Thread: Crying For America - Kory Shore

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must,
like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

April 2, 2011

LIBYA AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION


Our Founding Documents are the greatest governing documents ever given to mankind; they guarantee the unalienable Rights of the People; by their terms the People have instituted, enabled and restricted the power of government, whose sole purpose is to secure the Rights of the People; they and the People’s will to defend them are all that stand between the People and oppression; they are not a menu from which to pick and choose; they cannot defend themselves; they will not be defended unless the People defend them.

Our position is simple: Any act by elected officials that is repugnant to the Constitution is not to be tolerated by the People. We are a Nation ruled by Law, not man or whim. If we do not like what our Constitutions require, there are provisions in them for amending their principles, prohibitions, restrictions or mandates. The process of changing our Constitutions by having our elected officials ignore their provisions, usurp the power of the People and abuse their power must be reversed. Those wielding governmental power must be constantly watched and made to obey our Founding documents, for each and every violation has a devastating impact on our States, the Nation, our People, our economy and our reputation.

Among the greatest powers We the People have given our government is the power to declare and administer war. Last week, with the approval of the United Nations, not Congress, President Obama made the decision to apply the armed forces of the United States in hostilities against Libya.

What does the Constitution say about presidential war powers?

It is the duty of every citizen to ask if the President has stepped outside the boundaries drawn around his power by the terms of our Constitution, notwithstanding his Oath of Office.

David Adler, a Professor at Idaho State University, is one of America’s foremost experts on presidential war powers. Please take the time to listen to one of the best speeches I have ever heard on this subject. The message is timeless and all Americans would do well to take it to heart.


Adler: War Power Clauses of the Constitution.


David Adler: History, Meaning, Effect, Significance and Violations of the War Powers Clauses of the Constitution. Friday November 15, 2009.
David Adler Short Bio

Video here: about on hour and half long...Nov 11, 2009

http://www.cc2009.us/archives/46-nov15/ ... nstitution



We believe the First Amendment is the most important single sentence in the entire Constitution because it guarantees the Right of the People to think freely and to hold the government accountable to the rest of the Charter, ensuring that the ultimate power rests with the People, where it was meant to reside in the first place. Within the First Amendment lays the ‘accountability clause,’ stated in the last ten words: ‘and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.

The primary mission of this Foundation is to restore the First Amendment Right to Petition the Government to remedy any unconstitutional or illegal behavior, no matter the issue or how close the issue is to the heart of the channels of money and power.

Ponder this:

In 1999, this Foundation Petitioned the federal Judicial Branch challenging the constitutionality of America’s bombing of Yugoslavia with the approval of NATO, but not Congress. (The Defendants were President Clinton, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). The Court dismissed the case for “lack of standingâ€

More on this from Freedoms Pheonix






News Link • Obama Administration

Glenn Greenwald: Obama's new view of his own war powers

04-03-2011 • Salon.com

One's views on the desirability of the Libya war have absolutely nothing to do with whether Obama has acted legally and/or whether his theories of presidential power are valid. This, too, should have been decisively settled during the Bush years, when Bush followers invariably argued that Bush was justified in eavesdropping without warrants or torturing because of the good outcomes it produced (Keeping Us Safe) -- as though Presidents have the power to violate laws or transgress Constitutional limits provided they can prove that doing so produces good results. The one and only safeguard against tyranny is that political leaders are subjected to the constraints of the Constitution and law (we're a nation of laws or a nation of men, said Adams: you must choose). To argue that you're supportive of or indifferent to lawless acts because of the good results they produce is simply another way of yearning for a benevolent tyrant (and is another way of replicating the mindset of the Bush follower). Matt Yglesias is absolutely right when he points out that, in reality, Congress is happy to have the President usurp its powers in these cases because it alleviates them of responsibility to act. But the same was true of the Democratic Congress under Bush, and that didn't justify anything Bush did; it just meant that Congress shared the blame for acquiescing to it. It may be common, and it may produce good outcomes, and it may be a longstanding problem, but there's no question that Obama's commencement of this war without Congressional approval, and especially Hillary Clinton's announcement that Congress has no power to restrict the President in any way, are acts of pure imperial lawlessness. Daniel Larison put it best: This is an outrageous statement, but it’s entirely consistent with what the administration has been illegally doing for the last 12 days. They seem to believe quite seriously that, as long as they don’t call it a war, it doesn’t fall under any laws regulating war powers or the Constitution.
Read Full Story
Reported by Jack Gregson



http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/087 ... ?From=News


Kathyet