Oddities Abound


It is no surprise to us who have a working understanding of the Constitution that since FDR and the Raw Deal, the USSC has largely ignored it’s role as stated and prescribed in the Constitution.  It has gone so far as ignore it when plainly unconstitutional programs such as Social Security came into being.  The Court in fact was implicitly involved in it’s crafting, (a violation of the separation of powers intent of the Constitution), as to help FDR write the bill so as to make it hard to challenge in Court.

While the USSC has in fact ignored it’s responsibility to maintain the standards and intent of the Constitution, they have gone far beyond the scope of the intent, created powers never granted to the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and have even created individual rights to the people that are not in the Constitution.

There is not a single one of the Founders that would have agreed with the notion that a right to privacy would include killing an unborn child, if it was not done for the sole reason of saving the Mother’s life.  The abdication of enumerated power is not acceptable, nor is it Constitutional.  To ignore the power of the Court to constrain the Congress, and to ignore that power is about as close to treason as one can get.

Congress is no better.  The War Powers Act is nothing more than a political scapegoat.  Only the Congress has the power to declare War, yet they have allowed the President to do so so that they can say we oppose the War, but we can’t vote against funding our troops.

By the same token, Congress can pass a bill “called” Defense Spending, load it with pet pork projects, costing billions of dollars, making it very hard for a President to VETO it.  Democrats just did this, the Bill was sent back, (Thank You President Obama), but it will still pass in some lighter form I bet in a month or so.  Right after they ram unconstitutional and mandatory health care down your throat.

One of the problems in this Country is, kids aren’t really taught the Constitution of the United States.  Every young person I talk to or hear from thinks there is no limit to Constitutional power of the Congress, so long as it doesn’t take away from their “rights”.  They don’t actually have a clue of what their rights are but that doesn’t matter.

Seems they think that their “rights” included what they want to do.  Doesn’t matter what it is they want to do, they think Government doesn’t have the right to stop them from doing what makes them feel good.  No one ever taught them that your “rights” end at the end of my nose.  In other words your rights do not trump mine.

But back to the point at hand.  Each Branch seems to want to pass the buck, until another Branch steps on their toes.  The toe stepping is going on, but it gives political cover, once again, to the President and Congress.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the USSC to power to interfere, and that is the word, with the operations of war.  War is the responsibility of the President and Congress.  It makes no difference if it is detainees, carpet bombing or tribunals conducted by the military.  The USSC is simply not equipped or empowered by the Constitution to handle such responsibilities.

We are in danger of becoming subject to the rule of the Courts, who are not elected but appointed by the President and serve for life.  The court must be reigned in at some point, before it is too late to do so.


“Rebellion to Tyranny is Obedience to God”


9 Responses to “Oddities Abound”

  1. Eileen Says:

    Catching up I see. 😉


  2. medicare supplement quote Says:

    The USSC has become the unbalanced cog in the 3 branches of government, and it happened slowly. I think sometime in the 1920’s…

  3. Frank C Says:

    Love the exchange between you and Cap. Always enlightening when people can discuss a problem rationally.

    Remember Korea was a “Police Action.” Why, Congress did not formally declare war.

    How about we try to come up with that word?
    I believe that the war powers act was done for political cover as I stated. They have no desire to shoulder the real burden of war, just reap what political reward they can from it.


  4. Gini Says:

    Excellent read Cap and Chas…lol 🙂 Speaking of ‘warriors’ in the cause of our precious document, The Constitution, and it’s place in today’s America. I think w/enough ‘warriors’ of your category, we shall not perish, after all. 🙂 I am encouraged to have a more positive attitude!!! 🙂 during this time of pretty bleak behavior by those who should know better. lol
    cap certainly brings a better flavor to this little blog that’s for sure. It ups the IQ by a dozen fold at least.


  5. capmotion Says:

    I agree fully that we have declared “war” on our own citizens, and purposefully. You’ll recall from some time ago that my concern about the military dictator Abe Lincoln was that he was able to con the congress and the courts into either giving him contra-constitutional power, or to allow him to seize it unilaterally, in the name of “war” [manifold examples exist], and the ultimate exemplar was the printing of paper money. The current paper money, if its legality were litigated, would be held to be printed under the Legal Tender Cases – the Civil War emergency!! Later executive scoundrels learned from that example, still with us, that if they say “WAR!,” the legislature will cede power and the judiciary will blink. So that is why there is all of the political rhetoric of “war” in the various areas I listed, and others: it, the label, invites the expansion of executive power. The courts have repeatedly held that they will not look behind the claim of emergency, or war, or congress’s claims of “commerce[!!],” to invalidate things that clearly should be invalidated. You know, judicial review did not grow up in the modern era, nor was it really the creation of Marbury; the Framers, which they discussed in Federalist 78, expected the federal courts to invalidate unconstitutional legislation.

    Yep, war can only be properly “declared” against a sovereign country – it cannot be declared against, and cannot exist against, an amorphous “-ism.” [Our supposed war against Nazi-ism was really a war against Germany for the evils of its Nazi-ism.] Those practicing “isms,” in groups or as individuals, which injure people, are criminals, not warriors, as a legal construct.
    Yet that “ism” preformed an act of War by any standard I can think of. Perhaps we need to reconsider the definition of “war”. Not confine “war” to merely a Country but not against an situation or condition.


  6. capmotion Says:

    “Only the Congress has the power to declare War….”

    And it has not.

    So, “There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the USSC to power to interfere, and that is the word, with the operations of war” is irrelevant here.

    The overly touted “authorities” frequently invoked to support war-like tribunals all pressupposed a congressionally “declared” “war” against an identified and specific sovereignty. These illicit police actions, beginning with Korea [where we allowed ourselves to be UN policemen!], are not “wars” in the Framers’ understanding, because they did not want to [and did not!] let the president make the political decision of sending our kids off to die, which is why they did not want a standing Army but instead required new appropriations for such every 2 years.

    If the label “war” alone defined the courts’ duty and obligation to analyze the lawfulness of the executive’s activity, then the oft “declared” “wars” on [drugs, crime, drunk driving, child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, illiteracy, etc.] would evict the courts and leave the self-regarding executive to have the last word in all those realms. That is not what a rule of law is about.

    The rest is absolutely right on.
    One problem I have, to my understanding, is “war” can only be declared upon a Nation. So what can a Nation do against a group that is not confined to a single Country?

    The other thing I have problems with is the slack use of the term “war” in recent decades. Specifically the ones you have pointed out drugs, poverty…etc. If one were to take the rhetoric seriously we have, for intent and purpose, declared war upon our own citizens, have we not?


  7. Gini Says:

    I have read way back, and it’s just wonderful Chas. You will be glad I didn’t comment at every turn, but did leave a couple. YIKES! lol I know you are enjoying your retirement, and we will LOVE IT, now that you have time to devote to this space. lol 🙂
    It’s people like you that give me cause to write at all. I’m glad you spared my fingers…lol


  8. Salvatore Says:

    I couldn’t agree more Chas.
    Great Post .
    Thanks Sal. Great to have you around as a regular reader and commenter.


  9. Frank C Says:

    Chas, great insight into our lack of learning. Do the schools even teach history and government any more. The military schools, not just the service academies teach the history of great battles from Gettysburg to current conflicts so future leaders can learn from the mistakes of others. They even teach from ancient books like “The Art of War” by the Chinese Philosopher Tsun Tsu.

    Unless you learn from your mistakes you will keep repeating them. So what do we do…reelect 90% of Congress…
    If you don’t learn from your past mistakes, someone else always ends up eating your lunch… EVERYDAY!


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

%d bloggers like this: