believing that it would give America a better chance of avoiding such a person coming to power. The remedy for such usurpation is to immediately remove Obama from office and to secure that office with a replacement, all consistent with constitutional procedure.
During the Revolution, the People risked their lives, fortunes, and honor to earn the right to decide what powers they wanted to give to any national government that they would eventually constitute for the purpose of protecting themselves. The People drafted and ratified the Constitution as their written expression of their decision in that regard. Now through his new government-run health care system, Obama flouts the will of the People as expressed in the Constitution that the federal government stay out of the private affairs of the People. Obama and his Congress have now assumed powers that the Constitution does not give to the central government but rather leaves in the hands of the People and the States under the Tenth Amendment. And we have seen through Obama’s own words, that he knows that what he is attempting to accomplish is unconstitutional but he will nevertheless force it through by utilizing “political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change.”
Practically speaking, such usurpation is a government attempt at nationalizing over one-sixth (and probably even more once we learn by experience what the full impact of his plan really is) of the private economy. Add to that government ownership of some banks, auto makers, and insurance companies, and we have a very serious assault upon the free enterprise system and the American way of life. Thomas Jefferson told us that “[w]hensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force” and that "nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." Thomas Jefferson, November 16, 1798, Kentucky Resolution at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj080201)).
Jefferson also warned against construing the "necessary and proper" clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers by the general government. He said that the intent of the clause was to only enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extend the general government's scope. If a broader interpretation were to be given to the clause, this part of the Constitution would be used "to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." Jefferson also counseled the states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitution and not hesitant to attack unconstitutional measures by Congress or the President. He continued: "[F]ree government is founded in jealously and not in confidence" and therefore urged that "no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." In other words, the states and the People should not trust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply because those officials might be otherwise trusted to exercise those powers benevolently. He warned that this kind of "confidence of man" leads to the destruction of free government. The next question we should ask ourselves is what other assaults upon the Constitution can we expect from Obama and his Congress? Let us keep open our ears and eyes. Let our great States follow Jefferson’s wisdom and protect our freedoms.
The Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case, which challenges both Obama and Congress over Obama having usurped the Office of President and Commander in Chief, is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and is awaiting the Court’s decision on plaintiffs’ request for oral argument. Many States and private persons have recently filed lawsuits over Obama’s new national health care plan. It is hoped that the People closely monitor the progress of these law suits as they make their way through the courts and that they make themselves publicly heard on the matter.
This leads me to my final point. We the People need to understand that Obama will surely attempt to change the composition of or influence our judicial branch of government so that he can accomplish his unconstitutional ends. Now we can clearly see how important judicial appointments and an independent judiciary are to the survival of our Constitution and Republic and the freedoms we individuals all enjoy.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 26, 2010