Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Utah Governor Bows to Federal Judiciary

In response to the Supreme Court's deferral to a lower court's decision to override Utah's ban against gay marriages, Utah Governor Gary Herbert announced his intention today to "uphold the rule of law" by permitting gay marriages in Utah.

While he expressed his disappointment and even voiced his belief that defining gay marriage was within the purview of State authority, in the next breath he cavalierly yielded to the federal judiciary, thus violating what appeared to be his own sincere commitment to adhere to the rule of law.

Like so many of his other gubernatorial peers throughout the country, and by his dismaying self-contradictory stance in this matter, Gov. Herbert demonstrates that he is both confused and terribly ignorant of just what constitutes the "rule of law". I can only hope that this plague of ignorance gripping our State leadership throughout the country is unwitting and remediable.

For me, the issue is NOT merely a matter of whether or not gay marriage should be legalized by Utah or any other State, but, far more importantly, it is a matter of constitutional law, that law, the Supreme Law of the Land, with which Governor Herbert appears to be at once so fervently enamored and yet so terribly conflicted.

To Governor Herbert: The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution--NOT the federal judiciary!!!!! 

Thus, if the Governor is, as he asserts, committed to "upholding the rule of law", then, in accordance with his oath of office, that is precisely what he should do. In this instance, however, he flagrantly abdicated to the federal judiciary and, in so doing, he, in fact, abandoned the "rule of law".

The Supremacy Clause (Art VI para 2) grants supremacy to federal law/dictates only to the extent that those laws/dictates fall within the scope of clearly defined federal powers (Art 1). Per the 10th Amendment, those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government reside with the individual States and its People. These residual powers, whether enumerated or implied, are limited only by Art I Sec 8, Art I Sec 10 and Art VI para 2 of the Constitution. In other words, those powers not specifically delegated by the States and the People to the federal government are unarguably vested in the States and the People. Thus, like a whole host of matters these days, the federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to define gay marriage in the States. Period! Fullstop!

So, why is Governor Herbert and so many other elected State officials routinely deferring to federal laws/edicts/rules? My guess is that it is born of ignorance, willful or otherwise, but, more than likely, a burning and suicidal desire for an unencumbered stream of federal handouts.

For Governor Herbert and his gubernatorial peers, two clear, concise quotes for your attention and compliance:

"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." (10th Amendment, US Constitution, 1791)

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison (The Federalist #45)

Restoration of constitutional order and the proper balance of power between the States and the federal government cannot be achieved until elected State officials dust off, read and faithfully adhere to our foundational constitutional principles. Only in this responsible way can the Rule of Law be achieved.

Until this pervasive and dangerous inclination on the part of our leaders to ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution is reversed, what precious little remains of our constitutional republic will soon slip into oblivion. In short, this sort of insidious suicidal ignorance of the Law must come to a screeching halt--and soon!!!

Monday, September 15, 2014

*OPINERLOG Comments on News Headlines

Impeachment won't work. Filing suit won't work. Only defunding can alter this regime’s reckless course. Ultimately, of course, the most efficacious and peaceful remedy is for the States to assert their 10th Amendment power to nullify any and all federal laws/edicts/regs/rulings which are patently unconstitutional. 

If the States refuse to play in the federal sandbox, the feds will have no option but to pound sand.

While I wasn't surprised by Obama's signature timidity, overall I agree with his tack.
That said, it is clear this ISIS catastrophe could have been avoided had Obama, always the rigid and politically-driven ideologue, adopted the clear-headed advice of our military leadership to maintain a respectable military force in Iraq. But, we all know Obama didn't vigorously push for a SOF agreement as he should have. This, of course, created a power vacuum which ISIS quickly filled. Also, with such a supportive residual force, the US could have more successfully influenced Maliki and, more than likely, averted Maliki's stupid, self-destructive military firings and appointments which crippled Iraq’s well-trained and well-equipped---but entirely demoralized---army.

Like in Korea and Europe, keeping a military presence in Iraq was slum dunk obvious.
Kids, ideologues and geeky alternative universe globalists, academics and Progressives in charge of our government and foreign policy is akin to the kiss of death.

Bye-bye Iraq, and hello to another 9/11 tragedy, or tragedies. 

One bright possibility in this otherwise dreary picture: the stoic Kurds, always a reliable and determined ally of the USA in the Middle East and second only to Israel, will most certainly achieve their sovereignty this time around. They bloody well earned it!

It always gets back to cause and effect.

Sadly, the pervasive self-delusion, apathy and willful ignorance gripping the country are the culprits. Obama and his Progressive minions are but symptoms of a dumbed-down, hopelessly unprincipled population. We've met the enemy and it is US.

Has he gone insane? Not any more insane than any other neo-Marxist ideologue.

No, this guy is an extremely competent obfuscator, prevaricator, saboteur--a coldly calculating radical Statist.

In short, he knows precisely what he's doing even if the results of his ruinous actions imperil America and violate historical economic and political foundational truths.

Socialists and Communists NEVER learn.

Let's be clear: Landrieu stands with Landrieu, NOT coal.

Short of a coup d'etat or outright revolution, the solution is for the House to withhold funding and for the States to assert their 10th Amendment authority to nullify any and all unconstitutional acts by ANY branch of the federal Leviathan.
That said, neither the House nor the States have the spine or principle to faithfully uphold their oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution. (My guess is that neither the House nor the States even understand their authority and duties under the Constitution.)

And, of course, secession, thoroughly and willfully discredited by clueless statists and revisionists, is an entirely constitutional remedy to federal tyranny.
Our Founders provided efficacious remedies, but if we are unwilling to exercise our powers what good are those remedies? We have met the enemy and it us!

Sen. Mary Landrieu: ‘Getting rid of me would not be good for the country and it’s future’

No shameless self-promotion going on here, huh? The boorish arrogance of this nitwit. Who the hell does she think she is?
She's just scared about being in the unemployment lines which she and her Progressive pals have created for the rest of us.

Sorry, Mary, aka "Obamacare Queen", but you're going to have work for a living for a change--and soon.
She and her ilk make me vomit.

Stunning but terribly in character for this charlatan. This shameless and corrupt political hack is a disgrace. Like Obama and Pelosi, he'll definitely go DOWN in history.

Alaska Sues U.S. Over Its Rejection of Oil Exploration Plan

The fed's illegal control over Alaska lands which are not for the specific purpose of maintaining armories, fortifications and related military uses, is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates the Enclave Clause, plain and simple. What Alaska (and other States as well) should do is seize all lands illegally held by the feds. Will they do it? Nope. Why? Ignorance of the Constitution and a knee-jerk and vacuous belief that the federal government is supreme; that it trumps the Constitution and the States. Monstrous idiocy!
Until the States dust off and actually read the Constitution and assert their authority as sovereign States in this and myriad other issues, our downward spiral into darkness and oppression will continue unabated.

Advice to Kremlin: permit a secession referendum in Crimea. If secession is lawfully approved by popular vote, THEN Crimea should subsequently call for an additional referendum to confederate/unite with Russia. This process would be in keeping with international law--and our own Constitution for that matter--and obliterate the idea that Russia is forcefully annexing Crimea. 

Political optics is everything. But, Russians are notorious blockheads of the first order, and they will opt for more thuggish tactics to acquire not only Crimea, but the Russian-dominated eastern portion of Ukraine as well. AND they will probably get away with it. 
As for Paul, on nearly every issue I completely agree with him--esp. in the area of economics. But, I’m afraid his foreign policy is puerile,, short-sighted and fanciful.

Great PR, but insane. Sure, it will draw the folks' attention to the tyranny, but that’s really it.

The remedy to executive overreach is a constitutional one: impeachment. And if enough Senate seats are captured by Republicans in November--which I doubt--then impeach, convict and remove him from office. (Note: to convict and remove a sitting chief executive requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate, a bridge too far for the most optimistic Republicans among us.) If this approach doesn't work out, then an all-out occupation of DC by patriots is needed until this putative president resigns or is forcibly removed.

Merely passing more laws which will again be ignored or vetoed is meaningless, unless, of course, it paves the way for effective removal.

Likely Success of Article Five Convention Efforts
For me, repealing the 17th Amendment and adopting a balanced budget amendment are justifiable reasons for a Convention of States.

However, this Art V Convention process can be uncomfortably lengthy during which time much federal mischief can be further perpetrated on the States and the People.
Thus, while the Art V process goes forward, I urge everyone to support States' 10th Amendment authority and duty to nullify any and all unconstitutional federal acts. The one-two punch of an Art V process AND the invocation of the 10th Amendment would be dynamite!

Obviously, if the feds don't honor our current Constitution and Amendments, can we reasonably expect them to honor any new Amendments? That said, a concurrent Convention of States AND State nullification is THE most efficacious constitutional remedy before us. 

Supremes shoot down state's fight for gun rights
And the States permit this judicial mockery of the Constitution!

Montana's mistake was to refer the law to the federal courts in the first place.

Constitutionally, Montana may determine its own gun policy--NOT the feds.
As long as ignorant politicians defer to Leviathan on matters wholly within the State's scope of constitutional authority, federal invasiveness will not be stemmed.

JUST SAY NO, Montana! Nullify any court ruling which violates your State's sovereign rights under the Constitution. In other words, dust off the Constitution, read it, and follow it! Geez! This isn't rocket science, guys!

"Illegal immigrant" is an oxymoron.

Per immigration law, one can't be illegal AND an immigrant. If you entered the country illegally, you are an illegal alien/undocumented alien/illegal entrant--NOT an illegal immigrant. An immigrant is, by definition, a legal entrant. Got it, Sonia?
Mixing and matching immigration terms to merely accommodate one's sensitivities is ignorant and irresponsible.

Oh, and by the way, Sonia, according to Webster's Dictionary, "illegal" is defined as illicit, unlawful, criminal. Do you find our dictionaries personally offensive too? Gee, maybe they should be outlawed, huh?
My God. Political correctness is stupefying this country. The extent to which some of us will go to obfuscate in order to advance our inane political agendas is disgusting and depraved. And Sonia, a jurist, should know better. (Tragically, she DOES know better, but that makes absolutely no difference at all. These days political agendas invariably trump faithfulness to the Rule of Law.)

Art III doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to violate the 10th Amendment. 

The court can opine as to the constitutionality of a particular act, but it has absolutely no constitutional authority to "rule" against or to militate against what, in its view, is an unconstitutional act. The Founders were very clear about this. Unfortunately, our political leaders and jurists have, over the years, hollowed out the Constitution to comport with their ideological game plans. It's up to us to restore constitutional order both at the federal and state levels.
Too often the States lack the constitutional principle and spine to defend their sovereign rights under the Constitution. Why? Sadly, they've been bought off by the giveaways from the federal Leviathan.

Actually, there is a "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution. To wit, Art. VI, para 2: " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
In short, the CONSTITUTION--not the Supreme Court or any other federal branch of government, or of the individual States--is supreme. This clause renders federal power supreme only insofar as the power exercised is within its clearly defined enumerated powers (Art 1 Sec 8).

Nationalists, Statists conveniently and deliberately misinterpret this clause in order to advance their authoritarian agendas. They always omit the words " which shall be made in pursuance thereof".
It's well past time we all became better acquainted with our Constitution and put these social engineers and radical authoritarians in their place.

Finally, Art 1 Sec 8 enumerated federal powers are, by design, very limited. Over the years, the feds--especially with Progressive encouragement--have expanded their powers well beyond constitutional limitations. As the 10th Amendment clearly provides, ANY power not specifically delegated by the States to the federal government, i.e. Art 1 Sec 8 powers, are reserved to the States and/or We the People. In short, the Feds have NO authority to regulate commerce WITHIN a State. And that includes marijuana production and sale of same with the confines of a State. Fed authority applies only to interstate commerce, this for the express purpose of rendering free and unencumbered trade between the States.

Mark Levin vs. the Tenth Amendment

We must remember that, this according to the Founders, the FINAL ARBITER of what is and what is not constitutional is We the People--not a gaggle of unelected, black-robed, divinely-inspired judicial oligarchs in DC.
We have strayed so very far from the Constitution it may require an upheavel to restore constitutional order, economic sanity and the rule of law. For any thinking American to believe we now live in a Republic is delusional.

Obfuscators and historical revisionists are hell bent to equate nullification (and secession) with slavery, this to delegitimize the inherent reserved rights of the States to nullify. These purveyors of propaganda and revisionist history conveniently forget the "Hartford Convention" which brought New England a hair's breath from seceding from the union. And, of course, the revisionists conveniently, deliberately and mendaciously characterize nullification as a "southern thing" when there were actually more acts of northern nullification than southern nullification. I hope folks get a chance to read "A Patriot's Call to Action" which debunks this revisionism and mythology with historical and legal facts.
Look to the 9th and 10th Amendments, and let our Founders be our guide--not the historical revisionists who would have us adopt authoritarianism as our form of government.

And while we’re at it, this: by definition, we've never had a "civil war". In 1861, we had the "War of Southern Independence" which some have dubbed the "War of Northern Aggression". Only if the Southern States were vying for political control of the central government in DC could that 4-yr slaughter be correctly described a "civil war". The Confederate States of America fought to be left alone in peace, independence and freedom--NOT to achieve ruling authority over the union.
Finally, and despite Levin’s errant assertion to the contrary, Madison did not debunk nullification. In fact, all Founders asserted that any unconstitutional acts emanating from the central government are null and void and unenforceable. Madison took exception not to nullification, but to South Carolina's assertion that a State's nullifying a particular federal act/law should be applicable in all States unless 3/4 of those States voted against that nullifying act. And, of course, that is in error.

I like Levin, but on the subject of nullification he is d-e-a-d wrong.

Well, that would most certainly be THE solution to the Obamacare menace and a whole host of other outrageous federal violations of trust and of the Constitution, but I'll believe that when I see it, LTC West.

Being a clear-eyed, patriotic realist, I no longer trust government at ANY level any more.
It's well past time for We the People to assert our sovereign authority before we're so far down the rat hole we none of us can dig ourselves out!

Lead the fight, Sir! Then just maybe it will happen. But I won't hold my breath.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Pastoral Perfidy

In a recent 2-year study by George Barna, it was found that while nearly 90% of all American pastors believe that the Bible provides specific answers to the myriad issues challenging us today, only 10% say they will address those issues from the pulpit.

According to the study, the reason so many refuse to openly address these issues from the pulpit is to avoid "controversy", thus ensuring a "successful church".


In the study, the vast majority of pastors said they determined "success" in five ways: attendance; donations; number of programs; number of staff; and, yes, square footage!

Inspiring and reassuring, huh?

My recent experience with my own Catholic parish in Rochester, NY seems to validate Barna's findings. Last week, I formally requested that the parish promote a strictly non-partisan "Voter Registration Sunday" in September. While exiting services, a manned table in the vestibule would be set up to assist interested parishioners to register to vote. Only a brief announcement from the pulpit and a small bulletin insert would inform parishioners of this service. However, in a follow-up meeting with the pastor the initiative was categorically rejected. Why? Such an event on parish grounds would be in violation of diocesan policy!  So much for civic responsibility, principle, courage of one's religious convictions and fearless adherence to Christian values and Biblical teachings. So much too for patriotism.

Shortly before this, I approached a very large Baptist church in the same area with the same request and the pastor immediately agreed.

Thus, while there are exceptions to the rule, there clearly appear to be more "CEO-type pastors" out there than committed God-fearing religious ones. Judging from the study's conclusions and my own experience, far too many church leaders seem to value their lofty position in the community, their creature comforts and "square footage" more than their religious calling to shepherd their flocks. Obviously, elitism comes in many forms, or so it appears.

Is it any wonder it's been such a tortuously uphill fight for patriots and Christians to restore constitutional order and those bedrock traditional American values that once made America so exceptional? If, for whatever reason, our churches betray their calling and, in turn, their flocks, on whom CAN we count? Note: our Founders warned that if we lose our Christian moorings and our traditional values, if we forsake our civic responsibilities, we will irretrievably lose our Republic.

Finally, in response to this study, a Reverend Chuck Baldwin is quoted as saying that "it is time for Christians to acknowledge that these ministers are not pastors: they are CEOs. They are not Bible teachers: they are performers. They are not shepherds: they are hirelings. It is also time for Christians to be  honest with themselves: do they want a pastor who desires to be faithful to the Scriptures, or do they want a pastor who is simply trying to be "successful".

Yet again, the cause for the corruption of our leaders, both pastoral and secular alike, is staring boldly back at us from the mirror before us. By our silence and compliance, we alone are the reason for our country's disintegration.

"...activities intended to encourage people to participate in the election process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a nonpartisan manner." Internal Revenue Service

"God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as part of their duty to God...God will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics." Charles Finney, "Lectures on Revival of Religion" (1835)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

Monday, August 11, 2014

Guns vs Gun Control & Murders

A pithy stat I stumbled upon this morning:

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the bottom for murders. These 4 cities also have the toughest gun control laws in the United States. All 4 are controlled by Democrats.  

It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data – right?

(Source: Give Us Liberty)

To the staunch gun control, anti-2nd Amendment types out there, it's your assignment to objectively disprove this statistical assertion.

"To put it bluntly, self-defense is the first law of nature; when good people have the freedom to carry concealed firearms, society gets safer." Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr.

"American liberty depends upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box." Frederick Douglas, "The Life & Times of Frederick Douglas" (1881)

Thursday, August 7, 2014

My Take on Obama's Address Tonight

Just finished watching Obama's televised address regarding America's response to developments in Iraq.

In all honesty, and for the first time in my memory, Obama actually sounded like a confident, committed leader, a genuine commander-in-chief who, by all appearances, sincerely believed what he was saying.

But, despite the intense, polished, in-charge demeanor, it was hard to shake that nagging awareness that Obama remains Obama, all the good, the bad and the ugly, and that he remains totally ideological and politically motivated in all that he says and does.

That said, his decision to conduct humanitarian airdrops to relieve the besieged and starving Iraqi minorities atop a mountain in northern Iraq, this to prevent "genocide" at the hands of ISIS, was refreshing. Though pleasantly surprising and completely out of character, it was nonetheless very good to hear.

And though undefined, his decision to permit "targeted air strikes" in order to "defend American personnel",  and to provide "assistance" to both Baghdad forces and the Kurds, his decision was, indeed, encouraging. Again, not having better defined the nature and breadth of those "targeted air strikes" and the "assistance" to be provided to friendly forces in Iraq left me hanging and uncertain.

Throughout his speech he repeated "targeted air strikes" three times and assured Americans that he understood their reluctance to "get dragged into [another] war in Iraq". Certainly, there was no indication that this intervention would be anything but very, very limited.

I couldn't help but recall Clinton's very effective air strikes on Serbian forces in the 90's. It made all the difference in the world--and without boots on the ground. With that successful operation in mind, my hope, of course, is that these "targeted air strikes" will eventually encompass on-going and crippling strikes on all ISIS forces everywhere.

I appreciated his intention to "support moderate forces [in Iraq] to create stability" and to form a new, more inclusive Iraqi government. Obviously, PM Maliki, a divisive and debilitating political force in Iraq, has to go if the Iraqis can ever hope to restore political order, national unity and a more effective Iraqi fighting force capable of fending off or even defeating ISIS .

Ever the globalist, he underscored the need to "consult with the UN and other countries", though what he was expecting of such consultations remained unclear. Troops, arms, air bases?

His one comment which piqued my incredulity was his statement that it was always America's core interest to "support our allies and to lead coalitions", clearly an interest to which, in my humble opinion, he has paid lip service during his stint as Commander-in-Chief.

Another statement which caused me to shake my head in exasperation was  that "the world looks to us to lead and that's why we do". Hmmm. I guess I missed all that "leading" over the last six years.

Anyway, I am heartened that this humanitarian effort has been undertaken, but I am also certain--as I am sure he is--that he will now get a bump in the polls for this action.

Finally, because I firmly believe he is, first and foremost, a cold, calculating me-first ideologue, I still don't trust him to do the right thing for the right reasons. Thus, I don't trust that this ill-defined and apparently very limited operation will, in the longer term, satisfactorily serve the interests of Iraq, the Kurds or the United States. Nor do I believe it will appropriately cripple ISIS. On this, I sincerely hope he proves me dead wrong.

Illegal Entry is a Misdemeanor AND Illegal Re-Entry IS a Felony

During an interview with Bill O'Reilly on August 6th regarding the off-duty border patrol agent who was murdered by two illegal aliens, and much to O'Reilly's astonishment, Lou Dobbs reported that an illegal RE-entry by an illegal alien is a criminal offense. Mr. Dobbs actually cited Section 1325 of the US immigration law to support his claim

It's always a source of elation for me when the heavily opinionated chatter on the various "news" channels is sometimes interrupted  by actual facts and a little education. And for that, I am especially grateful to Mr. Dobbs.

Being an 'ole immigration worker in my pre-retirement  life, I knew Mr. Dobbs was correct, but, for my own benefit and knowing how immigration law is nearly always in flux, I decided to double-check the accuracy of his report. So, in a nutshell, and for those of you who care, these cites:

--Under INA Sec 212(a)(9)(C), a person who was removed from the US and then tries to enter without going through the required admission procedures will be permanently barred from any future entry into the US.

--Title 8 Section 1325 of the US Code renders illegal entry a misdemeanor carrying with it imprisonment for 6 months for the first offense, and a felony and 2 years in prison for the second offense. In short, any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officials, OR (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, OR (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact shall, for the first offense, be fined ($50-$250) or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense (illegal re-rentry), be fined or imprisoned for not more than 2 years.

I'll bet dollars to donuts this law is very rarely enforced and, for the most part, utterly ignored by the Adminstration and their open-borders lackeys and supporters.

Just so there's no wiggle room on how one might interpret the meaning of this section of the law, illegal re-entry means one of the following has occurred: alien was (1) denied admission to the US, (2) excluded from the US, (3) deported from the US, (4) removed from the US, or (5) departed the US while an order of exclusion, deportation or removal was outstanding.

With particular respect to the two illegals who murdered the off-duty border patrol agent earlier this week, aliens re-entering or found in the US without government approval, after a criminal conviction for an aggravated felony--which will surely apply in this case--the maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years and a permanent bar from any future entry into the US.

(Note: if an alien illegally re-enters, after a criminal felony conviction for a non-aggravated felony, or after 3 or more misdemeanor convictions for drug-related crimes or crimes against persons, he or she is subject to a fine or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.)

Again, thank you, Mr. Dobbs. The education, a rare treat offered up by "news" shows these days, was sincerely appreciated.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

If Not Impeachment, What?

With some exceptions, pundits and politicians alike are, for the most part, stifling meaningful discussions about impeachment, choosing instead to dwell on the electoral ramifications of impeachment rather than upon the dangerous impact of a lawless Chief Executive on the Rule of Law.

In  a nutshell, this is the awful truth today: at last count, Obama has committed over 52 manifestly impeachable offenses. (See my previous posts dtd  8/1/11 and 1/9/13 for an explanation of what our Founders defined as an impeachable offense.) However, without a knowledgeable, fully engaged and appropriately incensed electorate which insists upon the Rule of Law, there is insufficient support for impeachment. It's that terribly simple. Knowing this and for purely political reasons, the Democrats are now cynically attempting to rouse their electoral and donor base by warning them about "bogus", "contrived", "grand-standing", "groundless" impeachment efforts emanating from the bogeymen on the right. And without adequate public support for impeachment, Republicans in  the House are now compelled to embark on a less confrontational, less politically suicidal--albeit untried--course of action, that being to sue Obama in a court of law.

Talk about a ruinous equation: an ignorant and apathetic electorate + a lawless Chief Executive + a politically weakened/undermined Congress = Tyranny.

Though impeachment is THE constitutional remedy to Executive overreach, in the absence of public support for such a remedy, and with their future Senatorial political fortunes at stake, Republicans simply have no reasonable recourse but to sue. And, quite naturally, the Democrats are demeaning that remedial effort as well. 

To my knowledge, Congress's suing a Chief Executive on the grounds that he has violated the Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine clearly breaks new constitutional ground. And who really knows how it will all play out.

Let's say the court accepts the case and rules in favor of Congress. A long shot, but a possibility. Then what? Since the court has no executive authority, it's ruling would be just that--a ruling without teeth, but, presumably, with some measure of moral authority. Given that scenario, it can only be hoped that Obama would relent. But, if he doesn't back off, then what? In that case, my guess is that public support for impeachment might well appreciably increase, thus, perhaps, persuading Obama to back off. But, what if Obama still doesn't back off even then? 

The political gamemanship and wonky calculations aside, when the Chief Executive overreaches his Art II constitutional authority--something Obama clearly has done--thus violating his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, our Founders would have quickly and unreservedly counseled impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. In the absence of impeachment, the Founders, to a man, would have encouraged the States and We the People to take all appropriate remedial actions to stop Executive overreach in order to defend our Liberty and our Republic.

As originally designed, we must always bear in mind that determining what is and what is not constitutional rests ultimately with the People through their respective States, the creators of this federal government. Thus, the burning question becomes this: what will the People and the States, their immediate fiduciary agents, do to restore constitutional order if Obama--or any lawless Chief Executive in the future--cannot be effectively checkmated and stopped by impeachment and removal? The constitutional options are crystal clear: Civil Disobedience, Nullification, Secession, Rebellion. Of course, the People are certainly within their power to simply yield to the lawlessness, a predilection, I'm afraid, which, among too many Americans today, is becoming more and more apparent.

We have over two more years ahead of us to somehow contend with this runaway, transformational Chief Executive. Will he be effectively reigned in before being permitted to plunge the country into chaos, dictatorship or disunion? As God is my judge, I simply do not know how to answer that troubling question. But, disturbingly, the vision of a compliant, shackled American population continues to assail my thoughts.

Personally, whatever remedial actions espoused by our Founders which will restore constitutional order and the Rule of Law is fine by me and should be single-mindedly pursued by us all. But, why do I again feel like a majority of one.