ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
MichaelConnelly.Jigsy.com
Since Barack Hussein Obama became President of the
United States it seems that we have been a constant
state of Constitutional crisis. He has repeatedly
violated his oath of office, ignored the
Constitutional balance of powers by bypassing
Congress in order to rewrite or make new laws, and
ignoring rulings by the courts. He has sought the
destruction of our free market economy, tried to
divide us along racial, ethnic and economic lines,
and blamed the American people for all the ills of
the world.
Obama has launched an all-out assault on the Bill of
Rights, seeking to severely limit or completely
destroy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the
right to keep and bear arms, the right to due
process, and all the rest of our God given rights.
He has decimated the capability of our military to
effectively defend us, has destroyed the morale of
our troops, and caused the death of many of our
heroes by imposing rules of engagement designed to
protect our enemies.
He
has provided “aid and comfort” to our enemies by
releasing known terrorists from captivity to rejoin
the fight against us, refused to identify our enemy
as Islamic Jihadists, and provided access to the
White House and our government to those who support
our destruction and the imposition of Sharia law on
the entire world.
With
all of this being said, you are probably wondering
what other Constitutional crisis we are facing that
could be even more damaging. The answer is both
simple and devastating. Obama is about to trash
other key provisions of the Constitution and he is
doing it with the active support of the Republican
leaders in Congress. Remember them; they are the
folks we elected to stop the Obama onslaught.
I am
referring specifically to the treaty with Iran that
gives this terrorist supporting nation a quick path
to obtain nuclear weapons while receiving billions
of dollars to finance terrorist attacks around the
world. First, I believe a good case can be made that
this agreement is in fact a treaty under the classic
legal definition and therefore cannot go into effect
unless consented to by two thirds of the U.S.
Senate.
It
has to be either a treaty or an executive agreement
made by the President. A treaty is an agreement
between two or more countries, made under
international law that is enforceable by the
parties. The so called agreement with Iran certainly
appears to fit the definition. On the other hand, if
it is an executive agreement or an executive order
it can be rescinded by the next President. By its
very language it is a long term agreement over the
next ten to fifteen years. The wording of the
document clearly indicates that there should not be
any way for the parties to unilaterally rescind it.
Yet, the leaders of Congress have acquiesced to
Obama’s claim that it is an Executive agreement.
That
is the first violation of the Constitution, yet
there is a second one that can be even more
devastating. Under
the agreement reached by Obama and the Republican
leaders of congress, the House and Senate will have
sixty days to review the agreement and then approve
or disapprove it by a straight up or down vote. If
the Congress votes yes than the agreement goes into
effect. If either the House or the Senate votes no
than the President will be allowed to veto that vote
and the Congress will have to get a two thirds
majority to override the veto.
I
think this is a clear violation of Article 1,
Section 7 of the Constitution that allows the
President to either sign or veto laws or bills
“passed” by Congress. There is no provision in the
Constitution and no legal precedent that I can find
that allows the President to “veto” and therefor
override a bill or law that does not pass both
houses of Congress. The whole idea turns the
Constitution on its head. If this was allowed to
stand then the President would essentially be a
dictator able to unilaterally put laws into place
that Congress had voted down. I believe even some
liberals on the Supreme Court would be hard pressed
to approve of what would be a major amendment to the
Constitution that did not go through the
constitutionally mandated amendment process. I think
a challenge to this procedure would be successful.
However, in order to get by the question of legal
standing to challenge the constitutionality of this
I believe a suit must be filed by a member of
Congress, preferably a member of the Senate. Yet, it
appears that no one is willing to do this, although
it is clearly their obligation under their oath of
office. If someone does step up to the plate I will
offer my services and those of the United States
Justice Foundation to assist in such litigation.
If
no challenge is made than Obama will certainly get
the votes of 13 left wing Democrats in the Senate to
prevent the override of the veto. At that point we
can say goodbye to the Constitution and our
freedoms. We will be officially under a dictatorship
with none of our elected members of Congress even
willing to put up a fight.
mrobertc@hotmail.com
Michael Connelly blog
www.usjf.net
Constitutional Law Alliance