Political CHIPS - Conservative Heritage Institute for Principled Strength
Constitution of No
Thought chippers might find this article interesting:
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
June 8, 2010
Constitution of No
If President Obama's motto is "Yes, we can," the Constitution's is "No, you can't."
By U.S. Senator Jim DeMint
When a reporter asked House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) during a press conference last year where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to enact an individual health-insurance mandate, she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Speaker Pelosi then dismissed the question and moved on to the next reporter.
This exchange illustrates the way "yes we can" liberals treat the Constitution: They simply ignore it when it gets in the way of their big-government bailouts and takeovers.
Democrats have always been the "party of go," bent on transforming America with their "living Constitution," which changes to suit the political whims of the day. That's why Republicans shouldn't flinch when they are criticized as being the "party of no." Saying no is necessary to uphold the freedoms on which our nation was founded.
The Constitution is full of no's. It is by telling the government what it cannot do that the Constitution protects our freedoms. The Founders loathed tyranny and sought to erect a government ruled by law, not people. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, "in America the law is king."
The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the right to assemble and petition government. Americans are allowed to keep and bear arms because the Bill of Rights says that this right "shall not be infringed." It also says no to unreasonable search and seizure, and to cruel and unusual punishment. The Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process, and that private property cannot be taken without just compensation. The Eighth Amendment says no to excessive bail and fines, and the Tenth Amendment says powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution go to the states or the people. The Bill of Rights says no to the federal government over and over again.
Using the Constitution's amendment-making process, Americans have added even more no's over the years: The 13th Amendment says no to slavery; the 15th and 19th Amendments say no one can be denied the right to vote based on race or sex.
Every clause of Article 1, Section 9, which is all about the limits on Congress, contains the words "no" or "shall not."
There's one "no" in particular that Congress should have paid attention to in the fall of 2008, when the banking crisis reared its ugly head: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." That means only Congress can appropriate money to be spent.
But Washington didn't say no when President Bush's Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, came asking the Democratic Congress to give Treasury a $700 billion blank check. Paulson said the money would be used to buy up toxic assets under a Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. In the end, only a portion of the money was used to do that.
The rest of the money became a slush fund for the president, greatly inflating the power of the executive office. TARP funds were used to bail out GM, Chrysler, and auto suppliers without a single vote from Congress. Because too many elected members of Congress didn't abide by the Constitution, one bad bailout led to another at the discretion of the executive branch.
This isn't the only way the Obama White House has grabbed power in defiance of the Constitution. Very early in his presidency, Obama began stuffing his executive office with czars to manage major areas of national policy, including health care, global warming, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, "green jobs," Mideast peace, energy, CEO pay, technology, and the border. Although the czars wield a tremendous amount of influence, they can't be subjected to congressional oversight, defeating the constitutionally established process of "advise and consent."
Bureaucracy in the executive branch has exploded tremendously over the years. At this point, Congress can barely keep up with its oversight duties of executive departments, agencies, offices, and regulatory commissions. As a result, these institutions often make rules on their own, or are given broad power by the Congress to do so. For example, President Obama's health-care law gives the secretary of health and human services, part of the executive branch, broad rulemaking powers: The HHS bureaucracy has been empowered to determine what health insurance should cost and what it should cover for every American, and HHS can change those policies each year, depending on the political struggles of the day, without any vote by Congress.
That's not all. Thanks to President Obama, every American will soon be required to buy Washington-approved health insurance. This is the first time Congress has used its power to make an individual person purchase something from a private company for no other reason than that the citizen is alive. This flies in the face of the Constitution.
Progressives like Obama believe government has limitless ability and power. Remember what Obama said the night he secured the Democratic presidential nomination: "This [is] the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Only a liberal would believe that tinkering with the levers of government could ever accomplish such planetary change.
If President Obama's motto is "Yes, we can," the Constitution's is "No, you can't." Obama may have once been a constitutional scholar, but he's no constitutionalist.
Although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected. That's why it's more important than ever for Republicans to say no. We are standing against a long progressive effort to transform the country. Its roots are in the New Deal and the Great Society; today, President Obama's spending, bailouts, and takeovers are testing the Constitution in new and unprecedented ways.
An American awakening is taking place, however, and citizens are demanding that the government once again affirm its allegiance to our country's constitutional principles. If Republicans want to protect the Constitution and ensure our nation's survival as the beacon of liberty, "No" is an answer we are obligated to give and to proudly defend.
In the era of unlimited government, saying no is an act of patriotism, and being a member of the "party of no" should be a badge of honor.
This exchange illustrates the way "yes we can" liberals treat the Constitution: They simply ignore it when it gets in the way of their big-government bailouts and takeovers.
Democrats have always been the "party of go," bent on transforming America with their "living Constitution," which changes to suit the political whims of the day. That's why Republicans shouldn't flinch when they are criticized as being the "party of no." Saying no is necessary to uphold the freedoms on which our nation was founded.
The Constitution is full of no's. It is by telling the government what it cannot do that the Constitution protects our freedoms. The Founders loathed tyranny and sought to erect a government ruled by law, not people. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, "in America the law is king."
The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the right to assemble and petition government. Americans are allowed to keep and bear arms because the Bill of Rights says that this right "shall not be infringed." It also says no to unreasonable search and seizure, and to cruel and unusual punishment. The Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process, and that private property cannot be taken without just compensation. The Eighth Amendment says no to excessive bail and fines, and the Tenth Amendment says powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution go to the states or the people. The Bill of Rights says no to the federal government over and over again.
Using the Constitution's amendment-making process, Americans have added even more no's over the years: The 13th Amendment says no to slavery; the 15th and 19th Amendments say no one can be denied the right to vote based on race or sex.
Every clause of Article 1, Section 9, which is all about the limits on Congress, contains the words "no" or "shall not."
There's one "no" in particular that Congress should have paid attention to in the fall of 2008, when the banking crisis reared its ugly head: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." That means only Congress can appropriate money to be spent.
But Washington didn't say no when President Bush's Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, came asking the Democratic Congress to give Treasury a $700 billion blank check. Paulson said the money would be used to buy up toxic assets under a Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. In the end, only a portion of the money was used to do that.
The rest of the money became a slush fund for the president, greatly inflating the power of the executive office. TARP funds were used to bail out GM, Chrysler, and auto suppliers without a single vote from Congress. Because too many elected members of Congress didn't abide by the Constitution, one bad bailout led to another at the discretion of the executive branch.
This isn't the only way the Obama White House has grabbed power in defiance of the Constitution. Very early in his presidency, Obama began stuffing his executive office with czars to manage major areas of national policy, including health care, global warming, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, "green jobs," Mideast peace, energy, CEO pay, technology, and the border. Although the czars wield a tremendous amount of influence, they can't be subjected to congressional oversight, defeating the constitutionally established process of "advise and consent."
Bureaucracy in the executive branch has exploded tremendously over the years. At this point, Congress can barely keep up with its oversight duties of executive departments, agencies, offices, and regulatory commissions. As a result, these institutions often make rules on their own, or are given broad power by the Congress to do so. For example, President Obama's health-care law gives the secretary of health and human services, part of the executive branch, broad rulemaking powers: The HHS bureaucracy has been empowered to determine what health insurance should cost and what it should cover for every American, and HHS can change those policies each year, depending on the political struggles of the day, without any vote by Congress.
That's not all. Thanks to President Obama, every American will soon be required to buy Washington-approved health insurance. This is the first time Congress has used its power to make an individual person purchase something from a private company for no other reason than that the citizen is alive. This flies in the face of the Constitution.
Progressives like Obama believe government has limitless ability and power. Remember what Obama said the night he secured the Democratic presidential nomination: "This [is] the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Only a liberal would believe that tinkering with the levers of government could ever accomplish such planetary change.
If President Obama's motto is "Yes, we can," the Constitution's is "No, you can't." Obama may have once been a constitutional scholar, but he's no constitutionalist.
Although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected. That's why it's more important than ever for Republicans to say no. We are standing against a long progressive effort to transform the country. Its roots are in the New Deal and the Great Society; today, President Obama's spending, bailouts, and takeovers are testing the Constitution in new and unprecedented ways.
An American awakening is taking place, however, and citizens are demanding that the government once again affirm its allegiance to our country's constitutional principles. If Republicans want to protect the Constitution and ensure our nation's survival as the beacon of liberty, "No" is an answer we are obligated to give and to proudly defend.
In the era of unlimited government, saying no is an act of patriotism, and being a member of the "party of no" should be a badge of honor.
Tags: America, DeMint, Obama, amendments, constitution, no, of, party
Views: 4
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Yvonne Starks on -
Thanks, Greg. Think someone needs to actually physically read--and then explain---this to DeMint's Senate challenger, Democrat Alvin Greene? Oh, I'm being mean, aren't I?
Obama himself said even before being elected that the Constitution was "too restraining".....yeah, that says it all. DeMint's right---Obama doesn't want to be told NO by anyone, and especially the Constitution. But, we are allowing him to go around the Constitution and to disregard it whenever he pleases. When will this stop? Who is going to stop them?
Well, Obama....it's not the oceans' rise beginning to slow, it's the oil's rise beginning to show.....and it ain't healing.
-
Permalink Reply by Greg Beal on -
I think Obama called it a constitution of "negative rights", what the government cannot do. He wants "positive rights", what the government can do, I might add, to us and not for us.
I heard Mark Levin interview Greene the other night. I swear Greene was stoned. He could barely carry on a conversation. I wonder if he is related to the rep. from GA who thought that Guam might tip over. What a statement about the condition and IQ level of (some of) Carolina's voters!!
-
Permalink Reply by Yvonne Starks on
-
Well, after Alvin Greene loses, be ready for his own reality show on television. :)
The blonde (whatever her and her husband's strange names are) White House Party Crasher--and liar--is getting her own show as well as liar and sexual escapader-adulterer Eliot Spitzer!
Ah yes, we need to question our stand as a moral country---as well as a high IQ, educated one!
Many are saying that the voters didn't know who they were voting for, period....and one, he was first on the list alphabetically and second, there is some singer or celebrity with the name Al Greene....or something like that....and they identified with that. Omigawd.
Thank you for your support!
Latest Activity
PoliticalCHIPS via TwitterChecking out "The Daily CHIPS -Monday, May 20, 2013" on Political CHIPS: http://t.co/8mxiCYb2Ou
Political Chips's video was featuredRep Mike Kelly Receives Standing Ovation BLASTING IRS on IRS Scandal
Couldn't say it any better... A+ to rep Mike Kelly Rep Mike Kelly Receives Standing Ovation BLASTING IRS on IRS Scandal Video courtesy of C-span2 - public he...
Political Chips posted a videoRep Mike Kelly Receives Standing Ovation BLASTING IRS on IRS Scandal
Couldn't say it any better... A+ to rep Mike Kelly Rep Mike Kelly Receives Standing Ovation BLASTING IRS on IRS Scandal Video courtesy of C-span2 - public he...
W Dale Russell commented on W Dale Russell's blog post Speaking out !"Mary, glad to see your comment, and you are exactly right.
Apathy is the biggest enemy…"
Mary C. Weaver commented on W Dale Russell's blog post Speaking out !"What must be done is to shake the apathy and gnorance of a large part of our citizenry!! …"
W Dale Russell posted a blog postSpeaking out !
It is time for Conservatives to publicly speak out on issues in our back yards.Here in an example…See More
Mary C. Weaver liked Leslie Schmidt's blog post Federal Court Slams Obama's Use of Recess Appointment Power
Jeffrey G. Locke commented on Leslie Schmidt's blog post Federal Court Slams Obama's Use of Recess Appointment Power"The court doing its job guided by the constitution. Like a well-oiled machine!
Take that imposter!"
Jeffrey G. Locke liked Leslie Schmidt's blog post Federal Court Slams Obama's Use of Recess Appointment PowerJeffrey G. Locke liked Leslie Schmidt's blog post Federal Court Slams Obama's Use of Recess Appointment PowerPoliticalCHIPS via TwitterNew Jersey Usurps First And Second Amendment Rights - @Jarkesy Political http://t.co/j7Fk4gUtrA
Sponsored Ads
Badge
© 2013 Created by Political Chips.
