Two Party Treason.

Vic Biorseth, Thursday, February 21, 2013
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Question: What is it that makes America America?

Answer: The Constitution.

I have said this many times herein, but it bears repeating:

The Constitution is a fixed legal document, written in English, that says very specific legal things.

The Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land - is all we have to stand on. It is the only thing that makes America unique. The Constitution, and the Constitution alone, supplies the legal organization of our federal government and provides it's legal rules of operation. The Constitution legally spells out federal government authority, responsibility to the citizenry, and it legally fixes the governmental power, scope and limitations.

The Constitution is America. It Constitutes America. Without the Constitution, America would not exist. To strike at the Constitution is to strike at the heart of America. Destroy the Constitution, and you destroy America.

Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Justices, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coastguardsmen, all, before the assume their respective duties, solemnly swear in an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

They do not swear to protect any territory, or any people, or anything other than the Constitution.

It bears repeating, because it seems to have been forgotten:

1. The Constitution is America.
2. Destroy the Constitution and you destroy America.

The only thing standing between you and your government is the Constitution. The only thing protecting you from your own government is the Constitution. If our Commander-In-Chief issues an un-Constitutional order to the military to infringe the least of your Constitutional rights, the Generals and Admirals are called to disobey it, as an unlawful order and a violation of their sworn oath to defend the Constitution.

But if any of them do not disobey it, and pass it on - the rank and file soldiers, sailors, etc., are called to disobey it, as an unlawful order, and a violation of their sworn oath to defend the Constitution.

But if any of them do not disobey it, and try to enforce it, then you have every Constitutional right to defend yourself and your property.

Make no mistake about it: this President is pushing for civil unrest even to the point of civil war, even as he pushes us over the economic cliff, weakens defense, alienates allies, emboldens enemies, and plays another round of golf, looking innocent. Now, those of us who are awake are, or should be by now, cognizant of the fact that the Democrat Party went Marxist-redistributionist long ago. And, so did the SLIMC, academia, formal education, most of show-biz and celebrity. And that they took America along with them, to the Left, with the creation, care and feeding of huge extra-Constitutional government bureaucracies. And that they did this while the supposed conservative protectors of the Constitution - the Republicans - just stood around and let it happen.

Or worse; the Republicans actually cooperated in this corruption of the Constitution by "reaching across the aisle" and seeking "bipartisan cooperation" in order to "get things done."

Big Government Republicans will be the death of the Constitution.

I have said, in many places in these pages, that the Democrats are now so treacherous and so anti-Constitution as to warrant not only impeachment from office, but charges of treason. They operate, very specifically, against the Constitution, despite their oaths of office. Individually, their ultimate goal for post-Constitution America differs slightly depending on what level of Marxist ideologues they might be. The Useful Idiots among them seek to transform us into some grand but quite impossible collective utopian global-village. The more sinister treacherous Alinskyite-Marxists among them seek to make us into a dictatorship, pure and simple. Some of them may have made secret compacts with foreign entities for our take-over. At any rate, they all oppose America as Constituted.

But how are the Big Government Republicans any better? They, too, work against the restraints of the Constitution. Not only do they not defend the Constitution as written, they cooperate in exceeding its limitations and constraints. Where the Democrats are treacherous due to ideology, the Republicans are treacherous due to corruption.

Republicans are just as guilty of line-item earmarks, pork-barrel politics and buying votes from an increasingly dependent, as opposed to independent, citizenry, as are the Marxocrats. If it wasn't for Republican cooperation and congeniality at the political feeding trough, America wouldn't be in this current pickle.

The powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated, in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. If it isn't in there, the federal government has no Constitutional business even addressing it. It is a local matter.

How many times have you heard one of them say "Nobody wants to eliminate the Safety Net" in the middle of a speech on cutting federal government spending? Is there any Safety Net in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that I have overlooked?

How many times have you heard one of them say "Nobody wants to establish Unrestricted gun ownership" when defending the Second Amendment? Are restrictions on gun ownership somewhere in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else, that I have overlooked?

How many times have you heard one of them say "Nobody wants to round up all the illegal aliens" when pushing for border security? Why would we not want to round them up? What's so special about this particular brand of criminal activity?

Why do we even have laws? Why do we even have the Constitution?

The way out of this mess is not going to be with Republican leadership. Here's what I said recently in Rebirthing America:

Quote:

Seventh, we need to bring back the principle of three co-equal branches of government in a strong and forceful way. What I propose is the institution (through doing it) of Congressional Review and Presidential Review, built on the model of Judicial Review. What that means is this:

1. If a President finds a law that was legislated in the past, or a legal precedent that was adjudicated in the past, to be un-Constitutional, he can so declare it to be un-Constitutional, nul and void from that date forward.
2. If Congress finds a law that was legislated in the past, or a legal precedent that was adjudicated in the past, to be un-Constitutional, they can so declare it to be un-Constitutional, nul and void from that date forward.

There is nothing in the Constitution granting special Constitutional interpretation to any of the three co-equal branches. Judicial Review was established by legal precedent, not by the Constitution itself.

Maybury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) was the landmark Supreme Court case that established Judicial Review as a solid legal precedent for all such future cases. The Court held that any law that violated the Constitution was no law. The decision was perfectly justified and the right thing to do.

It is my contention that the Congress and the Executive have exactly the same ability to set such a legal precedent. The Constitution is written in clear, simple, black and white English. I frequently have a copy in my shirt pocket. Anyone can read it and fully understand it. For any of the three branches of government to declare something to be un-Constitutional, it must truly be clearly against the Constitution as written.

An example might be the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, involving the infamous Black "penumbras formed by eminations" decision. An un-Constitutional legal precedent should be declared to be no precedent.

Other examples might be Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which were decide based entirely on the "penumbras formed by eminations" Black decision above. As un-Constitutional legal precedents, they should be declared no precedent. These decisions had the effect of nullifying legislated state law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the further effect of making new law at the federal level, where new law is the Constitutionally exclusive domain of the Congress. See the details in the Abortion in America page.

Abortion is not listed in Article 1 Section 8, and none of the three co-equal branches of federal government have any Constitutional business even addressing it in law.

Another example might be the 1947 Everson case, another of Justice Black's contortions of law, in which he flagrantly lied about what the Constitution said and intended, establishing the legal precedent of Separation of Church and State. See the details in the Separation of Church and State page. This legal decision should be declared to be un-Constitutional and therefore no precedent from that day forward.

End Quote.

If these additional "Constitutional Review" principles were applied, then much of the damage that has been done can be undone relatively quickly. By the same logic by which the Court said that "an un-Constituional law is no law", it could be said that "an un-Constitutional executive order is no executive order", and that "an un-Constitutional precedent is no precedent."

There is a whole raft of existing un-Constitutional federal law, regulation, precedent, executive order and imperial edict out there, from restricting guns to speech to you name it. It's time to stop it.

The whole of Obamacare was un-Constitutional, even in how it was gotten through legislation, let alone in what it did.

Anyway, that's what was bugging me this morning before going to work. If we get out of this mess with the Constitution intact, it won't be with the current Republican leadership and the current Republican professional consultants. If ever there was a time for new blood in the arena, this is it.

May God preserve our Constitution; the Republcans won't.

Do not reply to this automatic email.

Respond to this article at the link below:
Two Party Treason.

This article and comments may be found on the web site at the link below:
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com