Who shall defend the Constitution? by Tom Tancredo

The high court’s Arizona ruling gives not only the Obama administration but any future president the discretion to disregard any federal law they choose not to enforce if in the president’s unilateral judgment, it might complicate his foreign-policy decisions. This is a bizarre ruling to say the least.

Tom Tancredo advocates a ‘convention of citizen patriots’ to amend document

Republican appointees on the Supreme Court twice this week abandoned the Constitution to give new powers to the federal government and the Obama administration. The question for conservatives and patriots is: What can be done about it?

On Monday, in the Arizona ruling, the court acted to create a dangerous and illogical doctrine of federal pre-emption on immigration law. States no longer have any right to help defend against foreign invasion. They must rely on Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano if that invasion is without tanks and missiles. Good luck with that.

On Thursday, in the Obamacare ruling, the court had to effectively rewrite the Affordable Care Act to justify it as constitutional. They discovered something the authors and proponents of the act vehemently denied: It is a taxation measure, not an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce power.

In the Arizona case, the Supreme Court has legislated a new doctrine of federal pre-emption: The federal government may not only establish some areas of law as off limits to states, but it can unilaterally decide to bar states from enforcing a law it has chosen not to enforce. Thus, the ruling allows the executive branch to effectively repeal acts of Congress.

[…]

Original source.


Leave a Reply