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.

Thompson Juggled Abortion Hot Potato

In the 1994 National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), then-candidate for Senate Fred Thompson completed a survey detailing the policies or programs he would support if elected. As reported by the New York Sun’s political blog yesterday, NPAT has released Thompson’s survey responses for comparison with those already in the race for the 2008 GOP nomination. It should be remembered that policy positions change over time, such as the evolution of Mitt Romney’s views on abortion. These survey responses from Thompson were offered in 1994, the same year Mitt Romney bravely ran against Senator Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. Just as Romney’s experiences as Governor of Massachusetts changed his views on the government’s role in abortion and preserving traditional marriage, Thompson’s experiences in the Senate and subsequent private life may have evolved since both were GOP candidates for the Senate in 1994.

Having allowed for the possibility that Thompson has changed his views on some issues since 1994, I call attention to his NPAT survey results on certain issues, particularly abortion. The NPAT web site listed the survey question on abortion and Thompson’s responses. According to the web site, candidates were asked only to identify which items they would support, not what they would oppose. Thompson’s responses on abortion were as follows:

9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

X Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.

0 Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

X A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.

0 A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.

X States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.

X Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.

X Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.

X Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

0 Other

The most glaring omission in the NPAT survey was the failure to ask the candidates whether they support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The most noticeable item Thompson indicated support for was “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” These is a sweeping statement, that will not be easy for him to explain away, particularly when critics examine the items he did not express support for above.

Thompson clearly supported every item that guaranteed a woman’s right to choose abortion rather than carry a baby to term. A closer look at the items Thompson did not express support for reveals a rather radical pro-abortion position for someone who is being touted as a potential heir to Ronald Reagan conservatism:

1. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer indicated that Thompson felt women should have the choice to abort for convenience rather than as an emergency procedure used as a last resort.

2. He did not support the item “Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy results from incest or rape, or when the life of the mother is endangered.” This answer was a further affirmation of a woman’s right to choose abortion for any reason, whether for mere birth control convenience or for coping with the results of horrible crimes. By not supporting this item, Thompson revealed that in his mind abortion was no last resort measure but rather a fundamental female right.

3. He did not support the item “A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.” This response was truly remarkable for someone who is now hyped as a staunch conservative. The idea that two people join in a procreative act that results in the conception of a child, but that only one, the woman, has the right to determine whether that life will be terminated because she will bear the brunt of inconvenience is the epitome of selfish liberalism. The woman chose to participate in the act and the baby’s DNA is an equal contribution of man and woman. Wherein lays the supremacy of the female right to that of her husband or partner except in the liberal feminist mind? Thompson came down solely for the inviolable rights of the woman, but ignored the man and most importantly, ignored the baby’s right to life. Thompson approved of terminating a baby without telling the baby’s father. Marginalizing men is a curious position for a candidate revered for his “tough talk” and manly demeanor.

Now we move to the political hot potato juggling act performed by nearly all candidates for national office in all campaigns, the survey item: “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.” Thompson supported this item, and in doing so joined the ranks of thousands of other candidates over the years who claim that this position restores such social policy decisions to the states where they allegedly belong under the constitution. The pro-life movement will be pleased with Thompson's desire to end all federal funding of abortion and leave abortion for states to tackle. This is a very popular response, but it is the ultimate pass the buck cop out position when candidates simply do not want to deal with the topic of abortion or offend any potential voters.

What does it really mean when a candidate states that this issue of abortion should be left up to the states? Do they mean that states, with their differing ethnic and cultural traditions, should have the right to determine, on a local level, whether abortion is consistent with their values and thus legal or illegal? The chaos resulting from that situation would be inevitable. Yet it also skirts the real issue: The federal government, not state governments, is empowered to preserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with life listed as the first sacred, inviolable right the national government should protect. States are not encumbered by this requirement, and are thus wholly inadequate for the task of uniformly preserving life for all Americans, whether they live in liberal California or conservative Utah.

This nation witnessed the result of leaving slavery in the hands of individual states. It took a civil war and a victory by the federal government’s position to free the slaves. The civil rights struggles in the 1950s and 1960s were further evidence that leaving civil rights legislation to individual states would never achieve equality, but would rather allow permanent discrimination according to local traditions. Only when the federal government intervened by enacting civil rights legislation to overrule state governments were civil rights established and protected. Abortions will not disappear if left to individual states any more than segregated lunch counters or drinking fountains did. If the right to life is to be championed, the federal government must lead that fight. The disingenuous “Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states” answer to questions of life and civil liberties is used by candidates and incumbents alike merely to dodge a controversial topic while sounding statesmanlike.

For the GOP and conservative Independents who oppose abortion, Thompson’s stated position on abortion in 1994 presents a significant obstacle to embracing him with open arms as so many appear wont to do. Romney had the opportunity to demonstrate his convictions through his veto pen as governor, leaving a clear record of pro-life activism that gives credibility to the evolution of his stance on government intervention on behalf of life. Thompson will have no such executive veto record to prove the credibility of whatever position he eventually attempts to claim once he announces his candidacy. All we know for sure is what his views were as a Senate candidate in 1994. As an effective politician, however, he will surely continue to juggle the abortion hot potato until it begins to burn and then attempt to toss it to the states.