The Obama Administration's penchant for ignoring the US Constitution is, once again, on display.
On several occasions here at IntellectualConservative, both as a poster to commentary and as an author of said commentary I have questioned the President's allegiance to both the rule of law and the US Constitution. Just last week, the latest intentional disregard of that document was again on display for all to see.
March 17th of 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 demanding an immediate cease fire in Libya. The resolution also demanded that Col. Qadhafi relinquish all gains his Army had earned since they turned the tide on the revolutionaries in early March. The resolution went on to mandate the establishment of a "no-fly" zone over Libya to restrict Col. Qadhafi's use of his air assets against the revolutionaries and his civilian population.
Since Barry Soetoro was inaugurated, I've documented his penchant for the disregarding laws he doesn't like; along with his disturbing habit of using the Dept. of Justice to selectively enforce or decline to enforce duly enacted laws that conflict with his political ideology. Examples of such are legion, and not worth enumerating here once again. Suffice it to say that the evidence that our current Commander-in-Chief cares little for the US Constitution and even less for American citizens is overwhelming.
I'll also state, for the record, that each time I've pointed out this person's proclivity for simply ignoring stare decisis I've been set upon by progressive of posters on this site as some type of rabble rousing, extremist, revolutionary myself.
Now we have Barry's ideological mindset on full display. Unlike his predecessor, President Bush sought and received both Congressional and Senatorial authorizations to act militarily in Iraq. Democrats eventually began to demand the impeachment of President Bush for acting under that authorization.
According to both the US Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution the President has no authority to deploy armed forces to action abroad unless one of two conditions are met: He must either be able to prove the US is under direct attack or a serious threat of attack, or he must first obtain the authorization of the US Congress. The War Powers Resolution further requires the President to officially notify Congress of any commitment of military action.
To date; President Soetoro has met neither of these criteria. However; his immediate orders to launch cruise missiles and have air assets bomb command and control targets in Libya speaks volumes. This president not only selectively chooses to enforce or ignore established law in accordance with his wishes; he apparently will dispense with Congress at his whim as well. The only conclusion one can draw from this situation is that President Soetoro considers the United Nations to be a higher authority than the Congress of the United States.
During past discussions of his playing fast and loose with the rule of law progressives always manufactured some flimsy excuse as to why the present set of circumstances outweighed, and therefore explained his lack of allegiance to duly passed constitutional law. In this specific case Obama lied; people died. Where are the leftist protesters that should be screaming and carrying signs outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Where are the Congressional demands for an immediate impeachment proceeding? Surely, this has to about as bipartisan an issue as we will ever find under current circumstances.
My apologies, Dr. Jackson:
Up here in liberal New England, no one, and I do mean no one, in a university setting would think of addressing the holder of a Ph.D. in political science or any other non-medical field as “Dr.” Perhaps in the more traditional Southland or the West such is the custom, but not here. The holder of an M.D. is addressed as “Dr.” If a person holds an academic appointment, then etiquette sides with the academic rank, as in “Professor,” Associate Professor,” etc. The reason? All of us have Ph.D.s and–it just sounds somewhat pretentious for us to call each other “Dr.” Most of us at my university discourage students from using “Dr.” when addressing us. The main exceptions to this come from academics born and educated outside the US.
Dr. Jackson’s minor obsession with the question of whether or not I actually have a Ph.D. is mildly amusing at best–when he uses this as part of an argument against something I’ve written, it is mildly annoying. By the way, if Dr. Jackson really does have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, he would surely know that in the subset of political scientists who are political theorists by specialty–and of that, theorists who studied with Strauss and his disciples, the preferred honorific is “Mr.” as in Mr. Strauss, Mr. Cropsey, Mr. Berns, Mr. Tarcov, etc. All of these gentlemen, of course, earned Ph.D.s, but “Mr.” conveyed a reverse snobbery that Straussians loved to practice.
I await Dr. Jackson’s withering assault, which, I’m sure, will contain new claims.
reply to hvance:
Your proposal doesn’t really solve the problem. What would you do when Supreme Court justices rule in a way you don’t like? What conservatives need to give thought to is legislation that would give Congress the power to remove such justices when a conservative majority disagrees with their rulings. A simple constitutional amendment would strip federal judges, including those on SCOTUS, of their constitutional protection, and make it possible for Congress–assuming it remained under conservative control–to bring the federal courts to heel. Today’s conservatives don’t really want an independent judiciary anyway, so why not figure out how to get what you really want? Just remember that an “activist” judge is one whose decisions you don’t like and an “originalist” is a judge whose decisions you agree with.
Nice try Gestell. I’ve got a lot of friends in “Liberal New England” who’ve taught at Yale and Harvard. Since I’m in the business world where we don’t wear our credentials on our sleeve, they’re actually the ones who’ve reinforced this practice. California as well, where my good friend and fellow Ph.D. is at UCLA. It’s also something schools in Texas do routinely. I’m a major donor to the University of Texas system, and even when I say they don’t need to use my academic title they insist on calling me “Dr. Jackson”.
It’s part of the culture. If you’re going to pretend how to be a colleague, at least learn how to fake it.
Like I said, it’s a small point, but an important one. You clearly have an MA in political theory, and perhaps even a Ph.D. in some subject — but it’s clearly not political science. And yet you continue to mislead everyone about your credentials. One can only ask “why?” For conservatives, the truth matters. But for liberals, as I’ve said before and you continue to illustrate again and again, this is really no big deal.
Like I said, you can actually check up and see if I have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, so once again your attempt to dodge the question with an irrelevant response illustrates what I and others have been saying about you.
Oh, and as for keeping your identity secret because you’re a-feared us kon-servatives might hunt you down — and this is the stated reason why you can’t really tell us your true academic credentials, which you’ve used over and over to justify your position — it’s curious that you’d tell us the region of the country you live in. Aren’t you afraid the local Tea Party militia will use this information to search for you and harm your family? Again your BS reason for hiding the truth about who and what you really are falls by the wayside. Just admit you’re a troll who wants to argue with us about obviuous facts and let your arguments stand or fall on their merits without inflating your credentials to supposedly impress us.
But you won’t take up this challenge to actually debate. Once again the best the Left can do when popping in on these discussions is mislead us about who they are, pain conservatives with a broad brush as homicidal maniacs, and again when presented with a refutation of their position simply ignore it and move on to some other distractions.
Just remember that an “activist” judge is one whose decisions you don’t like and an “originalist” is a judge whose decisions you agree with.
Isn’t this basically an exercise of the identity property? If you believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution – if you’re an “originalist” – and the Supreme Court rules based upon a strict interpretation of the constitution – an “originalist” interpretation – then, indeed, the “originalist” judge would be the one who agrees with you and the judge who uses a different interpretation would be the “activist”. You try to make this seem as if it is somehow sinister or hypocritical. The exact same thing could be said about the “liberal” and the “liberal” justice. If you believe in an interpretation of the constitution based upon foreign law, your feelings, the race, gender, or socioeconomic status of the parties, etc – that is, if you’re a “liberal” – and the Supreme Court rules based upon foreign law, feelings, race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc – that is, if they apply a “liberal” interpretation – then, indeed, the “liberal” judge would be the one who agrees with you and the “originalist” judge would be the one who disagrees with you.
It seems Gestell agrees with Ayn Rand that “A is A”. He’s already taken a big step toward Objectivism by recognizing that there are no contradictions. Now if only I can get him to take one more step and accept “the non-aggression principle”…
Gestell:
My proposal would work against me if the SCOTUS was liberal. In that case then wacky rulings would be ignored as activist judges would be in control. But however if it were conservative then some of these “interpreters” of the Constitution would be vacated. While I hold very little hope for my idea becoming mainstream I can always hope.