December 7, 2019

Turley Will Represent House in Challenging Executive Power in Obamacare

“As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Guns Will Be Confiscated, But How?

Those who seek truth are not afraid to examine the words of all those in positions of power in order to determine what is and what isn’t the truth that drives an agenda or seeks a desired outcome. The gun ownership and rights to self protection debate is full of facts, lies, half-truths, rhetoric, emotions and very little truth.

Neocon and warmonger, John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, and John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, might give us a bit of a glimpse into how the Government of the United States and/or an international power, i.e. United Nations/One World Government, intends to unwittingly disarm the American people.

Very few people understand the U.S. Constitution. Even those who claim they do, in my opinion, may be wrong. But, I’m not here to try to convince you that I understand it. I don’t, but I’m working on it. I do know enough about it to know I know little about it.

If we examine some common themes of the Constitution, i.e. Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Tenth Amendment, Treaties, etc., it will help readers form a basis and assist them in understanding what Bolton and Yoo are saying about treaties and executive orders. Whether it’s the Obama Administration or the next or next, they will succeed in getting guns away from the American population. Historical odds are stacked heavily in favor of that happening. I will repeat myself one more time and say that the millions and millions of guns owned by a few million U.S. citizens is the only and last deterrent keeping us away from total despotic and tyrannical rule. Do away with the guns and everything else becomes a cake walk.

Looking at two recent Supreme Court rulings – Heller v. District of Columbia and MacDonald v. Chicago – we see that the Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun. The same Court also made known that both the governments and the individuals have limits to power and rights, respectively.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution defines the executive powers of the president and also lays the groundwork for Treaties and states that lawful treaties become the supreme rule of law.

We also know that on April 2, 2013, the United States signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Law states that such signed treaties must be approved by a super majority of the U.S. Senate and, of course, signed by the president. Only then can a treaty become the supreme laws that governs us…….or not?

Historically, we have been witness to presidential power through executive orders. There is always debate as to whether certain executive orders violate the constitutional authority granted the president in defining his or her executive powers. The truth is, executive orders have been used for many, many years, but does the use and abuse of them make it right or legal? Just how far can a president go to accomplish certain things a Congress will not permit? We’ve seen some far stretches.

Executive orders are intended to be used so presidents can clarify and make unsubstantial changes to existing laws. However, many would argue that for several previous administrations abuse of such powers are an overreach of executive power. Some want to blame Barack Obama for being the first to abuse the privilege of executive privilege, but that abuse existed long before President Obama was even born.

In consideration of all this and the fact that we can easily see that the Constitution has been twisted and turned and “reinterpreted”, not unlike the way it was done in ancient times of Roman history that led to the destruction of republics and the rights of people, fear should grip the people today that we are headed in the same direction and that eventually, a treaty, such as the Arms Trade Treaty, will be implemented by executive order. This is what is known as tyranny.

But is it probable or even possible? From what I am seeing, I think it’s easy to state that it’s possible and if things don’t change, it will be probable.

I will leave you with an excerpt of what Bolton and Yoo wrote concerning this.

The attempt to advance gun control through the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not liberals, who have been long frustrated by the Constitution’s limits on government. Gun-control statutes, like any others, have to survive both the House and the Senate, then win presidential approval. It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even “norms” delivered by an amorphous “international community.”

Opponents of capital punishment have used treaties to press the Supreme Court to stop the death penalty in Texas. Women’s rights groups advocate an international convention that would achieve the goals of the failed Equal Rights Amendment. And supporters of bans on “hate speech” invoke international norms to defeat First Amendment objections. There also is an international legal doctrine that during the period when a country has signed but not yet ratified a treaty, it must take no measures that defeat the treaty’s object and purposes. Under some liberal theories, this would allow the president to put some measures of the new arms treaty into effect by executive order.

Note: There really is no need to qualify any part of this discussion as being the fault of “liberal theories” and “liberals, and as somehow a battle between left and right, democrat or republican.” Both sides can claim equal fault or credit in the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. It’s all about power and control, divided equally among power and control hungry tyrants.

Share