Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Lawlessness Reigns Supreme Under The Guise Of The Supremacy Clause

Sunday, September 20, 2015 14:15
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

The U.S. Constitution is supposed to be the “supreme law of the land”, US CONST. Art. VI, § 2. There is no other clause in the Constitution more important than this one. Without this provision, it would render the entire Constitution meaningless. The Constitution would be held in complete derision and contempt by its administrators.

Hamilton makes the point this way: “But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the SUPREME LAW of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 33.

An examination of current events reveals the troubling fact that the U.S. Constitution has, in reality, become nothing more than the supreme façade to lawlessness. We can see this fact well illustrated in a number of events that have taken place over this past year.

Lawless Amnesty

For example, we saw Obama violate the separation of powers with his Executive Order prescribing rules for immigration under the guise of granting amnesty. He issued that order in spite of the fact that the Constitution is clear on its face in the very first section of the Constitution that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress,” (US CONST. Art. I, §1), and in spite of the fact that immigration is the exclusive province of the Congress. (US CONST. Art. I, §8, cl.4)

Hamilton taught us that “legislative power” is nothing more than the “power of making laws.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 33. In another letter, Hamilton refers to the pure “essence” of “legislative authority” as nothing more than the “authority to enact laws.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 75. Legislative authority, he goes on to clarify, is the power “to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society.” Id. No power is granted in the Constitution for Congress to delegate that responsibility.

Yet, executive orders that prescribe rules for the regulation of society have become the norm for Presidents over the last 100 years. Congress has given its assent to this unconstitutional activity by the President, thereby confusing the public understanding of basic constitutional principles such as separation of powers. Obama is no different than his predecessors, but he seems to be more emboldened than they were.

Amnesty, for example, was not written into the Constitution to subvert the basic structure of separation of powers, and it cannot be used in such an unconstitutional way without also destroying that doctrine. It is ludicrous to argue that one constitutional power can be used to destroy another one.

In fact, the language of this power cannot be read in such a distorted fashion. It only gives the President power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” US CONST. Art. II, §2, cl.1. Obama was not granting a pardon or a reprieve to the people who broke our immigration laws. He was ignoring his duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” US CONST. Art. II, §3. His executive order was nothing more than a legislative act that prescribed rules for regulating a very large portion of society.

Along with this, Hamilton explains that the “principle argument for reposing the power of pardoning” with the President is for “insurrection or rebellion” by its citizens, when a “well-time offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.” As such, as intended by the Framers, President Lincoln used the power of general amnesty to restore tranquility to the Union following the Civil War by granting amnesty to the Citizens of the Southern states. Lincoln used general amnesty, not to violate any other provision of the Constitution, but to “restore the tranquility” of the nation.

Obama, on the other hand, is usurping the power of pardoning to rewrite the laws on immigration. His actions are not to restore tranquility to the nation, but, in fact, are disrupting the nation’s tranquility with an infusion of millions of migrants. Many have argued that this infusion actually hurts the employment opportunities of millions of Americans and will cause a divide among the citizens of this country. Others, also, have argued for some time now that Obama has done this in order to increase the number of voters who will vote the democratic ticket. Recent announcements encouraging these individuals to finalize their citizenship in order to register to vote supports these prior warnings.

Lawless Treaty Making

Next, we see Obama out striking contracts with foreign nations like the TPP and the Iranian deal under the guise of legislation rather than as a treaty in order to bypass the constitutional restriction that he must have a two-thirds’ consent from the Senate to get his deals done.

Obama and his minions have been arguing that the Iran deal is not a treaty because it is an executive agreement. They consider themselves clever with this distinction. If they were familiar with the writings of the Framers, they would realize that they are not clever, just ignorant. Hamilton explains that treaties are by definition agreements/contracts.

The object of a Treaty, Hamilton explains, is to make “contracts with foreign nations.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 75. “They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject,” explains Hamilton, as that would be a legislative power as explained above. Id. Treaties are “but agreements between sovereign and sovereign.” Id. Consequently, since a treaty is neither “strictly” legislative or executive, the Framers placed it into both the hands of the President AND the Senate.

In fact, Hamilton notes that Treaties are “more of the legislative than of the executive character.” Id. Consequently, the President has no authority to withhold anything from the Congress as they are to be more involved than him. Hamilton was worried about placing too much of this power into “a man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of Chief Magistrate, possessed of a but moderate or slender fortune,” as was the case with Obama, because he would “be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest.” Id.

Consequently, the Framers placed the stringent requirement that all treaties can only become law with “two thirds of the Senate” concurring. US CONST. Art. II, §2, cl.2. Obama, with his penchant for lawlessness, has chosen to make this foreign contract between sovereign nations something other than a Treaty. He has made it into an executive agreement that would somehow only require a vote of a simple majority rather than a two-thirds’ vote alone by the Senate.

This action is in direct contradiction of what the Framers intended. Hamilton explains that the House of Representatives were not to be included in the ratification of agreements with foreign nations. Astonishingly enough, Obama, who actually refers to himself as a former constitutional law professor, inappropriately referred to the Iran deal like he’s just “signed a contract to purchase a home but [he’s] still got the appraisal, the inspector” to approve it.…/obama-compares-iran-deal-to-a-house-un…

Apparently, in Obama’s analogy, the appraiser is the Senate and the inspector is the House. Once again, this is in direct contradiction to what the Constitution requires as the House was never to be involved in the ratification of Treaties. The House, Hamilton explains, was composed of too “multitudinous” of a “composition” and as such would lack “those qualities which are essential to the proper execution of such a trust.” Id. By turning this Treaty into an act requiring a vote by both Houses of Congress, Obama has undercut the constitutional checks and balances once again in order to further his own personal agenda, which, as Hamilton points out, is probably a “sacrifice of his duty to his [own personal] interest.”

So why would Obama go to such lengths to get this agreement passed? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Obama’s constitutional duties are being sacrificed to his personal Muslim interests. His right-hand girl, Valerie Jarrett, is of Iranian descent. Iran is a Muslim country. Many of Obama’s family and long-term associates are Muslim.

Lawless Acts of Congress

Unfortunately, Obama is not the only one in on this game of lawlessness. Congress has been very good at using the guise of constitutional authority to pass unconstitutional laws. Madison very clearly explained the limited powers of Congress: “the powers of the Federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” Madison, On the Expediency of Adopting the Federal Constitution, (Delivered at the Virginia Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1788) In other words, if the power is not expressly written into the Constitution, the federal government does not have the power.

Article I, Section 8, includes an itemized list of powers granted to the Congress. There is nothing in there that allows them to pass laws controlling national healthcare. There is nothing in there that allows them to pass laws controlling the environment. There is nothing in there that allows them to pass laws controlling our money supply. There is nothing in there that allows them to do pretty much most of what they have been doing over the last 50 years.

Lawless Courts

Recently, we saw an expansion of lawlessness by the courts in Kentucky. The Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis, was thrown in jail for failing to obey a court order to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Despite the obvious fact that courts are now engaging in legislative activities, wherein they are prescribing rules for the regulation of society as it pertains to marriage, several Republican candidates got in on the act making a full display of their ignorance of all things constitutional.

Donald Trump, reveals his a lack of constitutional understanding with his statement that “You have to go with it… you have to go with it. The [Supreme Court] decision has been made, and that is the law of the land.”…/donald-trump-kentucky-clerk-br…/

Carly Fiorina has also made similar remarks. It is a tragedy that even the so-called Conservatives have no clue in these matters. Courts do not make laws. Presidents do not make laws. Congress and Congress only make laws.

Instead of referring to these unconstitutional acts as “the law of land”, these so-called Conservatives should be calling them what they are—usurpations. As Hamilton puts it, “These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 33. The Framers did not expect that we should give any deference to an unconstitutional act by the Congress, the President or the Courts.

Madison warned us about the coming of the usurpers whose intent is to deceive the public in order to betray their country: “Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Letter 10.

Perhaps, Hamilton’s warning is the most chilling with respect to Obama’s Iranian deal and his open borders policy to foreigners from the south and now from Muslim countries. Remember, Obama, perhaps like no other, was elevated from a station of little importance and little accomplishments to the highest position on earth. This kind of individual with so many unanswered ties to foreign interests, should, by far, be considered the most dangerous kind of politician:

“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 22.

Patriots need to speak up. Patriots should not be hampered or intimidated by political correctness. Patriots need to voice their concerns in spite of being attacked as a crazy, ignorant, conspiracy nut, or the like. The temporary discomfort that comes from verbal mockery is far less than the discomfort that will come when tyrants rule.

“And then shall that Wicked [lawless one] be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:” (2 Thessalonians 2:8)

©September 2015 Lawlessness Reigns Supreme Under The Guise Of The Supremacy Clause, Madame Publius™

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.