Chief Justice Obama?

President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with emphasis in Constitutional law.  He is a shrewd enough politician to get himself elected President.  He surrounds himself with advisers who, on paper at least, should be capable of simple tasks.  Apparently, at least one simple task is just too complex for President Obama's legal team:  understanding the difference between the executive and judicial branches of our Federal government.  If you retained attorneys who consistently advised you that you could do things that are unconstitutional, how long would you continue to pay for their services? Of course, if they advised you that you could ignore the Constitution and declare yourself the Commander-in-Chief, the chief executive of the Government, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all rolled into one omnipotent juggernaut of personality, you might like what you are hearing from those attorneys. 

First the White House Counsel advised the President that a Democrat House and Senate, upon his signature, could enact a law compelling citizens to purchase health insurance.  Thankfully, federal judges are voiding that law as unconstitutional, most recently in Florida, and states are moving to halt implementation of government-mandated health care.  Ultimately "Obamacare" as many call it, will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  As it should be under our separation of powers.  The judicial system determines constitutionality of laws.  This power is, in no way, given under the Constitution to the executive branch, which is empowered only to nominate individuals to serve as judges.  Court decisions are steadily demonstrating that the President's legal advisers missed the mark.

President Obama's advisers, however, have convinced the President to take an unprecedented unconstitutional action that is even more alarming:  unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional and intentionally refusing to perform his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It would behoove President Obama and his advisers to review carefully the oath of office he swore to in January 2009 in light of his utter abandonment of a law:  The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Currently this law is in effect, signed into law by President Clinton.  It is the law of the land until the judicial system, rising to the Supreme Court, declares definitively whether it is Constitutional or not.  Instead, the President's advisers, driven by the smallest percentage of his constituents numerically but loudest vocally -gay rights activists- convinced the President to announce that his Administration considers the DOMA unconstitutional and has directed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the law by declining to defend it in legal actions brought against it by plaintiffs seeking for Federal recognition of same-sex marriage.  Naturally, this refusal to defend the law was not accompanied by a citation of constitutional authority permitting such action, nor could it have been, since the power to declare laws unconstitutional belongs to the Judicial and not the Executive branch.

The political left and willing accomplices in the media are currently attacking former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for pointing out the "Constitutional crisis" the President's action has created.  They have focused on one word Newt mentioned in an interview, "impeachment", and are portraying Newt, the impeacher of President Clinton, as simply being up to his old tricks, now calling for President Obama's impeachment.  However, as is usually the case in media coverage, the truth of what Newt actually said is being intentionally obscured.  Newt did not say that President Obama SHOULD be impeached at this time for his action.  What he DID say was that if a Republican president declared a law unconstitutional and directed the Justice Department to stop enforcing it, political liberals and the media would come unglued and certainly call for that president's impeachment.  Newt used an effective analogy in his NewsMax interview:

Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people. Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

The precedent that would be established by allowing a president to suspend a law, any law, that was passed by Congress and signed by a previous president, is indeed dangerous.  Capital Cloak believes that President Obama, in his heart, agrees with the DOMA, as he has spoken in favor of traditional marriage consistently until this sudden lurch off the Constitutional path.  The fact that he has agreed to this course of abandoning enforcement of law is a sign that in his Administration, the tail really does wag the dog.  A few loud voices representing gay advocacy groups appear to be convincing President Obama that their volume is indicative of how the entire nation feels about traditional marriage.  It is not, and if the President continues in this extra-legal action, he could find himself a one term President. 

Prop 8 vote breakdown in CA 2008

President Obama must keep in mind that 70% of African-American voters in ultra-liberal California supported Proposition 8Obama's advisers are already gambling that he can win reelection in 2012 with or without the support of traditional marriage advocates by steering him to suspend the DOMA despite having no Constitutional power to do so.

Pelosi Alternative Foreign Policy Powers, Monster Bunnies, Cloaking Devices, and Other Fictions

The world we live in today has never been more bizarre or more dangerous. Each new day brings evidence of this as reported through global media sources. How adept are you at identifying fact from fiction among news headlines?

The following are headlines that may or may not have appeared in the news today. All are actual headlines, except for one. Try to identify which of the headlines is fictional without clicking any links:

#1 Woman Dropped on Head Alleges 'Negligent Dancing'

#2 Theoretical Cloaking Device is Created

#3 French Train Smashes World Speed Record

#4 Bin Laden Hunters Abandon Psychics

#5 Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009

#6 No More Monster Bunnies for North Korea

#7 Grieving Couple Commits Suicide After Dog Dies

#8 Democrats Playing with Fire

#9 No Chatter, Chatter! New Rule Silences Baseball Tradition

#10 41-Year-Old Virgin Spends $40,000 To Find A Mate

Now that you have read the headlines and made your guess as to which one is fake, it is time to reveal the answer. Monty Python’s Holy Grail fans would never question the reality of monster bunnies, thus they will believe #6 must be true. Franco-phobes will never believe France capable of anything more technologically advanced than brie, and will select #3 as the fake. Trekkies have always insisted that cloaking devices would one day be fact rather than science fiction, thus they likely disobeyed the instructions above, clicked on the link, and are scouring the Internet for all references to cloaking devices. Hopefully they will return here to finish this post! Intelligence analysts, who have insisted since 2005 that Iran could not develop a nuclear bomb earlier than 2015, undoubtedly will look at this list of headlines and choose #5 as the obvious fake. How is one to choose from among such preposterous headlines?

The answer is that all of the headlines above appeared in today’s news. Some of them are quite interesting and amusing, but two stand out as very significant, and they are interrelated: #5 and #8.

In January I wrote that American intelligence analysts consistently underestimate the capability for rapid technological advancement by other nations, specifically China, North Korea, and Iran. When that post was written, China had just successfully tested an anti-satellite missile several years sooner than our intelligence analysts had previously estimated. Citing that example, I warned that the 10 year estimate for Iran to develop nuclear weapons should be reevaluated and that Iran’s determination not be discounted. ABC’s “The Blotter” reported today that some intelligence sources are now concerned and even “caught off guard” by information indicating that Iran may be capable of generating enough uranium to produce a nuclear weapon by 2009, not 2015.

Change is inevitable in intelligence, and with a regime as closed off from western influence as the Mullahs it is no simple matter to estimate its capabilities. Yet in three months, some analysts have shaved 6 years off of their earlier predictions, which is a significant change. According to “The Blotter”:

Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News. . . .

The addition of 1,000 new centrifuges, which are not yet operational, means Iran is expanding its enrichment program at a pace much faster than U.S. intelligence experts had predicted.

"If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis," said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, "then you're looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009."

Previous predictions by U.S. intelligence had cited 2015 as the earliest date Iran could develop a weapon.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly predicted his country would have 3,000 centrifuges installed by this May, but few in the West gave his claim much credence, until now.

"I think we have all been caught off guard. Ahmadinejad said they would have these 3,000 installed by the end of May, and it appears they may actually do it," Albright said.

Now, as Iran continues to hold 15 British sailors hostage, continues to fund, train, and supply terrorists infiltrating Iraq, and is sprinting toward enriching enough uranium for nuclear weapons, unity among our elected officials and a shared resolve to meet and defeat this enemy are needed more than ever. Which brings us to the other truly serious headline from our list, “Democrats Playing With Fire.” In that article, the always enlightening Thomas Sowell examined the potential damage that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her entourage are inflicting on American foreign policy by traveling throughout the Middle East this week independently meeting with leaders such as Syrian President Assad despite vocal objections from the White House.

As Sowell pointed out, Speaker Pelosi is not the Secretary of State or the President, the two positions through which America’s official foreign policies are declared to the world in a one voice policy (for another example of a government one voice policy, click here). The President is America’s mouthpiece to the world. He represents America when he meets with foreign leaders, or he designates someone to represent America in his stead, traditionally the Vice President or Secretary of State.

Speakers of the House or Senate Majority Leaders represent their constituents and are Congress’ mouthpieces to America. They are not officially authorized to represent America to foreign leaders. Yet Speaker Pelosi is attempting to usurp presidential constitutional authority and makes no secret of that motive behind her Middle East tour. As Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who is accompanying the Speaker stated, as reported in the Speaker’s hometown newspaper:

We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.

That same newspaper astutely reported precisely what Speaker Pelosi hopes to accomplish with her self-appointed diplomatic mission:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's arrival in Syria tonight is widely viewed in Washington as a bold end run around President Bush, raising her profile as a kind of Democratic prime minister to Bush's Republican presidency.

Sowell responded to this usurpation very concisely:

Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

It is clear that while intelligence analysts have underestimated Iran, Democrats have overestimated the mandate they believe they were given through their slim electoral victory in Congress last November. Instead of acting as a “shadow government” and performing foreign policy and military strategy end-runs around our elected President, Congressional Democrats should remember that Syria is on the State Department list of terrorism sponsors and the official American foreign policy toward Assad has been and should continue to be isolation rather than legitimization.

If Speaker Pelosi wants so desperately to formulate and represent American foreign policy, then she should throw her hat into the ring for 2008 and earn the job through election rather than trampling the constitution. In America, the executive branch conducts foreign policy. There is no legal basis for “an alternative Democratic foreign policy.” America has one voice when it speaks to foreign nations, and that voice, until the next inauguration day, belongs to George W. Bush.

Which is more ridiculous, monster bunnies, cloaking devices, or Pelosi foreign policy? At least the other headlines provided humor rather than anxiety. Perhaps analysts’ estimates underestimate how long it will take to develop the cloaking device, and in the near future the Speaker could wear one to all meetings between the President and foreign heads of state, keeping her unseen and unheard. Having demonstrated a fondness for shadow governments, she should embrace the cloak wholeheartedly.