.....This is a political posting. Those not interested may now leave for another environment. I've probably lost half my readers and probably all of my commentors since my last posting, but this will allow what I want to say to get said. President Obama has abolished the "don't ask, don't tell," policy of the armed forces. He has also stated that he believes in gay marriages. And, again, he has proclaimed that the children of illegal immigrants may not be deported, provided they meet certain conditions. He also has a requirement in "Obamacare" that those without insurance must buy it. Now, many Republican Party adherents have claimed that one or all of these laws are "unconstitutional", even though many of the claimants have never read the Constitution. They eagerly await the rulings of the Supreme Court on Obama's Constitution "violations."
.....The fact of the matter is that one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln was also accused of violating or, at the least, bending the Constitution. He, like all Presidents since Washington have taken an oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution." But one of his first acts as President was to increase the number of men in the army by 75,000 even though the Constitution requires that only Congress has the authority to enlarge the army. Lincoln did this while Congress was not in session and because he felt that it was a necessary proclamation if the South was to be defeated, and the Union preserved.
.... Lincoln also revoked several civil liberties during his administration. For example, he negated the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of arresting anti-Unionists. This act was in direct defiance of a Supreme Court ruling holding that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional without an act of Congress. Lincoln also violated other constitutional liberties such as shutting down anti-Union newspapers and arresting the editors! This and other acts requiring the consent of Congress in violation of the Constitution was proclaimed by Lincoln. And he was a Republican. So, why pick on Obama?
I might be mistaken about this, but the ending of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation was not carried out by Congress, was it? The same goes for the Executive Order that ended segregation in the U.S. Armed Forces. Regarding those people who, supposedly for constitutional reasons, are against Obama's latest orders: Are they implying that those other issues need to be revisited because they share the same supposedly unstable constitutional status?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: You are not mistaken. As for your second question, I do not know what they are implying.
DeleteIs there anything in the Constitution that prevents the (p)resident from raising the size of the Army? Please enlighten me as I have been unable to find such a clause.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that the Constitution should be ignored if a "great" p(resident)chooses to do so?
I will go no further at this time. In fact, much as I love The Original Ross, I will no longer read this blog again.
Different opinions are valuable but not when the brilliant author is offended by anyone who dares to question his.
Dearest Friend: The Constitution states in Article I, Section VIII, paragraph 12 that only Congress can increase the size of the army, but with a declaration, Lincoln did just that. I make no argument for or against this; I simply point out the comparison with what Obama is accused of. I am NOT saying that the Constitution should be ignored. WHERE DO I SAY THAT? You put words into my mouth that I don't utter or write. That's unfair.
ReplyDeleteWhere do I say I am "offended by anyone who dares to question" my opinion? That is an awful thing to claim about me; it is totally untrue. It appears to me, dear friend, that you are the one who is offended, not I, by stating you will not read my blog again. This blog merely points out what I, at least, find to be an interesting comparison. It doesn't do any harm to your opinions or to those of anyone else. I PUBLISH EVERY OPINION, DON'T I???!!! Every sentence of your comment is totally unfair and as far from the truth about me as anything can be. I thought you knew me, and I am disappointed and saddened.
To say that some people are "implying" the issues about which our Civil War was fought need to be revisited, may be a somewhat benign characterization. Just a few years ago I saw, in a pretty little park off Meeting St. in Charleston, S.C., a brand new monument exalting a group of men who had served with the Confederacy during the Civil War. Draw your own conclusions.
ReplyDeleteHi Hugh...It's great to hear from you. I'm honored. I have drawn my own conclusions, as you mention.
DeleteWelcome back.....
ReplyDelete>>He also has a requirement in "Obamacare" that those without insurance must buy it.<<
The ironic thing about the individual mandate is that twenty years ago, this was the Republican position developed as the alternative the Clinton Administration's single-payer system for health insurance. So in two decades, the preferred Republican position somehow is attacked as "unconstitutional" because it is espoused by a Democratic President? Pretty weird political times we live in....
Jim, and now you're back. Wow. I'm impressed!
DeleteThanks Jim for the comment. I do say in my article that those without insurance must buy it in "Obamacare"; read it again. Also, maybe I ought to change the name of this thing to "Dococare" or "Baronocare"??
Hello Baron, I've just got back from a few days in Stoke on Trent. I am VERY interested in this column but not learned enough in your Constitution to be able to comment on it. Glad you're back, however, for any reason and for whatever purpose! Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteHello again everyone, the news has just come to England of your Supreme Court's decision to uphold "Obamacare." Now THIS I can understand, and I'm wondering who'll be the first to comment on it! At this stage, all I want to say is that I didn't understand the nature of the legal challenge, since you already have one form of compulsory insurance - Third Party Auto. Probably shipping insurance is compulsory too. Would someone like to explain to me the jurisprudential difference between auto insurance and health insurance? I'm not trying to be difficult here: I really would like to know. Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteDoc,
ReplyDeleteYou were missed during your hiatus from this blog. I always look forward to learning from you and hearing what interests you from day to day. Please don't be discouraged if debate occasionally includes a bit of rancor - especially in a key election year.
I find it somewhat ironic that Lincoln's party was first to think up the portion of Obamacare requiring everyone to pay for some form of health insurance. They subsequently realized that this might not go down well with the "no taxes" kool aid pact they have drunk for political survival, and contributed no more to the shaping of health care policy. How disingenuous to seek repeal and rollback to a dysfunctional status quo rather than work to make the current plan as efficient as possible for the sake of the health of the American people.
Warm regards as you prepare to celebrate the 4th of July in Florida. I'd give anything to be able to walk up to Memorial Park in Sea Cliff with my dad for the fireworks. He would have been 95 last week. ~ Pete Kehrig
I was very happy that "Obamacare" was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. I think everyone should have health insurance and access to health care, no matter what pre-existing condition they may have.
ReplyDeleteI am more distressed with the fact that the "stolen valor" act was struck down. The fact that it is now legal to claim military awards that a person did not earn, is a slap in the face of each and every serviceman and veteran that wears or has worn a uniform. Unlike recognition given at a civilian job, Military awards are not 'won" and most come with a very high price.