Another member of ATS challenged me to show how Mr. Obama is trampling on the U.S. Constitution. I'm more than happy to oblige.
1. Appointment of Czars are unconstitutional
This violates Article II, Section 2. "[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors,
other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein
provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper,
in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
These Czars are not heads of departments. However they have been granted powers of which the extent isn't fully known. As such, they function as
"shadow" czars.
Also in agreement of this assessment that czars are unconstitutional is Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd.
In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy,
and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House
staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
Source:
www.politico.com...
Also in agreement of this assessment that czars are unconstitutional is Sen. Ron Paul.
“They are not authorized (by the constitution), and not approved by the Senate, but Obama’s not the only guilty party.”
Source:
moneynews.newsmax.com...
HR7321, the Auto Industry Bailout bill, would have granted the president the right to appoint a "car czar", but this bill died in the Senate in
December 2008.
2. The Auto Industry bailout done by Obama was unconstitutional
Both Bush and Obama participated in the auto industry bailout, however the way Obama did it was unconstitutional. Why? Bush used
Congressionally-approved TARP funds which probably violated the Treasury Department mandate that the funds were used to purchase troubled assets from
financial institutions, and the auto industry doesn't exactly count as a financial institution. Obama, on the other hand, determined that he would
use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler, with no authorization.
Obama might insist that his authority comes from Article I, Section 8. ""The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost,
Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." The "General Welfare" Clause.
However it was Thomas Jefferson who said "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically
enumerated."
Additionally, James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the
government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
HR 7321 (The Auto Industry Bailout Bill) would have allocated non-direct-taxpayer funds for this, but it died in the Senate in December 2008.
3. Government ownership of private business (percentage of General Motors via the auto industry bailout)
Violation of the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."
Specifically, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government is allowed to own a private business. And because this is the
Constitution, the government is only allowed to act within the powers granted by the Constitution. It's not a matter of 'the Constitution didn't
say I couldn't do that, so I'm going to do that'.
4. Redistribution of Wealth is unconstitutional (clear evidence with Obama's 'spread the wealth around' comment)
Not only are Obama's 'spread the wealth around' ideologies unconstitutional, but this makes the current health care plan which seeks to tak the
wealthy and pay for health care unconstitutional as it is redistribution of wealth at the federal level.
Again, this violates the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I encourage anyone else with clear examples to contribute.
