Gridlock is good

One of the best things about our U.S. Constitution is the separation of powers. Many will contend all this does is cause gridlock that prevents progress from being made, yet the founding fathers would say this is good.

Very few countries have a bicameral legislature and a separate executive. Most have an executive branch that is of the same party as the legislature, and there is rarely any gridlock. Laws that are written rarely have a problem getting passed.

That's not the case in the U.S. It's very difficult for a law to be passed by both house and the executive branch. The founders wanted this because they wanted to make sure minorities had protection. They wanted to make sure legislatures couldn't pass laws that were to the disadvantage of minorities. They wanted to make sure the majority could not easily vote away the rights of the minority.

If at the last minute someone thinks a law is a bad idea, it's not too hard to throw a wrench into it in the U.S. In other countries -- in most countries -- it's hard to stop bad laws from getting passed.

The founders made it this way because they wanted to make sure no bad laws got passed. They wanted to make sure laws made were good and benefited the masses for all time, as opposed to one group of people right now.

The 2014 midterm election results were a good example of how, while the media chants otherwise, most people in this country want gridlock.  Obama was handed an opportunity to make changes, and all he did was force legislature people didn't want, such as Obamacare.  So they voted republicans into office to create gridlock to stop him.

So, while you'll often hear people talking about how gridlock is bad, how it impedes progress, the truth is that gridlock can be a necessary good,  As the old saying goes, sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something stupid.  It is better to play it safe than to risk the future.

Marijuana: Government should educate, not ban

As a libertarian I am not an advocate of laws that tell people what they can and cannot do, as this is the job of parents and teachers.  However, I am a champion for education and personal responsibility and accountability.

I do not believe the majority in power should be able to make laws taking away the rights of the minority.  That does not mean that the majority shouldn't try to educate the minority.  I believe this type of system would be best for everyone.

Consider the relationship between a dad and a son.  The dad tells the kid that he has to go to the University of Michigan to become a doctor, and the kid gets annoyed and decides not to go to college at all.

Consider the dad who tells his son that, under no circumstances, are you to drink alcohol.  The son goes off to college, gives into the pressure, or is under a lot of pressure, and drinks a six pack of Miller Lite.  He finds that such behavior takes the edge off the stress of life, and goes on to enjoy a beer or two every day.  

While these are facetious examples, they show that no person in power should in any way try to force his views on others.  However, that does not mean that a parent, or a government, should not try to educate.  In fact, a wise parent or government would do just that.

Consider how much better off society would be today if, instead of the Supreme Court deciding the way it did in the Rowe-V-Wade case, had it simply said that it is not up to the government to decide, it's up to the people.  

If you think of it, telling those who do not support abortion that they have to accept it only created more animosity.  It actually strengthened the pro-life cause, and made the pro-choice cause more arrogant and condescending. It actually helped to create the current partisan divide most people say they hate. 

While I believe that smoking marijuana is a poor behavior that increases the risk for worse behavior later on in life, it's not my place to tell people they cannot smoke it.  However, I certainly can educate people about the facts.  In the process, I might learn something myself.  

For instance, South Dakota State University reports that smoking one marijuana cigarette is equivalent to smoking 16 tobacco cigarettes in terms of damage it causes to the body.  It can cause memory loss, impair judgement, and affect a person's performance at school, work, and in the car.  

Other side effects are noted by the National Alliance on Mental Illness:

• Increased risk of chronic lung disease
• Increased risk for lung cancer
• Increased risk of problems with menstruation in women
• Increased risk of development of breasts in males
• Increased risk of dental problems
• Increased risk of cardiovascular concerns in older patients
• Increased anxiety and depression in people with those disorders

Forbes.com reports that even light marijuana smoking may be linked to neurological changes, and this is especially significant in young people whose brains are still developing and less so in older smokers.  

Realistically, however, while there are side effects, many claim marijuana is a relatively harmless drug.  Perhaps so, but those who use it should still be aware of the facts, just as those who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol should be aware of the facts. 

You see, I've been the victim of an attack on cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking my entire life.  Since the time I was in the second grade people people have been telling me I should not smoke or drink for this reason or that reason. 

Noting these risks, I choose not to smoke.  But, likewise noting the risks, I enjoy alcoholic beverages when I choose to drink them.  Yet I believe the rewards from drinking responsibly are well worth the risk of side effects.  I drink alcohol knowing the advantages and disadvantages.

So it would be hypocritical for me to tell my kids they cannot drink.  In fact, I would be somewhat disappointed if, some day in the future, I could not have a drink with my children.  

At the same time, however, while a puff of tobacco might calm my agitated nerves, the potential risks far outweigh this benefit. 

You have a right to smoke, but your right stops where my right to breathe fresh air starts.  So there needs to be some laws to protect my right to breathe fresh air (especially the rights of innocent children and infants to breathe fresh air). 

I feel the same way about marijuana: it should be legal, people should be educated of the risks, and it should not be encouraged.

Meaning that people who live in the State of Washington should not be on Facebook flaunting about their purchase of marijuana and how they smoked it and made pot cookies.  All this type of behavior does is decondition people to the dangers associated with a nation of pot heads, including a malaise behavior that results in people who lack concern and motivation toward reality (hey, man!).

As noted before, no majority should have a right to vote away the rights of the minority.  That does not mean we, as parents and responsible adults, should not educate and encourage good behavior, because we should.  

Should Obama be impeached?

If the only way to stop a lawless president from ignoring the constitution and over-stepping his bounds is impeachment, and the opposing party takes impeachment off the table for fear of backlash from voters, then there is no means of stopping him.

David Limbaugh wrote a good column ("Democrats, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law") on this subject. He makes a great point that. He writes:

Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. As part of that, they will say that Republicans are guilty of precisely what they are doing. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

He added that while some conservatives would support a president ignoring the Constitution so long as the means was justified, most would not. He said:

But let me ask you to consider this: As a conservative, I would oppose judicial activism (roughly defined as the courts rewriting or making laws rather than interpreting them) to achieve conservative political ends. I don't know many liberals -- other than perhaps law professor Jonathan Turley -- who can make a similar statement.

It's not a matter of my (and conservatives generally) being more moral than liberals. That's not the point at all. The point is that we believe that preserving the integrity of the Constitution, as written and originally intended, is itself an essential end. 

We cherish liberty, and we understand the inextricable relationship between preserving the integrity of the Constitution and preserving our liberties. Anytime our constitutional system is undermined through egregious executive, legislative or judicial overreaches, our liberty is diminished.

He added:

When President Obama continues to act outside the scope of his executive authority and against the express will of Congress, he is, in effect, disenfranchising the people and thereby diminishing our liberties. When the courts rewrite laws to achieve their ideological or political ends, they assault the prerogative of the legislative branch and thereby further disenfranchise the people and popular sovereignty.

As a strong believer in the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the doctrine of federalism and other essential limitations on government, I abhor judicial activism, executive overreaches and congressional usurpations, even if these abuses might be in furtherance of my political or ideological preferences. For to me, there are few more important principles than preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.

Basically, there is no law to stop a lawless president. In fact, the only thing that has stopped a president from over-reaching as Obama is today is the honor system and luck.

We have been lucky never to have a Stalin or Hitler or Hugo Chavez or Obama elected to the office of the President. Plus, all previous presidents honored and respected the rule of law (the Constitution) basically on an honor system.

So, basically, the only thing preventing any of the previous presidents, those before Obama, from violating the rule of law was the honor system. Other than that, the only means of lashing out against a lawless president is to wait for the next election.

In this case, November of 2016 might be too far away. That gives the president another two full years to further ignore and trample on our great Constitution, at the expense of our liberties and freedoms. That in mind, I am not endorsing impeachment, but it should not be taken off the table.

The thirty enumerated powers

In order to prevent the Federal government from getting too big, and therefore gaining too much influence over the people, the founding fathers created Article II Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives congress only 30 enumerated powers.

So, what are enumerated powers? They are those powers specifically delegated to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.  That means that Congress only has the right to rule on these 30 things.

Article II section 8 lists all of these powers:

1. To collect taxes in order to provide a common defense and general welfare of the people
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes
4. To establish an uinform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws regarding bankruptcies within the United States
5. To coin money, regulate the value therof, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
6. To provide punishment for counterfeiting the securities and Coin of the U.S.
7. To establish a post office and post roads
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
19. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
20. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
21. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
22. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
23. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
24. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
25. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
26. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
27. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
28. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
29. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
30. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
31. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Basically, Article II Section 8 limits the power of government to just a few things, including: standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

These powers have obviously been loosely regarded by both Congress and the Supreme Court.  However, what is not listed here Congress has no legal authority to rule upon.  For all other issues Congress must refer to the 10th amendment: 

The 10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

So by the law, the Congress has no right to make any laws regarding punishment except for the counterfeiting of money, treason, and impeachment.  All other laws regarding punishment, including murder and abortion, are reserved to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

It was written this way to protect the rights of the states, and to limit the scope and power of the Federal government over the states. Another reason for this was to give states unlimited power, although they had limited funds to which to run government programs, as only the Federal government reserved the right to print money.

This system also allowed for the states to be risky with new programs, with other states copying the programs of other states that worked.  When a state's program failed, the other states would bail that state out.  If the Federal government failed, there would be on one, other than another country or group of countries (such as the United Nations) to bail it out. So this prevented the Federal government from taking unnecessary risk.

According to Kevin Price, "at renewamerica.com, "What are 'enumerated powers' and why do they matter, "The Founders of this republic believed in the dispersion of power. They did such in order to maximize individual freedom and to protect the power of the states. This unique system helped to limit the amount of money taxpayers spent on programs they disagreed with because on the federal level, all the enumerated powers were beneficial to all. Meanwhile, people had the power and freedom to move from state to state in order to find a government that best suited their needs. That power to "vote with their feet" kept most state government very small."

According to the Constitution, the Congress has no right to make any law regarding retirement, insurance, health, nor education, leaving these institutions up to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

In other words, the size, scope and influence of the current government in the United States is illegal and must be scaled back.

Is it time to impeach Mr. Obama?

Okay, so I have never been an advocate of impeaching a president.  I think the idea is repulsive and counterproductive.

So you impeach a president and then what? You get his vice president as president, and he now has a fresh hold on the presidency and all the power that goes with it.  You have a potential, then, for eight more years of these guys being in power.

No!  That is not good.  But that's not even my main reason for being against impeaching a president.  In fact, back when there were arguments for impeaching President Clinton for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinski, I was opposed to the idea then.  The reason:  it looks bad for America.  As a person who loves my country, I do not want my country to look bad.

So now we have a few people talking about the possibility of impeaching Obama. You have people saying that the first thing Congress will do if people vote republicans into a majority in November of 2014 is to impeach Obama.

As noted, I have been completely opposed to this, until Obama released four of the world's biggest, most evil, villains in the world, giving them right back to the evil Taliban to which they came, in exchange for a person who appears to have been a deserter and not a prisoner of war.  Or, you could say it was one of our guys for four of theirs.

To me, this latest action makes all the suspect actions of Obama in the past several years make sense.  If Obama is making a four for one swap, releasing four Taliban leaders in the process, it's a sign to me that he does not see the Taliban as the enemy.  It's a sign that he sees his own country as the enemy.  That, dear readers, is an impeachable offense.  It's something I wrote about under my pseudonym even before Obama was elected.

Well, actually, what is impeachable is that he was, by a law that he signed, supposed to give Congress a 30 day notice for any prisoner swap.  But did you know that he tried to make this same deal back in March of 2012. The only reason this went public is because he briefed some members of Congress about it, they found it a repulsive idea, and so leading democrat and mega Obama supporter Dianne Feinstein put her country first an leaked the story to Foreign Policy magazine.

So this time Obama didn't want that to happen, so he bypassed the law and made the swap without telling Congress.  He broke the law.  This, by the way, is an impeachable offense.

However, we must temper any enthusiasm here.  The idea of this blog is not to be one sided, or blind sided, so we must take a look at all the facts before we come to any conclusions here.

Charles Krauthammer, in his June 5 column, notes the following:

There is strong eyewitness evidence that Bergdahl deserted his unit and that the search for him endangered his fellow soldiers. If he had served with honor and distinction, there would be no national uproar over his ransom and some of the widely aired objections to the deal would be as muted as they are flimsy. For example:

1. America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.  Nonsense. Of course we do. Everyone does, while pretending not to. The Israelis, by necessity the toughest of all anti-terror fighters, in 2011 gave up 1,027 prisoners, some with blood on their hands, for one captured staff sergeant.

2. The administration did not give Congress 30-day notice as required by law. Of all the jurisdictional disputes between president and Congress, the president stands on the firmest ground as commander in chief. And commanders have the power to negotiate prisoner exchanges.

Moreover, from where did this sudden assertion of congressional prerogative spring? After five years of supine acquiescence to President Obama’s multiple usurpations, Congress suddenly becomes exercised over a war power — where its claim is weakest. Congress does nothing in the face of 23 executive alterations of the president’s own Affordable Care Act. It does nothing when Obama essentially enacts by executive order the Dream Act, which Congress had refused to enact. It does nothing when the Justice Department unilaterally rewrites drug laws. And now it rises indignantly on its hind legs because it didn't get 30 days’ notice of a prisoner swap?

3. The Taliban release endangers national security.
Indeed it does. The five released detainees are unrepentant, militant and dangerous. They’re likely to go back into the field and resume their war against local and foreign infidels, especially us.
The administration pretense that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s going to stop them?

So that was Krauthammer.  I think we can see he is equally concerned about this swap, although, because Congress has failed to show indignation at any of Obama's other unconstitutional moves, then how can he justify taking action on this most recent illegal move.  This kind of points the finger at the idea that neither the republican nor democrat party gives a hoot about the constitution.

However, I must note, that I recently watched the Untouchables starring Robert De Niro as Al Capone and Kevin Cosner as Eliot Ness.  This great movie reminds us that it was not that Capone was a famous mobster, nor that he sold alcohol illegally, nor that he killed hundreds of men in his attempts to get his way, that landed him in prison. No!  It was one small detail he considered to be minute:  it was tax evasion.

The fact that Obama has gotten away with illegal acts, acts that have weakened our economy, our borders, our national defense, our national resolve, and our confidence did not get him impeached.

He opens our borders and allows millions of illegals to cross our border, illegals who are prone to take low paying jobs and not bring in new ideas and technology to America, and illegals who will, more than likely, put themselves on the government dole and vote for democrats and their progressive ideals.

He allows guns to be sold near the border and to end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords to be used against American's trying to protect the border.  This was what many refer to as "fast and furious."  Obama wanted people to think drug Lords were crossing the border and purchasing guns at American stores, and he wanted to use this as a reason to get gun laws passed.  But, as it turned out, Obama is the one who allowed those guns to be sold.  Yes!  It all makes sense now why he would do it: he hates America.

It all makes sense now.  It's like I've had an epiphany of sorts.  All of these actions, when you put them together, all made America worse off.  It put us down to size.  Sure, Obama took hits. Sure, his popularity plummeted.  But, bottom line, he did what needed to be done: "fundamentally change America."

But this later action tops all of them, and should be the straw that breaks the camels back. It should be the action that causes -- forces -- Congress to take action.

I believe that he knows now that he no longer has the support of Congress, nor the people. For this reason, he is going to do whatever is in his power, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to continue his efforts to, as he put it, "fundamentally change America."

In other words: Impeach Obama.  Don't give him another 2.5 years to continue to destroy our country that he obviously hates.