How To Read The Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

1. Hillsdale College posted a quiz about the Constitution, and this was the first question:

Which branch of government has a duty to interpret the Constitution?

The Executive Branch
The Judicial Branch
The Legislative Branch
All of the above


I'll give the correct answer in a moment.



2. As has been noted on this board, to be a Liberal in good standing, one must be ready to accept, support and advance total and absolute fabrications. ...it is not necessary to believe them...but merely to pretend to believe them.

There are huge numbers of such lies....like this:
Obama was a professor, and an expert on the Constitution..
..or this: Jimmy Carter was the nuclear scientist he claimed to be.

Remember....Liberal acolytes never do the research to check the lies....they aren't allowed.



3. Now...the answer to the Constitution question?
" Contrary to the widespread contemporary belief that the judiciary should be the sole interpreter of the Constitution, every member of the government has an obligation to uphold the oath of office. This requires each member to make a judgment about the meaning of the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution stipulates, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
Hillsdale


Of course, I got that right...but it doesn't go far enough: every single one of us has the obligation to read, understand, and 'interpret' what it means;
it IS written in English.


a. The view (read 'lie') which Leftist espouses, is quite the opposite: "In a 1907 speech [Charles Evans ] Hughes stated “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”
Today, though Hughes is dead, he leads the chorus of jurists and judicial activists that want to remake society in their own image, and try to use the Constitution to do it." Hughes' Hubris: Is the Constitution "What the Judges Say it is"?



4. Here's the truth: As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’ “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi



Don't let the Left pull the wool over your eyes with the claim that the Constitution requires some 'interpretation' which is beyond your capabilities.

It isn't....or, why did you pay all that money for your education?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Now, back to that 'lie' that Obama is any more than a power-grabbing, Constitution- hating Leftist...
First of all, he was never a professor of constitutional law.


As for Obama's supposed 'expertise' in the subject.....
"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, issued a July 2014 report that found 20 instances in which a unanimous high court ruled against the administration. Not all of these cases were executive actions, but legal interpretations by an agency.

The Obama administration has fared worse before the Supreme Court than any other modern president’s administration, with a 45 percent win rate, according to an analysis by Ilya Shapiro, a fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Obama’s last five predecessors had a win rate of between 60-75 percent before the high court, according to Shapiro." Obama Weak in Court Upholding Executive Actions


45% judicial success?
At least that's far better than his success with the economy.



6. Soooo....either he doesn't understand the Constitution....or he is a totalitarian following the view of the FDR administration.

This was the view in the FDR administration:
"Any people who must be governed according to the written codes [that means the Constitution] of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."


See the lie in there? Read article five, which states how the Constitution is to be altered.



Are you an American...then you support the Constitution. The above individuals....not so much.



Vote Democrat and you vote to end America.
Smert Komitet Gossudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti!

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. How does this stack up with Obama's claim that he is a constitutional expert?
"...The Obama administration has fared worse before the Supreme Court than any other modern president’s administration ..."



“The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have overturned Obama administration actions that went beyond constitutional and statutory limits at an unprecedented rate, as documented by statistical studies,”... unanimous rebukes by the high court came at a much higher rate than for previous presidents.

“This reflects an Obama administration pattern of ignoring the rule of law and usurping the role of Congress—as illustrated, for example, in its unauthorized efforts to rewrite the immigration laws and the Obamacare statute without congressional authorization,..." Daily Signal, Ibid.


A card-carrying Liberal is mandated to respond: "Oh, yeah???/ Sez you!"


But....they cannot deny the above.....and, there are examples such as this:
There is Executive Amnesty....
In June, the Supreme Court had a tie vote on Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The 4-4 ruling resulted in upholding an appellate court ruling to strike down Obama’s executive amnesty. Ibid.


Shouldn't Obama...you know....the alleged 'constitutional law professor'.... have known that he had no such right?

Vote Democrat, vote for lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. "...The Obama administration has fared worse before the Supreme Court than any other modern president’s administration ..."



“The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have overturned Obama administration actions that went beyond constitutional and statutory limits at an unprecedented rate, as documented by statistical studies,”... unanimous rebukes by the high court came at a much higher rate than for previous presidents."



How about a few examples of Obama getting slapped down:

a. School Gender Identity Restrooms Mandate

In August, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled that schools may keep restrooms, locker rooms, and showers separated based on biological gender.

The judge blocked the mandate ...The judge determined the Obama administration overreached on its authority by mandating in May that public schools allow people to use restrooms based on their gender identity instead of biological gender. If the schools did not adhere to the rules, they would risk losing their federal education funding.

b. Appointing Without Confirmation

In a stinging legal defeat for Obama, the Supreme Court ruled that the president cannot make recess appointments when the Senate is still in session. The liberal wing, including Obama nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, joined the majority for a 9-0 rebuke in June 2014.


c. Delayed Carbon Regulations

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in February to halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan from taking effect until the legal challenge is complete. The EPA finalized the plan in October 2015, requiring states to meet individual carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals for power plants by 2022, and again in 2030. Daily Signal, Ibid.



March 30, 2007, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor!"





Sooooo....who can understand the Constitution?
Anyone who can read English.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. But....but.... March 30, 2007, fundraiser when Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor,"....(sputter sputter)....yet is spanked by the courts with metronomic regularity:

a. Searching Cellphones

The Supreme Court ruled in another unanimous decision that the Obama administration could not search cellphone data without cause, because such a search would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The majority opinion said:

Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life.’ The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.

b. Obamacare Judicial Setback

The Supreme Court has twice upheld Obamacare, either in whole or in part.

However, in a lawsuit brought by the House of Representatives, the law hit a snag in May when U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer in the District of Columbia ruled the administration has been improperly funding the Obamacare subsidy program.

Though Congress authorized the program, it didn’t appropriate funding for it, Collyer said in her opinion.

The funding program was set up to reimburse insurance companies and provide cost-sharing for low-income patients.

c. Regulating Water

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati, ruled that the Obama administration’s Waters of the United States rule wasn’t legal, asserting that it clashed with Supreme Court precedent. The EPA unsuccessfully argued that bodies of water could be under federal control because of their connection to larger bodies of water. Daily Signal, Ibid.





Is this really what one should expect from a 'constitutional law professor'....or, simply the acts of a power-grabbing windbag?

Pretty clear, huh?

Sooooo....who voted for this?


What sort of dunce would continue to vote Democrat???