What Constitution?

by Jessica Pacholski

Open Letter To Barack Obama

Open Letter To Barack Obama

There is an open letter from the We The People Foundation to Mr. Barack Obama that will appear in the Chicago Tribune on December first. In bold type it asks ” ARE YOU A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?” and “ARE YOU LEGALLY ELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT?”, it then goes on to list the various issues and evidence against Barack Obama claim that he is. I’ve heard this before and I wonder about it myself. The Democratic National Committee’s  leadership has repeated stonewalled any investigation into the legitimacy of Obama’s status as a US citizen. The question is not so much one of his citizenship, in my opinion, but one of: Does our Constitution have meaning anymore? If we be a nation of law with this document as the foundation, then shouldn’t we be following the letter of the law? If not, what happens to us as a nation? These are the questions that I’m not hearing, however they are what concern me most. It could be a matter of time before the Constitution is as obsolete as the Model T.

The above mentioned letter goes on to say:

In consideration of the escalating constitutional crisis brought on by the total lack of evidence needed to conclusively establish your eligibility, I am compelled to serve you with this First Amendment Petition for a Redress of this violation of the Constitution.”

Escalating? Our Constitution has been under siege for decades, this is just the latest insult to our Republic’s founding document. Is it an issue, absolutely. However, the crisis has been steadily building itself for years. George W Bush called it “… just a god-damned piece of paper!”  and we see that during his administration our Bill of Rights was shredded as the people of this country stood mute. His was one of the most lawless and secretive Presidency’s we have had to endure. This was in combination with Congress abdicating it’s Constitutional responsibilities as well, it continues to raise funds for Iraq and Afghanistan seven years after the initial invasions, even though according to the Constitution it only had power to do so for two years. This on top of not taking the responsibility of issuing a Formal Declaration of War, what this means is now they can blame the Executive office for their own lapse in legal governance; their own betrayal of their Oath of Office. We are no longer protected by the Constitution in this country, mostly because our government has grown out of control and our people have grown ignorant of the basis of their government. Many people cannot name the five Rights protected by the First Amendment, much less can they define what powers the government are allowed by it. If voters can’t make this distinction, that it was written to restrict the power of the government and protect the individual rights of the people, how can they make a decision to vote for a candidate based upon the law? They can’t. Most people vote for the candidate who panders to them, the one who will promise them what they want, whether it is legal or not. Whether it be entitlements or victory in an illegal war, people will vote their own ideology into power at the expense of rest of the constituency.

So, is this a Constitutional Crisis? Yes it is, if the allegations are true, then this man has no right to be our President and he should be arrested for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud against the People of the United States along with the leaders of the Democrat Party who supported him. His Oath, when sworn, will be a gross act of Perjury as well. Yet, many people will simply not care, they will see any attempt to bring this to light as “racist” and “xenophobic”. They will cast the people who question his eligibility as “unenlightened”, “nationalistic”, “right-wing fascists” that oppose “progress”. The irony is these same people will hold up the Constitution as a shield to say these things, then turn around and insist that certain “flaws” in the same document must be considered anachronistic or outdated. They refuse to see that by subverting the law, no matter who does it and for even the best of intentions, is always a dangerous proposition. I’ll leave you with this quote from the letter:

“In a Government of laws, the existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent and omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by it’s example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;it invites every man a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438

This may help to explain why the more lawless our lawmakers become, the more lawless we as a people become, they are setting a very bad example indeed.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to What Constitution?

  1. Geno Canto del Halcon November 30, 2008 at 8:55 pm #

    I remember someone challenged Barry Goldwater’s right to run for president in 1964 on the basis that Arizona was not yet a state at the time he was born there. A court ruled that this did not disqualify him. Someone will always try to abuse the Constitution for political ends, it seems. To me, a far more serious issue is whether George W Bush’s crimes will be prosecuted when he leaves office. Should he be tried by an international war crimes tribunal? There is no Constitutional provision for such a trial, but does that mean it shouldn’t be done?

    Sometimes one has to look beyond the words on a piece of paper, and consider intent and, more fundamentally, justice.

    Don’t get me wrong – I think the US Constitution still is and should be the supreme law of our land. However, We the People are still our land’s sovereigns, and there are going to be occasions when we see a need, in the interest of justice, to amend its meaning in law.

    The Federal government has usurped so many of the States’ and the peoples’ rights and powers in the past century and a half, repeatedly ignoring the intentions of our founders for the convenience of those who want to assert ever-more control over our lives and property, using the velvet glove of Federal funding to claim authority over all manner of things that exceed its constitutional authority, one really does wonder if it isn’t time to remind the politicians of the real reason for the second amendment. Hint: it isn’t for hunting.

  2. Mike Poast November 30, 2008 at 9:38 pm #

    Very well put, my brother (he has two master degrees) made the comment this weekend as we were discussing the proper role of government, “What does it matter if The Federal or The State does it?” A very sad day when otherwise educated citizens cannot fathom the gross abuses brought upon humanity by government.

  3. Sean Havens December 1, 2008 at 12:45 am #

    Our rights and basic freedoms hang in the balance here. While it is true that basic or NATURAL law should always take precedence (for instance the Constitution is basic natural law), the modern day and common sense should always have a place in any ruling against or for a citizen. The danger lies in us realizing what the common good needs vs. how loud a minority can scream (the squeaky wheel gets oiled). Majority rules have been ignored so severely (just look at the bail-out debacles that the MAJORITY of this nation’s citizens opposed) and such dis-trust of our politicians has grown that the road back to a strong nation is paved with adversity. The system is becoming set-up today so that those who are described in the Constitution as We the People=The Government will be considered dissidents and traitors for doing what our Constitution promised we’d be able to do:Remove the scumbags from office who keep ignoring our demands. Now to try this as we are supposed to be able to invites a wrath unlike any we’ve seen before. The political position of tolerance (the Dems) is without a doubt the most intolerable and oppressive organization I’ve ever seen next to the Nazi Party. It’s a double-edged sword. Careful when skating down this blade.

  4. Ramy November 10, 2015 at 1:04 pm #

    To whom it may concern: It suhold be noted that this entry on voluntaryism is not an origianl thought from Rich but is almost completely taken word-for-word out of Bruce L. Shelley’s book entitled Church History In Plain Language.

Leave a Reply