Obama has issued a number of so-called “executive orders” dealing with the ongoing invasion of our borders. A number of these “orders” give aid and comfort to those who have invaded our borders. Obama is also threatening to issue more orders after this coming election with regard to illegal entrants which are beyond the authorized powers granted to the President. The question is how should “executive orders” be dealt with which are not within the powers granted to the President and violate the text and legislative intent of our Constitution, and obviously threaten the general welfare of the United States?
Chancellor James Kent wrote in his Commentaries on America law that:
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
Although the above quote deals with legislative acts, it is self-evident the quote applies to all government acts which violate the text and/or legislative intent of our Constitution, are null and void.
This same conclusion, that acts which are “repugnant to the constitution” are “void”, is eloquently stated in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). If this be true, that acts which violate the text, and/or the Constitution’s legislative intent are null and void, would it not be a proper response for the people’s representatives in Congress and/or the various State Legislatures to declare by Resolution that Obama’s Executive Orders which violate the text, and/or legislative intent of our constitution dealing with illegal entrants are “null and void” and as such are to be ignored? Would a failure to resist and express outrage to Obama’s un-constitutional Executive Orders not be a cowardly act of submission? The following quotation deals with this question.
”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787
JWK
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Chancellor James Kent wrote in his Commentaries on America law that:
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
Although the above quote deals with legislative acts, it is self-evident the quote applies to all government acts which violate the text and/or legislative intent of our Constitution, are null and void.
This same conclusion, that acts which are “repugnant to the constitution” are “void”, is eloquently stated in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). If this be true, that acts which violate the text, and/or the Constitution’s legislative intent are null and void, would it not be a proper response for the people’s representatives in Congress and/or the various State Legislatures to declare by Resolution that Obama’s Executive Orders which violate the text, and/or legislative intent of our constitution dealing with illegal entrants are “null and void” and as such are to be ignored? Would a failure to resist and express outrage to Obama’s un-constitutional Executive Orders not be a cowardly act of submission? The following quotation deals with this question.
”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787
JWK
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
