Slaughtering The Constitution

Barack Hussein Obama the other day said the "time to talk was over", and that the time to vote had come. Yet even now the Democrats are preparing to stop talking and not vote, but to deem that the House considers that it has passed the Senate version of ObamaCare. Not only do we have 535 elected "leaders" who vote on bills they haven't read, they apparently have not read the Constitution that every one of them has sworn an oath to uphold and defend.

Or worse, they simply consider themselves above the tenets of that cherished document and plan to rule by decree. After all, it has become common knowledge that leftists sneer at the rigid constructs of the Constitution and its incessant insistence on the rights of the individual. They have expressed many times in the recent past - our president included - their disappointment with the Founders' lack of vision concerning modern America, and a deep-seated desire to right those perceived wrongs.

In fact, in 2006 then-Senator Obama gave a radio interview in Chicago in which he complained that the Founders laid out in the Constitution too much of what the Federal government can't do and not enough of what it must do. And now he is the president.

There once was a time when even Liberals cared about the will of the people even if they disagreed with it. Now, however, they have changed gears and have decided that the people really are too stupid to understand what they need, and so will make those decisions that need to be made for the good of all.

This became evident in the long and arduous negotiations for ObamaCare, and the subsequent birth of the Tea Party movement. Or perhaps it was earlier than that when, last summer, recessing Congresspeople were confronted by extremely agitated constituents over the bailouts and the alleged "stimulus" package.

Then, when the wheels began to fall off the Democrats' bus, with the loss of several seats - and votes - through both attrition and choice, Obama, Reid and Pelosi (the Triad) began formulating ways to circumvent the legislative process to facilitate their whims. Losing their super majority in the special election in Massachusetts, in which Republican Scott Brown became the 41st vote for the party, the Triad began dangling the prospect of reconciliation to further their wretched dreams of Universal Health Care.

While history sadly has become subjective, recorded history is irrefutable, and the video and audio record of Democrats in 2005 - when they were the minority party - railing against the use of reconciliation became too much for even the wicked to bear, so an alternate plan had to be drawn up.

In rides Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) with a convoluted and completely unconstitutional plan to run the end-around without reconciliation, perhaps relying on the stale notion that most people aren't paying attention to politics anyway. Being called-out on reconciliation should have provided a clue to these politicians, but we may have misjudged their acumen and understanding of the real world.

In effect, the Democrats are now planning to enact legislation that a majority of the electorate does not want, and they are planning to violate the Constitution in doing so. Slaughter's plan (The Slaughter Solution) is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation that they have not recorded a vote upon, marking the first time it has ever been done.

Some would call such a foray "innovative", while others would properly identify it - especially in this context - as illegal. For all of Obama's complaints about the way the Constitution was written, it remains true that it is not his place to rewrite it. He is merely the 44th steward of the structure and vehicle laid out by much better men, but I fear that he has not learned that lesson despite his generous education.

Perhaps the only lesson that will permeate such a skull will be learned at the polls, both in 2010 and 2012. Provided that there will still be free elections by then.

Sphere: Related Content