The following are all given: this editorial has a slant and bias. It is not a primary news outlet. However, eliminate references to right and left, to Tea-Party and (for want of a term) A.C.A.demics. The Constitutional issues are the ones that matter--and are what I posted about last week. I asked for someone--anyone--to show how the assertion Mullen is making in this article might be legally and formally debatable, under the laws of the land. There was no such explanation offered (citation required; no speculation) then; I would ask for such an explanation again now. Because if there is NO legal validation for the single-handed assurances President Obama was handing out to the body politic last week regarding preserving their insurance coverage by suspending the enforcement of a new law, then we have a problem. More specifically, it means that Mullens analysis on the legal consequences and implications of Obamas presumption of Executive authority in this matter may very well be correct. In which case, wed better all step back from the partisan squabbling and pay attention to our social contract. It has often been bent (which is not good), but this would constitute a break--and that MUST be addressed if the social contract is to remain viable. communities.washingtontimes/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/nov/17/obama-breaks-new-constitutional-ground-oath-office/
Posted on: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:32:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015