It’s All Fun while Your Ox isn’t Being Gored

It is difficult to consider why about half the population still is supportive of the President of the United States.

Here’s the brass tacks reality:  In law, it’s established precedent that can dramatically shift the outcome of a case.  If an established practice isn’t stopped (or started), then it can be argued that it’s the way it is, and you will have an open ear, to some degree of another with the judge and the jury.

I’m not making this up.  Consider how in so many cases we hear “settled case law” as a major factor in the outcome of the verdict.  That’s tested law (which means a law has been examined in a court case and it’s meaning determined by the judge/judge and jury).    Presenting how things have been done leads into the discussion at hand.

President Obama has determined that the Congress of the United States of America, put in place as a deliberative body by The Constitution of the United States, and “staffed” by representatives of the US citizenry, isn’t doing as he demands, specifically on his planned timeline.

The Constitution has no time limits for Congress to take action.  President Obama has now set the precedent of directing the implementation of what he wants, as Congress didn’t do it in some never been required (legally that is) or even specified.

Forget the rest of the discussion on who supports who.  For those who cannot see the larger picture of the slow, plodding process of our three branches of the Federal Government, you’ll never agree with me on the documented principle of this discussion, for you are determining your support on some extra-Constitutional factor, which I’ll determine is emotions.  Those are never taken into consideration in The Constitution, nor did they used to be, until we decided the illegal restriction of free speech, a and the first specified right in the Bill of Rights, by passing “hate speech laws.”  I digress, that’s another post.

For just a moment, those who are satisfied with the President’s illegal implementation of his actions.  What happened earlier this month?  A massive change in the party representation in both houses of Congress.  2016 is next.  Consider for a moment, that the silent majority has had it even more than enough in November 2016, and not only is a Republican president elected, but possibly a bulletproof majority of both houses of Congress are placed, by the peoples’ votes.

Given the current conditions and precedent set by a sitting president, what if, the next president has some issue, contentious or not, the they want to see implemented?  If the Congress “has taken too long” (on any selectable sliding, subjective time frame measurement).  Maybe an industry is pushing for something and it’s not getting traction, and Congress is balking at rubber stamping it.  Guess what?  By not requiring this sitting president to adhere 1) to the law, but 2) specifically to his very oath of office, taken on the steps of the Capitol Building in full view of the people of the entire World, you will permit future illegal activities.

How will it feel when your ox is being gored?  What about it’s not even an ox of your favor, but your finances, freedoms or family, or property rights, or freedom from search and seizure of eminent domain, or a right to speak freely against the Government?

I’m saddened by the number of intelligent people I talk to that actually quit thinking and go right for some emotional argument, that by sheer observation isn’t even true (“they are doing this just because he is black!” – no.  because it’s a bad idea), and then self-determine the hearts of people they are talking to, when they more than likely, have never seen that person demonstrate one iota of racist behavior in years of knowing them.

It’s certainly contentious, but this is tragically illegal, and lays the ground work for any future president, if not contained and reversed by Congress and/or the courts, to decide how long has been “too long” and then, without a full debate, create, modify of ignore law altogether at a whim.

We had that method of rule.  The actual name was King George III.  We had a bit of a confrontation to display our objection and the codified the legal frame work to ensure it did not happen in two landmark documents in the history of mankind.

Dismiss The Constitution and The Bill of Rights at your own peril.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page