Ignoring The Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. The document was specifically written to limit the federal government, while also providing a list of what the states cannot do in Article I, Section 10. Otherwise, states have their own constitutions, and are supposed to be able to govern themselves without federal interference. The federal government has jurisdiction over any issue enumerated in Article I, Section 8, or any amendment that specifically grants the federal government such powers. If the U.S. Constitution does not specifically give the federal government any say over an issue, the Tenth Amendment clearly determines that the issue is then a state issue, should the states decide to take up the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court was created to apply the law. Therefore, in each and every case they see they must apply the U.S. Constitution to the case. If the Constitution does not address the issue as being a federal responsibility, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot take the case, and the decision by a state supreme court would then stand.

Despite a string of court decisions over the last 200 years that proclaims the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, beginning with Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the judiciary cannot make law, or interpret the Constitution to say something it doesn't. Law can only be made by the legislative branch, and the judiciary can only have an opinion in regards to the need for a particular law. Ultimately, a law cannot be made unless the U.S. Congress, or the States (in an Article V Convention) proposes it. I don't care how much "precedence" there is, law is not, and can not be, made by the judiciary.

This bring us around to the "birther" debate. The question over Barack Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States has reached monumental proportions. The issue has encouraged a number of debates regarding the exact meaning of "Natural Born Citizen." Some contend that British Common Law influenced the founder's meaning of Natural Born Citizen, while others argue that Vattel's Law of Nations was the primary influence. Whatever the meaning, it is apparent that the understanding of what Natural Born Citizen meant was so obvious that the Founding Father's did not see the need to spell it out.

The words themselves give us clues to what the founders meant. "Natural" means, essentially, not of man. So, being a citizen by law (like as a naturalized citizen) is not acceptable. The person vying for the presidency must be naturally born in the United States. Beyond that, however, the U.S. Constitution does not give us a detailed definition.

Considering the lack of definition provided, it is reasonable to assume that being born in the United States, or outside the United States by two American parents, is sufficient to be a Natural Born Citizen? If there was more to the definition, wouldn't the Founding Fathers have provided it?

I believe the meaning the Founding Fathers had in mind included that both parents be citizens, but where is the proof in the U.S. Constitution that is the case? As much as I hate to say it, until an amendment is proposed and ratified that defines the exact terms of what a Natural Born Citizen is, we cannot assume that it means anything more than a person born on American soil, or to two American parents.

Following that line of thinking, there are a number of issues that can be addressed in a simple manner. Either it is in the Constitution, or it isn't.

Federal intrusion in any way into the Health Care industry is not addressed anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, therefore, Obama's government health care plan is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Partial, or full, ownership of private industries by the federal government is not provided as a federal governmental function, therefore the government owning part of General Motors is unconstitutional, and therefore must be rescinded.

The U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to decide the legality of abortion. Therefore, abortion is a state issue, and Roe v. Wade must be repealed - not just because abortion is a state issue, but because it is also an example of the judiciary making law, of which they cannot.

Czars are positions that are appointed without Congressional oversight, and are therefore unconstitutional. The Constitution reads very clearly on this matter. "Article II. Section 2. "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 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."

And I don't care which party the president is a member of. Either way, czars are unconstitutional because they are appointed without any Congressional involvement.

I can go on and on about how unconstitutional our federal government is in its current form, but I think you get the idea. Ultimately, whenever the federal government tries to do anything, all we really need to do is ask the cockroaches in Washington a simple question: Where in the U.S. Constitution is what you want to do allowed?

As for the fear that Obama and friends wishing to rewrite the Constitution with a Constitutional Convention, not only does Article V not enable them to do that, but understand that the Democrats have no desire to do such a thing anyway. For them, it is much easier to just ignore the Constitution, and conduct their business in an illegal manner.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary