Clem DeWitt 19 mins. When you realize the depth of ignorance many in the press hold on issues they weigh in on, you understand, or have a better sense, of why they support actions of Obama on Constitutional matters. Or really, any thing that prompts a to-the-ramparts reaction many journalists have when it comes to Obama; they are more likely to defend him than anything else and that includes immediate family. More than one survey of journalists, a now loosely used job description, puts 80% of them decidedly in the liberal column. Small wonder with such a baseline, most journalists see the world through a liberals prism. I get that. What I find increasingly irritating is for them to see the world through fabrications, especially when it comes to the Constitution. Never to be outdone in the how-I-worship-Obama department, Jonathan Capehart, he of diminutive stature and even smaller grasps of reality, writes today a piece that should floor anyone who has just once, read the Constitution. Capehart toils for The Washington Post; reading his drivel is a greater toil. Of course Obama is on firm Constitutional ground when he issues Executive Orders says Capehart. Ever diligent to note that Obama has issued far fewer than his predecessors, Capehart fails to mention the thrust of the Executive Orders, which used by Obama, are completely out of Constitutional bounds: nowhere in the Constitution, does it say or suggest the Executive by Order, may re-write laws in part or in whole. Nowhere. Yet that is the defense offered by Capehart. I doubt it would mean anything if he were aware of an 1838 Supreme Court ruling on this very matter which says in essence, the Executive may not by his choosing, ignore parts of a law he finds unacceptable, meaning he is also forbidden from changing or adding to a law as he sees fit. To further irritate students of the Constitution, Capehart, again out of his mental acuity league, takes on signing statements issued by the Executive, a practice that goes back to President Madison (and that is part of Capeharts defense of Obama: if was good enough for The Father of The Constitution, Madison, its good enough for Obama). According to Capehart, such statements yield to the Executive, the right to ignore any part of any law they find lacking in Constitutional grounding. Oh, no, say it isnt so. Again, that was settled law as found by judicial review in 1838. Second, questions on the Constitutionality of any law are the domain of the Judiciary, not the Executive nor the Legislative Branches. Smart fellows, those Framers, fencing off the other branches from determining Constitutional questions. Imagine either of the other two branches having such an authority. The only area in a discussion of signing statements where Capehart comes close to being correct: the Executive by a signing statement, may deem (but not adjudicate) a piece of a bill to be in violation of the Constitution, something most Executives have done. That is the extent of a signing statement. But if one listens to Capehart and others of his mind, well, the Executive can damn near do as he pleases, something Obama has honed to an art form (in part because of his arrogant indifference towards the Constitution, in part because Congress lacks the stones to say no you can not do that and in large part because small minds like Capehart, authoring declarative nonsense on the Constitution, give Obama a thumbs up). Obama, noted for learning all he knows as the Executive from reading newspapers, no doubt looks for the fluff and slop the Capeharts crank out. Last I heard, 27 journalists had at one time, been a part of Team Obama. Any questions as to why? Simply put, they, like Obama, live in a world of Constitutional make believe.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 04:25:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015