THE RULE OF LAW: Constitutional Scholar Says Obama set to Declare Himself First American Emperor

This nation was founded on a belief in the rule of law, not the rule of men.  It is under the law that we are all equal.  It is under the fair and impartial application of those laws that we all find our equal rights.  However, this rule of law is predicated upon a system where the laws are known and set.  They cannot be changed by ‘interpretation.’  If they are, that is a violation of the rule of law.  It is lawlessness.  This is exactly what Obama (I intentionally refuse to call him President) is about to do with his declaration of amnesty: he is going to violate the rule of law — again.  But this time, it is not my ‘opinion,’ but the assertion of a prominent constitutional scholar and college professor who also happens to be a leading member of the Democrat Party who says Obama is about to declare himself the first American emperor.

That’s correct: there is a prominent constitutional scholar who has taught the constitution in college and who is a leading member of the Democratic Party who says Obama is about to destroy the constitution.  This scholar says that what Obama says he will do tomorrow night is a clear violation of the constitution.  He says it is also a violation of the principles of democracy (it is also a violation of republicanism — as in representative government).  This constitutional scholar says Obama is about to violate our traditions and the way our system was designed to work.  Finally, this scholar says that, if Obama actually grants amnesty tomorrow, he will be declaring himself to be an American emperor.  But I want people to hear it directly from this leading Democrat and constitutional scholar for themselves.

That’s right: Obama said he cannot do what he is about to do!

Now, I understand there are people out there saying that Obama has ‘studied the constitution’ and now believes he does have the authority to do this — but he doesn’t.  We must remember what we have learned thanks to the Gruber story: THESE PEOPLE THINK YOU AND I ARE TOO STUPID TO CATCH THEIR LIES!

NOW FOR THE TRUTH

THe President of the United States cannot make laws.  Any ‘executive’ order that carries the weight of law is null and void.  It can rightfully be ignored.  It carries no weight of law because the supreme law of the land says so.  The U.S. Constitution clearly says all legislative authority rests with the Congress:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

This means that executive orders are illegal when and where they are used to make law.  That then means, if Obama declares amnesty, he is making law and is not only in violation of the Constitution on this count, but also in violation of his oath of office to uphold the legal laws that are on the books.

[Incidentally, this extends to all branches of ‘regulatory bodies.’  The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate its power to these bodies.  It specifically and clearly confines it to Congress and only Congress.  Therefore, the EPA, IRS, etc. are acting illegally when they make regulations that do not start in Congress and are not signed by the President.  This is exactly the system Woodrow Wilson described for turning the U.S. into a socialist dictatorship where the dictator is elected every few years.]

Now, because form and function define, what do we call a national leader who declares he has the power to ignore the will of the people, his oath of office, ignore legally enacted laws and then make new laws without going through the legally elected representatives of the people?  Personally, I don’t know what you would call such a person.  I have noticed that too many of us have acquired an infinite ability to twist things in our mind so as to justify anything we desire.  Too many have made good into evil and evil into good.  But I know this much.  I know what the founders would have called such a person:
The man from whom our constitution was designed to protect us!Sadly, the founders never envisioned an ‘America’ in which the people would actually vote for such a man — not because they agreed with what he wanted to do, but because they wanted what he promised to give them more than they wanted to remain free.