State of the union? Unconstitutional, overreaching

Craig Hall, Publisher
Craig Hall, Publisher

I know what all too many would say: “Out of respect for the office and to be informed, you must watch President Obama’s State of the Union speech.” Despite the fact there’s indeed a minuscule speck of truth in that statement, it isn’t enough to make me watch the speech or prevent me from making a prediction as to the drivel our wannabe dictator will put forth to the American people to further his agenda. So much for my level of respect for the office, all brought to you by Bill Clinton, who could not have been more disrespectful. This speech is as predictable as an overbearing fine and unreasonable suspension in the NFL if the Patriots are involved in something that happened.

So let’s look closer into why this speech is beyond predictable. And yes, it has everything to do with just who our president is as a person. I hear time and again about the fears liberals have when it comes to a Christian conservative possibly winning the White House in any election. The reaction is generally, “That person has no constitutional right to force their Christian, conservative opinions, values and thinking on the American people.” Now this might shock you, but they’d be right. No one elected at the federal level does.

That leads me to this simple question: What makes them think Obama has that right?

After all, we’ve had a so-called constitutional scholar negating and ignoring the Constitution of the United States at almost every turn and action he’s taken since he was elected nearly eight years ago. The fact is, since our nation’s founding and politicians discovered they could buy votes with taxpayer money, 99.99 percent of everything the federal government has done is summed up in one phrase: It’s unconstitutional, and both parties do it.

Even though the Supreme Court has found a way to change a law or allowed a law to be “constitutional,” the laws simply aren’t. The Constitution was written to limit federal government. Of course, politicians have found a way around it to do as they please. Our founders have written much on the topic about unconstitutional laws to the point where they basically say it is actually our constitutional duty to disobey those laws. Yes, civil disobedience. If you’d like to know more about how strongly they felt about it, just hit Google and you’ll learn all kinds of things your school never taught you. Going outside the Constitution of the United States was considered tyranny by our founders.

Yes, I’m sure there are those rolling their eyes at my statement on tyranny. They tend to be the same people who play the game of “there ought to be a law.” Well, sadly, there’s always a politician nearby promising to make one. The problem on this should be, at the federal level, the people of the United States haven’t given them permission to do so. So what should occur every time Congress or the president wants a new law? They should have to show just where they have constitutional authority to do so on that single item to even consider proposing it. If it doesn’t exist — and believe me, it doesn’t — they should propose a constitutional amendment and go through ratification process. How’s that for a check and balance?

Sadly, this kind of thinking of our founders is in the same bin as much of American history and not even approached during “Constitution Week” in our schools. Even with our Bill of Rights secured through that state-by-state process, it still isn’t enough to protect us from our betters in Washington. Just look at how our politicians take the Second Amendment, which states our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The mere fact this is on paper in a federal document has some people in this country thinking that somehow this gives the government the right to determine guidelines as they relate to that right.

The fact is every gun law at every level of government ever written is unconstitutional unless your state has seceded from the union. There can be no laws restricting gun ownership. Simple as that. To further support this, Google founding fathers and tyranny to see what kind of arms they felt we should keep and bear, and it has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with tyranny. Which is why our founding documents state “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They went to war with a tyrannical, domestic enemy — their king.

This is why we have the Constitution, to protect all of our unalienable rights. The feds can’t touch them, nor can the states.

But that is where find ourselves today, with the “man who would be king” giving a State of the Union speech that will blame everyone and everything but himself and his policies that he carries out with abandon and no congressional contesting — all while promising to solve every problem everyone who believes this drivel ever had. As I said, predictable.

Tacitus once said, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
I wonder what his thoughts would be about a single leader with a phone and a pen? I would guess he’d consider him even more dangerous.