RULE OF LAW: Obama is Trying to Set Aside the U.S. Constitution

There are going to be many people who will argue Obama (he has forfeit his claim to the Presidency) has the authority to do what he did last night.  He does not.  Obama has violated his oath and broken the law.  But many will try to argue his case, repeating the excuses (they are not reasons) he gave for his actions last night.  You may even be one of those who supports Obama, or maybe you just aren’t sure if he is actually breaking the law as I and so many others are saying.  Well, if you’ll give me a few minutes, I might be able to help you look at it from a position that will help you see Obama’s actions as the lawless acts they are.

The first thing you need to understand is that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the President from doing what Obama just did (this is why I say Obama has forfeited his claim to the Presidency).  The Constitution says the Congress has sole authority to make law, and sole authority over immigration.  It also says the President will enforce those laws.  It does not give him any authority to ignore, alter or write law.  From the time he first started running for President until just last night, Obama openly admitted this was true.  So Obama is the primary witness against himself here.  But so does the U.S. Constitution.  So, for those who still claim to cling to God’s laws, we have two witnesses against Obama.  Now let me show you how Natural Law makes it three.

Under the rule of law, the Law is king — not men.  This means illegal aliens remain ILLEGAL unless and until the law is properly changed.  According to our laws, this would require Congress to change the law and the President to sign it and the Courts to uphold it.  Until this happens, no one can make illegal aliens legal — including the President.  But I want to make sure we all understand the principle here, so let me us a different example to illustrate it.

Obama said these illegal aliens ‘deserve’ to be made legal because they are hard working people who are just trying to survive.  He also said that many have been here a long time.  But what if I broke into someone’s house to steal their stuff ten years ago, and when they caught me, I killed them?  Would you excuse me?  Before you say no, let me explain my ‘intentions.’  I was just trying to get things I could sell to survive.  I even made sure I broke in to a ‘rich man’s’ house because — obviously — he only had all that stuff because he stole it from me and other ‘poor’ people.  While I was looking for things I could sell to survive, the rich man caught me and I killed him.  It was self-defense.  After all, had I not killed him, he would have called the police and I may have been shot by ‘bad cops,’ so — clearly — it was self-defense.  So, you see, I had the best intentions, and it happened so long ago, so — if you were President — would you tell the nation it has to forgive me, make me legal, see me as an ‘honest, hard working citizen’ and then make any and all government benefits available to me?  I hope not.  I hope you will see that I am still guilty of theft and murder.  Well, these illegals are still illegal!

Now, I understand that one of the first things Obama’s supporters will say to me is ‘this is different,’ but is it?  The law is the law, and both I (in my scenario) and these illegal aliens all broke it.  But Obama, and his supporters, will argue that illegals are ‘good’ people, but — in my scenario — I am a ‘bad’ person.  OK, I will accept that and counter it with another example using one of the most popular televisions shows on TV today, NCIS.

In the TV series, Gibbs, an NCIS agent, and his team faced federal prosecution for breaking the law.  The episode ran over three episodes, all of which continuously portrayed Gibbs and his team as the ‘good’ guys who did what they did because they had to to protect people and ‘get the bad guys.’  The problem is, the prosecutor in the show was correct: Gibbs and his team are routinely portrayed as violating the law and Constitution.  They are always portrayed as doing it ‘for the right reasons,’ and the writers are careful to make sure you like the characters so you will actually route for them as they are breaking the law.  I have seen fans of the show actually cheer when Gibbs broke the law to get the ‘bad’ guy.  The problem is, if you have to become a criminal to catch a criminal, how can you still claim to be one of the ‘good’ guys?  You have broken the law, just like the people you are trying to put in jail for breaking the law.

This is the point: if you break the law, it does not matter what your intentions are, all that matters is you broke the law.  Now, if the law is unjust, then the proper thing to do — the legal thing to do — is to work within the system to change the law.  You have no right to break it and then claim you are innocent.  MLK never claimed he was innocent when he broke the segregation laws, but he did use his arrests to fight those laws.  He used his arrests to gain support for changing those laws using the system!  Obama is not doing this.  He is just breaking the law and then demanding that he and the illegals he is trying to excuse all be seen as ‘the good guys.’  They are not.  In truth, Obama is now equal with the illegals .  Now both are criminals: the illegals and Obama.

This is something Obama and those who think like him have worked on for a long time.  It started more than a century ago: the notion that the law doesn’t matter when ‘doing the right thing’ is concerned.  Well, if you accept this argument, congratulations: you agree with the NAZI’s!  That’s right: in principle, you are no different than the NAZIs — but only if you accept Obama’s justification for his actions.  The NAZIs did much of what they did — in clear violation of German and Natural Law — because ‘the people demanded it.’  It is nothing more than what Wilson described in the early 20th Century: a dictatorship where the people elect a dictator who is ‘in touch with the will of the people.’  Hitler was just doing what the Progressives said should be done, and Obama is a Progressive descendent of Wilson’s Progressives.  In every case, they all represent lawlessness and tyranny.

But you do not have to accept any of this.  You have a choice.  You can accept this lawlessness, in which case, you are choosing to become a criminal along with these people.  Or you can reject it and start speaking out against it.  The legal thing that is required now is impeachment and conviction of Obama and everyone else involved with this illegal act.  Anything less is passive support of lawlessness.  If it helps, think of this in terms of slavery.  Slavery is wrong, but can you still claim to be against it if you stay quiet on hide in the shadows rather than oppose the slave owners?  Or does your silence actually represent support for those slave owners?  Well, if you can sit silently by while Obama tried to destroy the Constitution, then I suppose you would have been equally comfortable sitting quietly by while the South continued to keep slaves.

OH!  One more thing: if the Republicans do not make a whole-hearted effort to impeach and convict — no matter the political cost — that is the same as sitting quietly by while the Constitution is destroyed.  No matter what they might try to tell you, if this is what the Republicans do, it will mean they actually support Obama’s lawlessness.  In that case, you Republicans will have another choice to make…

2 thoughts on “RULE OF LAW: Obama is Trying to Set Aside the U.S. Constitution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s