Home > Elections - Voting, Political Editorial > Is the U.S. Constitution at Risk in Election 2016?

Is the U.S. Constitution at Risk in Election 2016?

September 28th, 2016 Leave a comment Go to comments
Print Friendly, PDF & Email


 Is the U.S. Constitution at Risk in Election 2016?

Editorial by Net Advisor

WASHINGTON DC. The next U.S. President will likely nominate one, maybe two or three Supreme Court Justices. Nominating those with judicial activism is a big concern.

“Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning. As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law.”

— Source: Heritage Foundation Report: How to spot judicial activism

Activism is not the role of a judge, but rather the impartial rule of law. Here we examine Pres. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump’s views about the Supreme Court and stated intent or in the case of Barack Obama, existing actions.

[1] Pres. Obama Repeatedly Violated His Constitutional Authority

President Obama appointed two politically left justices to the Supreme Court and is attempting to appoint a third. A liberal lawyer thinks Obama can bypass the Senate and make direct appointments to the Supreme Court. That is a false argument, and here is why:

The U.S. Constitution explicitly states:

“He (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 consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States…”

— Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2: Source: Cornell University Law School (bold emphases added to note Constitutional requirement).

Obama has also threatened the Senate that he can appoint a SCOTUS justice if the Senate doesn’t act. Constitutional lawyer and law professor, Jonathan H. Adler said, Pres. Obama CANNOT appoint someone to the Supreme Court ‘if the Senate does nothing.’

Michael D. Ramsey, professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law and a former judicial clerk for Justice Scalia said, under Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, ‘the Senate has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”’

This means the U.S. Senate, not the President decides how proceedings and meeting are held, when held, and if held.

In 2014, President Obama attempted to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB). Recess appointments is under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution that allows a President to make such appointments when the Senate is not in session. However those appointments would have to expire and the end of the next Senate Session.

The NRLB is a government (taxpayer) funded “independent” agency enforcing labor laws, union activities and has the effect of enforced law on Americans and U.S. businesses.

In a surprise move, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that President Obama exceeded his Constitutional authority to make recess appointments to the NRLB (SCOTUS Ruling PDF 108pps). This upheld a lower D.C. Court of Appeals that also ruled unanimously (3-0) with the same legal effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court said:

(recesses appointments)…would give the president “free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction…This cannot be the law.”

— Source: Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2013

Now now it has been officially determined that a President cannot act on his his own if Congress does not act. We have already seen numerous other incidences where President Obama violated Constitutional law. Partial list:

So we have President Obama trying to exceed his Constitutional authority, despite saying he is not a dictator:

[2] A Look at Hillary Clinton’s Views About Supreme Court

Hillary Clinton refuses to talk about what type of justices she would seek to appoint to the Supreme Court. She says she only supports Pres. Obama’s current pick.

“Clinton has refused to name names when it comes to the court, saying only that Congress should confirm President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.”

— Source: The Hill 7-30-2016

What we do know about Secretary Clinton is she is staunchly against private citizens owning firearms. She was for the Second Amendment during the 2008 election (P24). But now she she says:

the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment”

— Hillary Clinton. Source: Washington Free Beacon, Oct. 1, 2015 (HTML PDF)

Clinton proposes an additional 25% tax on firearms (plus sales tax). She refereed to the NRA (who does not manufacture or sell any firearms or bullets) as “negotiating with the Iranians or the communists.”

Like President Obama, Hillary Clinton has threatened to rule by tyranny.

China’s previous Communist leader Mao Zedong and others also said that gun ban are essential for control over the people. So we probably have a good idea what kind of people Clinton would seek to appoint to the Supreme Court.

This issue, barely addressed by the candidates or the media is really the most important issue in the 2016 election. Why? Because it will determine whether or not the U.S. Constitution will be upheld, enforced as it was originally written and intended.

If we elect someone who takes issue with the Constitution, it’s intent, and seeks to put people on the Supreme Court who feel the same, the U.S. is no longer a Constitutional Republic, but rather led on a path to government tyranny.

Clinton also has pledged a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v FEC (2010) (SCOTUS Ruling PDF 183pps). Many in the media, and Democrats have tried to frame the argument as ‘getting money out of politics.’ That’s just a fantasy augment.

The Citizens United case is really about an assault on the 1st Amendment (free speech); whether making financial contributions to a campaign constitutes speech, and the Supreme Court concurred.

The point is, campaigns cost money, and money will never be ‘outlawed’ in politics. If politicians want to make mutual contractual agreements that they will not accept money from outside sources, or limit such, they are free to do so without rewriting the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Prohibiting certain groups from political speech, including monetary is a First Amendment violation. If you began limiting forms of political speech, you have lost your country.

Hillary Clinton supports limiting political speech, yet at the same time, takes in millions from foreign governments and other foreign entities for her ‘charity’ (Large Clinton Foundation Donors: 1, 2, 3, 4).

A foundation isn’t the same as a political campaign except that the foundation pays your salary, travel and other expenses which can be used for political purposes.

[3] Concerns

The concern is that under another Left-leaning president, the U.S. would be moved from a Constitutional Republic (let alone a Democracy) to a more centralized (Totalitarian) power.

This move would be illegal in the USA unless someone changed the Constitution or appointed liberal activist judges to the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution.

If you control the courts (Judicial Branch), Congress’ power may be diminished. Ultimately, this is what the Democratic progressives are trying to do: To control power in order to stay in power. Does that sound like what our Constitutional Forefathers intended – Unlimited power to micromanage citizens, retain permanent power in government, control the courts and diminish Congress’ power?

As we have discussed, President Obama repeatedly attempted to shift power of these historical checks and balances to the Executive Branch.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the power of U.S. government is held in a Congress (The Legislative Branch), enforced by an Executive (The Executive Branch) and checked by an (“independent”) Judiciary (The Judicial Branch) for legality.

Progressives (Anti-Americans) are still attempting to strip lawful power from the U.S. Constitution, the People of the United States, and to bypass Congress and the Courts at will.

[4] A Look at Donald Trump’s Views About Supreme Court

In contrast, presidential candidate Donald Trump has not only discussed his potential SCOTUS appointments, but offered a sample list of people he would consider to replace Justice Scalia who suddenly died last summer.

Trump has stated, “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”

Trump reportedly said 16 years ago (July 2, 2000) that he then supported an “assault weapons ban” (AR-15’s which, by definition are not assault weapons).

By no later than 2011, Trump evolved his view stating at CPAC  “I am pro-life,” he said. “I am against gun control.”

For some that can be an issue. However, all of us have changed our mind, our views about things as we get more educated, and older and hopefully wiser.

Second Amendment supporters should be more concerned about the other candidate (Clinton) who has revered herself from being Second Amendment supporter to progressively against it, and is currently campaigning on that.

Trump said we need to focus on the laws on the books, address what is causing crime and mental health issues.

[5] Conclusion

The 2016 election will have a decades lasting impact on the U.S. Supreme Court, whose Constitutional interpretations impact our everyday rights and liberties.

Many people are focused about jobs, the economy, and terrorism which are also very important. However, if your ability to speak is suddenly limited, and limited again, and again; and your ability to properly and proportionately defend yourself and your family is limited here, then there, what kind of country is that?

And when you have ‘leaders’ who are willing, threatening, and who actively bypass laws, think they are exempt from law or prosecution, bypass our elected Congress, bypass our Constitutional foundation that built this country, your job, your safety won’t matter anymore. At that point, tyranny will be in place and make all the decisions for you as to what you can have, what you can earn, what you can say — or else?


Page top image credit: Federalist. Other images credit where cited or known. Video credit: MS-NBC.

Original content copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.

Related posts:

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.