- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 1, 2008
- Posted by Christopher Estep on December 1, 2008
I’m a constructionist regarding the Constitution. I believe that words mean things and that there is no esoteric meaning behind the those words in particular. Having said that, I’m getting weary of the constitutional nitpicking regarding Obama’s impending nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State:
Hillary's nomination will be made in the face of the Constitutional prohibition in the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2):
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.
That's quite clear. A Senator, such as Hillary, is prohibited from serving in any federal office "created" or the "emoluments whereof" were increased during the Senator's term.
The problem with that interpretation is that it’s not accurate:
The salary of the Secretary of State was increased in January 2008 by an executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute. Because the increase occurred during the time Hillary was a Senator she can not be the Secretary of state.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t in the Senate in the 90’s. It doesn’t matter that Bush issued the order in 2008. Part of the role of the executive branch is to implement the statutes that have been passed by Congress (and usually signed by the President).
Let’s look at the ramifications of such an interpretation. Any outgoing or lame duck president could prevent his successor from appointing any member of Congress to his cabinet by issuing an executive order. It could also prevent any person in congress from being an ambassador, a federal judge or justice. All of this could be done completely out of spite.
Yes, I’m a constructionist. But the critics are overlooking what I feel is the plain and obvious purpose of the clause out of sour grapes. Its purpose is to prevent Congressmen from creating jobs for themselves or lining its own pockets by giving raises for jobs that they will have. The problem is that it was the President that gave this raise based on a statute passed before Clinton was even in congress!
What’s most irritating is sanctimonious attitude of bloggers who refuse to believe that there could actually be a different, but still legitimate, interpretation of the clause:
It is sad to see President-elect Obama, a former lecturer on Constitutional Law, show such a lack of respect for the Constitution.
And I thought I was smug and arrogant!
As an aside, I think that clause in the constitution needs to be repealed by amendment anyway. While I don’t believe that it prevents Clinton from being SecState (as it didn’t prevent Bentsen in 1992 and countless ambassadors), It legitimately does prevent any congressman in office in 2003 from being named Secretary of Homeland Security. That’s unfortunate, because there are indeed some congressmen who would be very good in that position, such as Joe Lieberman or even John McCain.
RedState: Obama to nominate Hillary as Secretary of State Monday despite Constitutional prohibition
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 23, 2008
Hilarious!
George, Tom, Teddy, Abe....and Barry?
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 7, 2008
Proposition 8 in California, a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, passed in California. The überleft is screaming about intolerant conservatives and white people wanting to deny “rights” to gay marriage. But who really passed prop 8?
Exit poll data showed seven in 10 black voters and more than half of Latino voters backed the ballot initiative, while whites and Asians were split.
Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.
In other words, if Obama hadn’t driven up the turnout of those two crucial groups, gay marriage would still be legal in California. As Bart Simpson once said, “The ironing is delicious.” It should be noted that whites were roughly split evenly.
So to all of you liberal gay men in California, I’m sure there are many of you who fantasized about getting screwed by Barack Obama during the election. You got your wish. :)
HT: MM
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
During this campaign, who did the media seek when they wanted to know the position of the Democratic Party. Was it Obama? No. It was Nancy Pelosi and to a lesser degree, Harry Reid.
People talk about Obama’s leadership, but he’s never demonstrated any. He’s been shepherded from one position to another. It was William Ayers who launched Obama’s political career after Ayers gave him is only executive position to date.
In the senate, he had a reputation as someone who would sign on to a bill and then claim credit for it.
Obama simply is not a leader. He’s a motivational speaker with ideas. Unfortunately, those ideas aren’t even his own. Whenever he tried to show some initiative and come up with his own position during the campaign, he quickly had to reverse that position and took up the position of his party.
Obama may be able to motivate, but he is weak because of his lack of experience and his willingness to toe the line for Democrats. What makes this the number one reason to fear him is that the rest of the world will see this too. Appeasers are easily manipulated and often used. Obama will be both. I’ll bet Putin is salivating because he knows without any doubt that the most Obama will ever do is scrape his bony fingers at him.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
Obama has said that if he’s elected, there will be a “fundamental change” in America. There is little more frightening than that.
It’s not only frightening but it is sad. To believe that America requires a fundamental change means that he believes that America is fundamentally wrong.
In business, a fundamental change would be a massive restructuring and a reinvention of the basis upon which the business was built. That’s what Obama wants for this country.
Obama is a socialist and a Marxist. Socialism has never worked anywhere it’s been tried, but that doesn’t stop Obama from trying it here.
The twin sister of socialism is Fascism. You usually have one with the other and there’s no question that Obama is a fascist in the old meaning of the term, ala Mussolini and Wilson.
America doesn’t need a fundamental change. America needs to return to its roots which are capitalism, liberty, and the “government that governs least, governs best.” We need to throw people off of the government teat and make them responsible for their own lives, successful or failure.
We don’t need a fundamental change, we need to change back to the fundamentals upon which this country was built. Changing the U.S. into France isn’t the answer.
Up next: Obama the Puppet
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
Environmentalism has never been about trees. It’s never been about spotted owls, snail-darters, and calling swamps “wetlands”. Environmentalism has been about one thing and that is power.
Obama has drunk the Environmentlist Kool-Aid with more gusto than any major presidential candidate in history. And why not? Any industry that doesn’t do what you want can be run out of business using the environment as an excuse.
Biden signaled it this week with the statement that the Obama administration would bankrupt any new coal plants through environmental penalties and fees.
If that doesn’t frighten you, it should. Government should never have that kind of power, but in the name of “Change” and “Crisis” people will sign over their very lives if they are asked.
Environmentalism is an industry. Al Gore makes millions off of it and so do many others. I believe in clean water and air, but the Gaia Cult is nearing religion status. If you own an SUV, you’re a heretic of the movement. And you remember what happened to heretics in the middle ages, don’t you?
Up next: Fundamental Change
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
I don’t need to go into much detail for this one.
- Voted to defund the troops even when his own running-mate said it would kill soldiers.
- Agreed to sit down with our enemies without preconditions, a suggestion called naive by numerous of his own party, including his running mate.
- Opposed the surge, said the surge failed, then supported the surge saying he always thought it would succeed.
- Stated he would invade Pakistan without consent in order to find bin Laden.
- Received endorsements from (and I’m not even kidding) Hamas, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez. It gets worse. Jimmy Carter endorsed him too.
Barack Obama running the military is like a kid playing with his dad’s gun.
Next up: Environmentalism
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
How would you react if your doctor wanted to treat you with leaches, phrenology, and shock therapy? That’s essentially what Obama is proposing. No, I’m not suggesting that socialized medicine will treat people with leaches. I’m making the comparison to old medical philosophies and techniques that were debunked a long time ago.
The simple fact is that everywhere it’s tried it leads to rationed healthcare. This means that if you have non-urgent surgery, you could wait up to a year.
Aside from national defense, can you name one government run industry that has succeeded?
When people need exceptional care, they come to America. They don’t go to Canada and they don’t go to England. They come to the USA because we have the best healthcare system in the world.
We do take care of the poor and while I think something needs to be done about the insurance racket, I don’t want to have to have the democrat equivalent of ration stamps just to get a normal procedure.
Next up: Foreign Policy
- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
Barack Obama is a big believer in judicial activism. If you’re not familiar with the term, it essentially means that if a court disagrees with what is written in law, they issue an opinion declaring whatever they disagree with to either be unconstitutional or to extrapolate a new right or entitlement that was never in the Constitution to begin with, such as:
- Abortion
- Privacy
- Freedom from religion
- Freedom from discrimination
- Expression
- Fairness
I’m not saying that privacy isn’t important and nobody should suffer through discrimination, but they aren’t in the Constitution. If people want something to be “constitutional” then it needs to be put there. There are ways to do that.
Obama not only supports judicial activism, he laments that it doesn’t exist more.
Obama supports the following new “rights” to be put into the constitution in order to make it more “flexible”:
- Food
- Shelter
- Free education through college
- Free healthcare
- Environmental rights
and the list goes on. You may want some or all of these things, but they aren’t in the constitution. That’s what congress is for, not judges.
Next up: Health Care