Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaughey, PhD, is a constitutional scholar with a PhD from Columbia University, a patient advocate and health policy expert, and a former Lt. Governor of New York state. In 1993 she read the 1,362-page Clinton health bill, warned the nation what it said, and made history. Today she is doing it again. With a PhD in Constitutional History, she can actually tell us what the Obama health law says. In 2009 medical excellence and freedom came under assault again, and McCaughey put her skills to work. She was the first to uncover the health provisions slipped into the February, 2009 stimulus bill. Members of Congress were stunned to learn the stimulus bill could limit care for seniors and dictate your doctor’s decisions. Betsy McCaughey is the author of over three hundred scholarly and popular articles, and three books, including a history of the US Constitution. Betsy McCaughey has taught at Vassar College and Columbia University, and she produced prize-winning studies while at two think tanks, the Manhattan Institute and later the Hudson Institute. http://betsymccaughey.com
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
History Lesson for The President
Betsy McCaughey
January 17, 2014
Congressional speeches are generally hot air, politicians blathering to a largely empty chamber. But on January 9th a discussion in the House of Representatives soared above that mediocrity. For those Americans who worry that Congress no longer cares about preserving the Constitution, the words below will provide reassurance that there are a few people with backbone in Washington, DC.

Congressman Tom Rice (R-SC) and several of his 29 co-sponsors defended their resolution calling on the House of Representatives to sue President Obama in order to compel him to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," as the US Constitution commands. They cited his changes to Obamacare by fiat, his defiance of US immigration law, and his waiving the federal work requirement for welfare benefits.

In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that Members of Congress cannot sue the president, and that power struggles between the branches must be resolved politically, rather than by judges. Therefore, Resolution 442 has an uphill battle. But the resolution's backers expressed the bedrock principles of this nation, and addressed our gravest danger. Their words are worth remembering. President Obama is the danger the US Constitution was written to prevent, because he repeatedly seizes more power than the Constitution allows a president to have.

Tom Rice:

"Our Founders, Mr. Speaker, designed a system of government based upon a separation of powers. The legislative branch enacts the laws and the executive branch, the President, enforces those laws. They did that to protect our very, very fragile freedom. We cannot allow those separations to be eroded. One man who can both make the laws and enforce the laws is more a monarch than a President

"Article II, section 3 of the Constitution requires, in part, that the President take care to faithfully execute the Nation's laws. In 1792, when George Washington was faced with enforcing an unpopular whiskey tax, he wrote in a letter that:

'It is my duty to see that these laws are executed. To permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to that duty.'

"President Obama, on the other hand, has, throughout his administration, picked and chosen which laws or parts thereof he wishes to enforce...This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat issue. It is not a TEA Party action. This is not for messaging. HR442 merely recognizes that no American, including the President, is above the law."


Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA):

"I think about one of my favorite Democrat Senators, Robert Byrd from West Virginia--a champion of article I of the Constitution. He was a Democrat second; he was an American first, defending the Constitution against Presidents, Republican and Democrat, who would take the people's power from Capitol Hill and take it down to the executive branch."

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL):

"So this was a huge issue for the Founding Fathers. Clearly, it would not have been acceptable to stand up at the Constitutional Convention and say, Yes, the President is going to have the authority and duty to enforce the laws; but if there are laws he doesn't like, he will be able to delay provisions or ignore provisions as he sees fit, as long as it is consistent with his overall purpose or political agenda. That would not have been acceptable to anybody at the time.

"Can you imagine if when John Adams succeeded George Washington, he just started delaying provisions related to the bank of the United States or the Jay Treaty? Imagine when Jefferson came in. He ran against the Alien and Sedition Act. Some of those were just allowed to expire, but they went in and repealed a core portion of the Alien and Sedition Act. They didn't just ignore it. The provisions that expired, expired; and then they repealed the provisions that were still in effect.

"That is the way it is supposed to be done. They would never have allowed John Adams or Jefferson to come in and just willy-nilly enforce what they wanted to and not enforce what they didn't want to."


These history lessons should be familiar to our constitutional lawyer President.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server