"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
It continues to astound me how the progressive movement in this country (the ones who are progressing it toward global socialism, whose members span both sides of the aisle) have such a basic aversion to now the mere word "conservative" after the travesties of the Bush Administration. In point of fact, according to the founder’s ex-President Bush was anything but a "conservative" in the true sense of the word.
A "conservative" merely is one who believes in "conserving" the Constitution as it is written, with the intent and purpose for each provision in mind according to their writings, and within a framework of a knowledge of basic American history. To a "conservative American" the Constitution is nothing more than a contract between the federal and state governments, and it’s people. According to the common law at then and now according to legal doctrine, a contract is to be interpreted according to the "common usage" language contained within it, until the contract is amended by the agreement of all parties to the contract as outlined within the contract itself.
It is interesting to note that the "progressive movement" in this country consider the Constitution "archaic," and not suitable to the times in which we live, nor the added dangers which we face in the 21st Century. I would have to disagree with that analysis. In point of fact, the founder’s actually faced far more dangers, with far fewer resources than we have today. Those small 13 colonies had an entire Eastern Seaboard to protect and defend, with nothing but canons and musket. In fact, there was no running water, or toilets to speak of , so they also faced numerous diseases and ecological problems that we can only imagine.
In that time, although trials were held relatively quickly in the cities for criminal offenses (the Bill of Rights "due process" and "speedy trial" provisions, since rooting out truth was better served if justice was handed out swiftly for all), the offenders charged with capital offenses remained in jail until trial, by and large. There was no DNA testing then nor plea bargains, and due to the harshness of the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt meant clear physical evidence, untainted by the media exposure some of today’s high profile crimes receive which has resulted in higher costs due to tainted jury pools) few "political" convictions were made.
The judiciary actually used the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority, and gave secondary or minimal consideration to "judge made law," from other states or jurisdictions. Not to mention none whatsoever to any "foreign" jurisdictions rulings. Cases did not continue for year upon year, and since all cases in civil and criminal law in which there was a clear victim were heard by juries, one appeal usually was all that was granted in the event new evidence unheard by the jury was discovered.
The laws which were passed by Congress and signed by the President consisted of few pages, and all were well versed in our Constitution and their oaths of office to it – an oath that also supersedes the "will" of even the majority of the citizenry if those 535 members felt any legislation was in violation of it.
The Supreme Court was the "court of last resort" for all civil matters involving the citizenry on Constitutional issues, and were not given any real power with respect to "making law," simply "interpreting the Law" using the common usage language within it, of course until the Marbury v. Madison case in which the judiciary then violated the Constitution in giving themselves more power to the judiciary than it was ever intended to have.
Thus, the "liberal" constructionist movement was born within a few short years of it’s signing. To be a "liberal" actually meant that the Constitution was a "living" document and the language could be twisted, turned and redefined for political purposes or public opinion. Throughout our remaining history, there have been exceptional Judges on the Supreme Court who actually understood exactly why those checks and balances were written the way that they were, but they have been few and far between.
Barack Obama took an oath not once but twice which states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The provisions, duties and limits on the Office of the Presidency can be found in Article II, Sections 2, 3 and 4 which state:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Although the Bush Administration had a well reported aversion to the Constitution and all it stood for and the limits of office contained within it, he may have ran on one or two conservative issues, but was fundamentally a liberal and globalist subscribing to the U.N. and it’s governance clearly more than our own.
However, Mr. Obama ran as an agent for "change" and as a Harvard educated "Constitutional lawyer." Granted, Harvard is a well known liberal institution of higher learning, especially with respect to the law and our Constitution, more along the lines of Oxford in England (the country which we fought a war to escape their form of government, although several of our Supreme Court justices obtained their educations outside the U.S.).
The President is supposed to be ready on Day One with at least a fundamental knowledge of the limits of his office, and his oath to "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Somehow, knowing that the future President was a Constitutional lawyer, I had hoped that the "change" Mr. Obama represented would be a "change" in the fundamental way he approached his role and with abetter understanding of the allegiance he owed in the execution of his duties.
Since that inauguration of excess I, and many other Constitution believing Americans, were gravely disappointed. It does appear that now that this spending package has unconstitutionally been signed into law, Harvard should be one of the first to receive some of that debt so that maybe, just maybe, our children will get some benefit out of this travesty, along with the debt.