Save the Date

Mark your calendar, Shreveport-Bossier, for a wonderful opportunity to brush up your Constitution skills.

Local attorney Royal Alexander will deliver a lecture on Article V Thursday, March 27 at 6:00 p.m.  The event, entitled "The 2nd Method of Amending the Constitution" will be at the Clarion Hotel on 70th St and is free and open to the public.

On Those Recess Appointments...

Look people, the argument that George W. Bush (or anyone else for that matter) also made recess appointments misses the fact that the Senate is not actually in recess.  Moral relativism is a weak argument anyway but you've at least got to keep the facts straight if you're going to try it.

Krauthammer made this point yesterday:

The president is saying: “I won’t let Congress stop me.” But it’s in the Constitution that you have to have the Senate’s approval… He [the president] can only make a recess appointment if the Senate is in recess. It is not in recess.

In fact, his own Justice Department argued last year before the Supreme Court that the Senate has to be out of session for three days. It has not been. And that appeal was based on a ruling of the Clinton Justice Department–three days.

You can appoint anybody you want in a recess appointment. You can appoint anybody who has already been rejected by the Senate. You can appoint anybody you want as a way to make a purely cynical political point in election year in Ohio, as Obama is doing. But you can’t do it as a recess appointment if the Senate is not in recess.

And Bloomberg:

The White House called these “recess appointments,” even though Congress technically wasn’t in recess. In doing so, the president is playing with fire. He risks an election-year legal challenge that could hamstring the consumer bureau and several other financial regulators whose pending confirmations will probably now stall. The president’s authority -- and that of future executives -- to fill administration posts without Senate approval may be limited by the courts. We think Obama risks too much to make what is largely a political point -- that he, more than the Republican Party stands by American workers and consumers. 

John Yoo (H/T Pundette):

This, in my view, is not up to the president, but the Senate. It is up to the Senate to decide when it is in session or not, and whether it feels like conducting any real business or just having senators sitting around on the floor reading the papers. The president cannot decide the legitimacy of the activities of the Senate any more than he could for the other branches, and vice versa.

Is the president going to have the authority to decide if the Supreme Court has deliberated too little on a case? Does Congress have the right to decide whether the president has really thought hard enough about granting a pardon? Under Obama’s approach, he could make a recess appointment anytime he is watching C-SPAN and feels that the senators are not working as hard as he did in the Senate (a fairly low bar).

And one more:  Allahpundit:

Even if there’s a constitutional argument to be made in Obama’s defense, that argument isn’t available to Democrats. They used pro forma sessions, successfully, to block Bush; the only way to square that circle is to argue that the GOP is being more obstructionist than they were, to the point where other branches are now free to ignore separation-of-powers provisions in the Constitution in order to break the impasse.

Obama is off the rails here. Off the track.  Jumped the shark.  FUBAR.

Back to Regular Programming

I'm back at work now - we had inservice today and the kids come tomorrow so my blogging will be light for a day or two.  Some quick links to check out:

On Obama's recess appointments - check out Doug Ross:

In other words, through his blatantly lawless activities, the President has initiated a Constitutional crisis.

And we all know that if a Republican President had even publicly considered this option, legacy media would be beating the war-drums for impeachment.

It's high time the clueless John Boehner and Mitch McConnell started playing hardball. Real hardball. Impeachment-style hardball. Heaven knows, there are enough charges to impeach five or six presidents at this point.

This is a big deal, folks, but you won't likely hear much about it from the legacy media.  If there's a Republican candidate worth his salt he'll take this drum and bang it through the election.

Professor Jacobson has something to say about the appointments as well.

Speaking of elections, check out Pundette's coverage of Rick Perry's indecision; and ironically, it's the second reference to "Casey at the Bat" that I've heard today (on totally unrelated stories).

Stacy McCain had terrific coverage of the caucuses last night. 

Obama felt the need to speak to Iowa Democrats last night in a weirdly sketchy video feed; he's trying to reinvigorate his base from four years ago:

"[O]ne of the things that we learned four years ago was that when people at grassroots level are getting involved and they're getting engaged, and they're feeling empowered and they're joining hands with each other -- that's a powerful force," the president said.

A group at "grassroots level" is empowering and wonderful as long as they're for him; if it's the Tea Party, well, that's something else again...

Donald Douglas has his own ideas about Michele Bachmann's collapse.

Hang in there.  I'm busy getting to know 65 new sophomores and teaching them the lay of the land in room M205, but I'll be back online shortly.

By Signing the Birther Bill, Jindal Would be Disrespecting Obama, or Something...

Two Louisiana lawmakers are generating some controversy and gaining some national attention with their "birther bill" filed for the upcoming legislative session and the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate sees the whole thing as a matter of disrespect to Obama.

The bill, sponsored by Louisiana Representative Alan Seabaugh and state Senator A. G. Crowe, would require that all candidates in primary and general elections for President, Vice President, the House, and Senate submit an affidavit that includes:

"An original or certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

A commenter at the Bayou Buzz blog said:

This is a horribly conceived bill. It was designed to flush out Obama for only providing an "abstract" birth certificate form, but would not only seem to flush out people born in places that don't issue "photostatic" long form birth certificates, but anyone born in Louisiana. If this bill passes and isn't struck down, Jindal (born in Louisiana) might not be able to get his name on the ballot in Louisiana if he runs for Congress or President/Vice President. How's that for irony?

Jindal, for his part, has said he would sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

The Baton Rouge Morning Advocate has posted a scathing editorial against HB 561:

Requiring a presidential candidate to present his birth certificate in Louisiana is “just following the Constitution.”  This is the dishonest statement of legislators pushing a “birther” bill in the Legislature, and Gov. Bobby Jindal, who says he would sign such a bill if it passes.

Regardless of how one feels on the "birther" issue, I'm not sure why showing proof of citizenship is such a bad thing.  The editorial goes on...

The assertion that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States is false. But calling for “enforcement” of the Constitution in this context is a cover for shady and slippery politics by Jindal and others.

In what "context"? In the context of a legislative session?  In the context of citizenship?

Our Constitution is the law of the land; why is "enforcement" of it now a bad thing?  The Advocate's position is that Jindal and Louisiana republicans are just supporting this bill out of pure politics rather than any concern over constitutional intent which is quite an assumption to make without more evidence.  The Advocate says Jindal's intent to sign the bill, should it pass, is "motivated by politics rather than constitutional law," which is simply ridiculous. Support of the citizenship standard is about nothing if not constitutional law.

From the Advocate's point of view, Jindal's failure to disavow the entire process shows something like a lack of respect for Obama, or something:

Our system does not depend merely on laws, even the Constitution. It depends on an atmosphere of mutual respect, for the office if not the person or the views. By lending his signature to a birther bill, Jindal would put his politics above his personal obligation to make America’s political system work. Above the respect he ought to show to the president’s person, even if he disagrees with the president’s actions.

So, by signing this "birther bill," Jindal is disrespecting Obama.  Which is so much more egregious than violating the Constitution.  Jindal should vow to veto the bill because he respects Obama so much.  Riiiight.

The comments following the editorial are amusing in their own right.  The first one cites racism, naturally.


Regardless of one's position on the birther issue, it seems the Advocate misses the mark and does, in fact, reduce the whole issue down to just politics rather than constitutional intent.  The Louisiana legislature convenes tomorrow and this will absolutely be one issue to watch.

The Cost of Reading the Constitution

The suddenly cost conscious Vanity Fair is lamenting the fact that Republicans are wasting, wasting!, about $1.1 million to read the Constitution aloud this morning!

You remember the Constitution?  According to Vanity Fair it;s "a document whose recent relevance is due largely to the ideological and sartorial interests of the Tea Party."

Thank you, Tea Party.

No, instead of working this morning, solving the nation's ills, the House will be frittering away time reading the Constitution; that costs money!  While they're wasting time doing that, coffee machines are running, the security staff is working, the staff is working...

When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on. Even Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) combined don’t blow enough hot air to heat the Capitol in January.

I wonder how much money Vanity Fair wasted consulting this guy and how much time was wasted setting this to print?

The Lefties are Getting out Their Garlic Necklaces

The liberals are simply twisting themselves like tops as they contemplate John Boehner's plan to open the 112th Congress with a reading of the Constitution.  Personally, I think it's a fine idea.  As teachers we are always reminded by our administrators to "set the tone" on the very first day.  The same principle is at work here.  The lefties are in apoplexy.  Let's survey a few of those:

Michael Chamberlain at OpEdNews says:

This reading of the Constitution, into the Congressional Record, is smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

Here's what Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, should do after the reading concludes. Make a request to clarify the reading of the Constitution, with the reading of the following documents: From the Federalist Papers, Federalist #33, by Alexander Hamilton, and Federalist #39, by James Madison. Those, will get their heads spinning with NATIONAL supremacy. Also, from the Founders' Constitution: James Madison's letter to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 27, 1823; James Madison's letter to Edmund Pendleton, dated October 28, 1787; and James Madison's, Notes on Nullification written between 1835 and 1836.

Chamberlain then goes on to explain that it's "anti-Constitutional" to repeal Obamacare and cites a Georgetown law professor as his source.

From the blog Say it Ain't So Already:

This sounds like a way to waste a whole bunch of time and to feed video of supposedly uber-patriotic Republicans to the media.

Obama himself suggests that Republicans are simply "playing to their base" and says:

“My expectation, my hope is that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012,”

Spoken like a true campaigner.  Obama has never quit campaigning for 2012.

Norah O'Donnell says it's just a gimmick:

O'Donnell condescendingly introduced the segment by suggesting that the Constitution "has been getting a whole lot of lip service." After alerting viewers that the Republicans would open Congress by reading the document's text, she skeptically wondered, "Is this a gimmick?"

Ezra Klein says yes, indeed, it's a gimmick and besides, that old document is so confusing anyway...

Yes, it's a gimmick. [Laughs] I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done. So, I wouldn't expect to much coming out of this.

The Delaware Liberal is in the "it's a stunt" camp:

The new Republican House has already decided that it’s first stunt is to read the Constitution out loud. The Republicans want to convince us that they are the one, true party of the Constitution.

Over at Politicus USA this is all somehow Michelle Bachmann's doing:

Bachmann thinks the November 2^nd election was a mandate for Congress to return to the Founders’ idea of America and says, “Voters called for a renewed commitment to the Constitution,” and that, “These new rules show that Republicans are serious about respecting the Constitution.” Bachmann’s comprehension of the Constitution is tenuous at best, and her remarks this past summer that she wanted Minnesotan’s to be “armed and dangerous” in case the Federal government enforced federal laws were nothing short of treason and incitement to armed insurrection.

And ShowMeBlog offers this:

My God… The new and I guess old Republicans do not know what the Constitution of the United States contains!  Not only that it looks like the new Republicans coming into the House must be so stupid that they can read it. They have to have it read to them. I do not think the new Republican members of Congress should be sworn in as members of Congress.  How can they take the oath when they do not know what they are saying they will protect and defend?

 It's difficult for me to believe anyone could object to Boehner's reading of the Constitution.  It's never been done before and I think it's high time.  But to many liberals it's like garlic to a vampire and almost more than they can stand.  That's a shame.

The Constitution? Why That's Just an OLD Document! It's not Relevant!

It's a new year but any hopes you may have been holding that E.J. Dionne would pull his head out of ...the sand...are unfounded. 

Dionne has penned his usual delusional column for the WaPo this morning citing the wonderful compromises the Democrats tried to make during their tenure as majority in Congress.  In fact, he says, the problem with Democrats is that they compromised too much:

Democrats did not overreach in the 111th Congress. On the contrary, they compromised regularly. Compromise made the health care bill far more complicated than it had to be and the original stimulus bill too small. Democrats would have been better off getting more done more quickly and more coherently. 

Well, "coherently" would indeed have been better but you'd be hard pressed to get it done more quickly as most in Congress didn't have time to read it as it was.  Certainly not the stimulus bill.

Dionne scoffs at the GOP intent to begin the next Congress with a full reading of the Constitution and the suggestion that bills must have constitutional authority attached.  He calls this "an obvious sop to the Tea Party movement" and suggests:

One can imagine that the rule's primary practical result will be the creation of a small House bureaucracy responsible for churning out constitutional justifications for whatever gets introduced.

Ye gads, we can't have any more bureaucracy in Washington!  No!  The huge bureaucracies established by Obamacare have already taken up all the office space! 

Seriously, Dionne has no respect for the Constitution whatsoever.  He scoffs at those of you who would regard it as "sacred scripture" rather than "a collection of shrewd political compromises."  You aren't supposed to take that "right to bear arms" thing literally, don't you know?  It's an old document!  Out of touch with today's facts!  It's not relevant anymore!  It was written by a bunch of passionate old men prone to foolishness!  Or so says the historian Dionne cites.


Just forget that old thing!  In fact, let's debate it, Dionne suggests, and figure out what the Constitution really means!  How about you just take a civics class, Mr. Dionne?  Most of us already understand that document.

No, any hopes you may have been holding that Dionne would change or somehow be rational are now dashed.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Coons and O'Donnell Spar Over the First Amendment

Much is being made on the left this afternoon about what they perceive to be Christine O'Donnell's ignorance of the First Amendment of the Constitution, however, if those folks would actually watch the segment in question and apply just a few reasoning skills, it is quite clear that O'Donnell has a full grasp of the First Amenedment where Coons is the one who misrepresents it.

The conflict centers over the phrase "separation of church and state."  Coons insists that phrase is in the First Amendment.  It is not.

Amendment 1 says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see the phrase "separation of church and state" in there either.

O'Donnell clarified her question for Coons, who continued to insist the phrase is there (emphasis mine):

She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

Yet the headline in the Washington Post is "O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church and State."  That's rather misleading, no?

When pressed to name the five freedoms in that Amendment, Coons could not.

O'Donnell was not without error; she had to be reminded what the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments were.  But she had a full grasp of the First Amendment; when you watch the video clip, she presses Coons on the "separation" phrase, has him repeat it several times, and cocks her head in amusement, knowing she's caught him in a misrepresentation.  Yet all the left wingers hear is "You're telling me that separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

As Michelle Malkin points out, that phrase is nowhere in the Constitution but comes from Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter of 1802.

Criticize O'Donnell if you must, but let's recognize the limitations of Coons, too.   In truth, it's all semantics.  We all know what Coons meant, and we all know what O'Donnell meant.  It's the left wing media's ballyhooing about O'Donnell's "ignorance" that is ridiculous.

But what else is new.

(More at Memeorandum)

The Forgotten Man

You've probably seen this video already, but I just did, so I'm posting it.  And before the liberals heads explode, note the part where he says, "...Barack Obama and other presidents..." because I did.   There's a long line of errors that have occurred and you know, that's what the Tea Party is yelling about.  Anyway, it's a cool painting.



More of his work here.

Consider the Constitution as So Much Confetti

It doesn't happen often, (and it's almost never good when it happens to a blogger) but I'm almost beyond words at this point over what is happening in Washington.

This afternoon the Republicans forced a vote on the Slaughter House rule, a vote which if successful, would force an actual on the record vote of the Senate Obamacare bill. The bill was defeated 222-203. This means 222 Dems voted to allow the Slaughter House option to proceed. As Ace says, wouldn't these same 222 vote for Obamacare?

222 Dems voted to shred the Constitution. Twenty-eight Democrats broke with their party to vote with Republicans.

Where are we now?

Now we're facing a weekend vote on Obamacare. Do they have the votes? Reports are that they don't at this point. But they're too close for comfort.

Michelle Malkin has the weekend schedule:

Steny Hoyer announces weekend schedule on House floor. House will convene on Saturday at 9am with votes as early as 10am, then on Sunday at 1pm — no votes before 2pm. Possible votes on Monday before 630pm Eastern.

The text of the "wreckonciliation" bill can be found here.

Mark Levin should have his lawsuit ready to go. I suspect he'll get a chance to file it.

Meanwhile, the Constitution is just so much confetti.

Have Some More Coffee and Read These Links

Here are some quick links for you this morning:

A must-read is this post at The Foundry regarding the unconstitutionality of the Nebraska Compromise. The Attorneys General of 13 states have written a letter to Nancy Pelosi in protest:

The deal is said to involve an agreement that the Federal Government’s taxpayers will assume indefinitely the full share of the costs that Nebraska will incur as the result of the expansion of Medicaid that is one of the Act’s effects. The result is not only preferential treatment for Nebraska but it also hurts the rest of us because the other States will have to make up the difference. Such preferential treatment is constitutionally suspect; it cannot be reconciled with several important principles incorporated in the Constitution. The Founders would not have dreamed of taking a burden that all of the States should share and allocating it to only some of them. Likewise, they would not have seen the spending of taxpayer money for the benefit of only one State to be in the general interest.


Professor Jacobson reports that Scott Brown is shaking things up in MA:

Rasmussen is the first major polling organization to poll the Massachusetts Senate special election, and the "pre-released" poll numbers show Martha Coakley (D) with just a 9% lead over Scott Brown (R), which would be consistent with other polls. This post will be updated with further analysis once the official numbers are released. [See Update No. 2 below - official results released - Brown within 2% among people who definitely will vote and has a large lead among indepenents.]


William Murchison questions whether or not Obama really understands the war on terror:

Why is the government decanting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab into the civilian justice system after he tried to destroy an airliner filled with innocent passengers? Why are we affording this enemy agent the legal protections that obtain in a land he wants to destroy? The administration is going to answer for this one, with volume turned up.

Andy McCarthy exercises some caution on the decision to uphold the conviction of Moussaoui:

The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and sentence of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. Enthusiasts of the law-enforcement approach to terrorism will undoubtedly claim this development as more evidence that their strategy works. To the contrary, I have argued several times (see, e.g., here and here) that we dodged a bullet with Moussaoui — i.e., if he had not surprised everyone by pleading guilty, if he had instead insisted on proceeding with his trial (not just the penalty phase but the guilt phase), the case might well have ended disastrously.

And finally, Michelle Malkin is all over the upcoming health care debate, including C-SPAN's request that they be allowed to televise deliberations.

Is ObamaCare Unconstitutional?

Can Obama FORCE you to buy health insurance through an individual mandate? This Washington Post article says no.

It's a very interesting thought, and one that I've been pondering since Smitty brought it up in the comments on a previous post of mine on ObamaCare.

Rivkin and Casey run through several court precedents and find that none would pass muster to allow such a mandate: "The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there." Many of the uninsured, as we know, are young, feel invincible, and choose not to purchase health care which is entirely their right.

As Rivkin and Casey put it, "The genius of our system is that, no matter how convinced our elected officials may be that certain measures are in the public interest, their goals can be accomplished only in accord with the powers and processes the Constitution mandates, processes that inevitably make them accountable to the American people." Our Founding Fathers were no dummies.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air takes a look at this also, pointing out that HR3200 could attempt to enforce a mandate through the tax code with penalties for those who don't comply, but ultimately, that too is unconstitutional: "... individual mandates are unconstitutional, regardless of whether they’re explicit or buried in tax policy....The only way to get mandatory universal coverage is conversion to a single-payer system, which Congress also doesn’t have the power to do without amending the Constitution. Otherwise, free will in a free system dictates that people will make choices with which many disagree, and that includes the choice not to buy health insurance."

As a Constitutional scholar, why is Obama ignoring all this? Shouldn't he know this already? Or is it just inconvenient?

There's more at Memeorandum.

The Audacity of the Rewrite

That sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

Robert Stacy McCain (and Smitty) reports, via Jerry Pournelle, that Team Obama has undertaken a rewrite of the Constitution. I don't think I can express my burning, fuming disgust any better than Smitty has so you need to go read his take on it.

But let me just say that it is audacity indeed to try to rewrite the Constitution of the United States. Our Founding Fathers did a pretty darn good job.

As an educator in the public school system, I am strongly opposed to the "dumbing down" of any
course material. We are encouraged to raise our students to the reading level of a text; one government program after another is designed to help bring kids up to reading/grade level. Yet it remains true that throughout the American educational system we continue to dumb down reading material. When I was in high school, WAY back in the day, we read Silas Marner in 10th grade and Pride and Prejudice.

The first year I taught high school seniors and put Jane Eyre in their hands, well, you would have thought I'd given them the entire text of Milton's Paradise Lost. They asked me if we could read The Outsiders. And given a choice, they'd rather watch the movie.

You know what I said? NO! We're going to read THIS book. And they did. And most of them liked it (not so much the boys!)

If Team Obama wants our American students to be competitive worldwide with other students then why in the world would you lower the reading level of the Constitution? In fact, studies have been done which show that lowering the reading level of material does NOT necessarily increase comprehension, if that was actually his point.

But more than that it is just the arrogance of it. What's next? As Smitty so eloquently said,

"Mr. President, you are encouraged to conserve your creativity for your next best-seller. You are discouraged from setting a precedent for people to get jiggy wit' da text."