Obama Tramples Upon the Constitution, Yet Again

This is a brief detour on the series, If the Constitution Were the Solution…. to provide yet another very present example of how it has failed us.

Obama_Gun Control

How Many Can I Grab? How Many Can I Grab?

As most know, the 2nd amendment specifically reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Why ain’t it working I ask? What part of the words “right of the people” does the President not understand? What part of the words “shall not be infringed” (violated) does the President not understand? Apparently, none of them!

He apparently believes he can simply alter our laws (and the Bill of Rights as well) with a few deft strokes of his pen, so to speak.

Today, he used the assumed (and made up BTW) powers of an executive order to make more laws regarding gun acquisition. The executive branch making laws? Huh?

His Justification for the Gun Control Moves?

“These are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch,” he said. “But they are also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.”

His Constitutionally Granted Powers

Oh really now? Let’s look at what the Constitution actually has to say about the powers of the executive. The powers granted to the President in Article II, Section 2 are as follows:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise 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.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

That’s it! Above are the extent of the Constitutionally granted powers to the executive according to the text of the Constitution, our supposed (as Bush Jr. always liked to refer to it) “rule of law”.

Where Does It Say the Executive Can MAKE Laws?

Now can someone please demonstrate, based on the text of the U.S. Constitution, where his capacity to issue executive orders regarding the 2nd amendment arises?

You know, because for the life of me, I see nowhere in the powers granted in the specific text of the Constitution that the President is granted the ability to issue an “executive order” that creates laws applying to ANY of the amendments, let alone one specifically claimed to be “the right of the people” NOT the government.

At best, (let me repeat that- at best) the executive executes or enforces the law and even that is an overreach based upon the powers specifically defined as demonstrated above from Article 2, Section 2.  Nowhere in the Constitution is he delegated the power to MAKE laws. Nowhere!

To me this is yet another example of how useless the text of the Constitution has become when it comes to limiting government (which is supposedly what it was instituted for and expected to do).

Another False Claim in Obama’s Statement

Obama claims that this move is what the “overwhelming majority of American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.” (An oldie but goodie for Obama- something we can believe in. At least according to Emperor Obama that is.)

This is nothing less than a patent falsehood, or in more common parlance, a lie.

American gun owners by and large want the Federal government out of their faces when it comes to gun ownership. It is, as the Constitution stipulates, a “right of the people“. Gun owners are not fools. They clearly recognize that which is why there is an Gun owners statementactive membership in the NRA and there are organizations like the Gun Owners of America are calling to repeal these unConstitutional orders meddling with the right of the people. (The executive order was designed to apply to the executive branch only, not as a means of creating laws BTW. Another, distortion of the Constitution. See defined powers above for the executive’s controls.)

Additionally, according to the latest Gallup poll, the President DOES NOT have an overwhelming majority by any stretch of the imagination or interpretation.

What the Public Really Feels About Gun Control from Gallup Polling

As summarized in an article in The New American entitled “America Pushes Gun Control; Most Americans Don’t Want It”:

“Gallup just issued its latest poll indicating that

1) most Americans don’t really give two hoots about what the president is doing about the gun “problem” but

2) instead are increasingly concerned about government overreach, which has hit new highs during his administration.

Specifically, concerns about the gun issue that Obama is focusing on comes in at 19th out of 23 issues presented by Gallup to 12,000 American adults over the past 12 months. At no time did gun control ever engage more than seven percent of those respondents, while for most of 2015 the issue engaged just one percent.

Much higher on the list, according to Gallup, is government: specifically government under Obama. In 2007, governmental overreach concerned just seven percent of Americans but climbed steadily as the Obama administration pressed its agenda to “change” America, and now is at 16 percent. Said Gallup: “For the second consecutive year, dissatisfaction with government edged out the economy as the problem more Americans identified as the nation’s top problem in 2015.”

About the so-called “gun issue” Gallup added: “Another issue that briefly spiked as a concern in 2015 was gun control, with mentions rising from near 1% most months to 7% in October and December following mass shootings that dominated the news.” On average, just two percent of those polled listed gun control as a concern during all of 2015.”

More lies from a President whose campaign was built upon and whose 2 terms have continued to reflect.

Back to the Constitution

Perhaps now you can see why the Constitution has essentially failed us. It is little more than an inconvenience these days rather than the claimed “Rule of Law”. The President and others routinely step over or around it and claim rights upon that, like our phony Federal Reserve Notes, are manifested out of the thin air.

I hope to return to the Constitution series in the next few posts, but I hope this cements my point a bit more firmly about how the Constitution is NOT the solution. Not any more and quite possibly never was! We’ll be considering that as we move along.

Fact is, there ain’t hardly nothin left of the sucker. Constitution? What Constitution? Obama acts like an Emperor and we are all expected to bow and say, “Yes, master. How high was that you wanted me to jump?”

Oath of office of Congress? What oath of office? For the most part they stand around with their thumbs up their you know what’s and spinelessly/complacently, quite simply- let it all happen. Along with the Constitution, the oaths of office for all politicians (starting with the President and Cabinet on down) mean little to nothing these days.

Why should it? The Constitution is in shreds already. There ain’t nothing left to uphold!

Related articles

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part Three

In the few seconds that it took you to read this sentence, our government in 2011 spent on average nearly $250,000. Five years ago, the budget pace was about $7.2 million a minute which works out to a pace of about money burning$435 million per hour. The velocity of our national debt has continued to grow even faster in the past 5 years, so these levels are like even greater today.

Since our government is based on the Constitution, one has to wonder then, “What kind of people put together a document that could lead to this kind of debt?” So let’s take a look at the socioeconomic facts related to the persons who constructed the document which we base our government upon.

In becoming aware just who these framers of our Constitution were in terms of their general occupations and interests, we will have a better understanding of the nature of the document they produced and why they produced what they did.

Framers Not Founders

First, I must point out that these men were not the “founders” of our nation. This is simply an embellishment designed to elevate this group to an undeserved level of prestige. It qualifies as propaganda designed to produce the illusion that until the Constitution our nation was in a shambles that the Constitution corrected.

The fact is, the nation already existed before these conspirators (planners in secret) rewrote the agreement to reconstruct the form of government. They did not create a new nation. They “framed” a new government.

Illegally, if you want to accurate about it, but nevertheless it was the reframing of an existing governmental agreement, not the founding of a new nation. The actual “founders” were the people who sacrificed their time, ideas, and sometimes their lives to forge a nation out of what formerly a sparsely occupied wilderness.

What Did They Create?

The re-framed government took on the intended shape of a Constitutional Republic. (Article 4, Section 4- “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,) The term Republic comes from the Roman Latin words, res and publica together meaning “the people’s thing”.

This would be in line with the first words of the Preamble, “We the People…” It also is another pointer to the secular nature of the newly created form of government.

So Just Who Were These Framers?

In order to discover who these framers were, it is best to first take a collective approach. By looking at this group in this manner, we can better achieve a general sense of the kind of document theConstitutional Framers collective group would agreeably approve. Otherwise, we end up not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

The Old Guard

First of all, something kept pretty much in the background about this group of invited delegates is the military emphasis in their backgrounds. Of course, in the presiding chair, we have the commander in chief of the Continental Army, George Washington. We will cover his background in more depth in another post.

Then, we have Generals Pinckney and Mifflin, major general and quartermaster general respectively of the Continental Army.

Next, James Wilson briefly the brigadier general of the Pennsylvania militia; James McClurg, surgeon general of Virginia troops; Pierce Butler, adjutant general of South Carolina troops; Gunning Bedford, lt. colonel and muster master general from Delaware; George Clymer, deputy commissary general of prisoners from Pa.; William Livingston, brigadier general of the New Jersey militia; John Dickinson, brigadier general of the Pa. militia, and Hugh Williamson, surgeon general of North Carolina forces.

Between the generals and colonels like Alexander Hamilton and others, to a large extent it was like a gathering of the old guard revolutionary army. That is, men used to wielding authority over the rank and file. Altogether, twenty seven or nearly half of the delegates (mostly men long known to Washington) had been officers in the revolutionary war.

Political Background

With few exceptions, the persons both invited and those who showed up in Philadelphia were continually active in politics, always at the highest levels. However, it was not a political dream team, so to speak.

Missing were the big names of the day like Jefferson, John and Sam Adams, John Jay, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Paul Revere, John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry (named but chose not to attend), Richard Henry Lee (who later eloquently opposed the Constitution during the ratification process) and a host of others.

With the exception of notables, namely Washington and Franklin, few of the men (even those who later achieved national status) were well known nationally when the convention met. Unlike today with our ever present media, these politicians were for the most part unknown to the general public and mainly only known locally.

However, forty four were either present or past members of congress. Forty six had held political offices in their home states including 7 who were present or former state governors and 5 who were high level state judges. The Constitution, in fact, was generated along defined lines by the government itself by a rather small number of self-selected elite.

Intellectual Capacities

While, there were 25 college graduates, using this as a measurement of a stellar intellectual capacity in the colonial period is distinctly misleading. The colleges of this period were rudimentary in nature and graduated students at much earlier ages than present, often as early as age 16.

Education consisted largely of a study of the classics, some history and some natural science. Harvard boasted a faculty consisting of professors of divinity, mathematics and Greek, four tutors and a steward.

Washington had a 5th grade education. Franklin and Hamilton were both pretty much self-taught. There were of course some good, if not superior, intellects in George Mason (a non-signer), John Dickinson, James Madison and James Wilson who acted as guiding forces.

There were only two professorships. William Houston of New Jersey (mathematics at the College of NJ) and George Wythe of the College of William and Mary. Both lasted very short times. Houston, got sick, left and died after a week of participation. Wythe left soon after the convention started, due to his wife’s fatal illness and never returned.

For the most part, they were sensible and practical thinkers but certainly not a group of extraordinarily learned or exceptional intellectual giants.


This was not an assemblage of Christians. Most were Deists, Unitarians or simply rationalists. Only one stood out as Christian enthusiast, Richard Bassett, a devout Methodist from Delaware. Washington gave pro forma (for the sake of form) support to religion but was certainly not a devout Christian (more on that in another post).

Both Deists and Unitarians believe in a Creator but are far from Christians. They do not accept the divinity of Christ, nor the Trinitarian concept. Both emphasize reason as much if not more than faith. Both believe in a secular society in which government is kept separate from religious affairs.

Economic Status

Aside from being persistent office-holders and lawyers, a third general characteristic of the delegates was that most of them were men of substance. That is, through inheritance or marriage (thirteen had married heiresses) or gained by their own successful strategies, most of them would have been considered wealthy.

No fewer than 21 were rated to be rich or very rich. Washington and Robert Morris being the richest. Washington mainly through land holdings. Morris through commercial banking.

Another 13 were considered affluent to very affluent. The four from South Carolina had been very rich until the Brits confiscated their slaves and plantations during the war. They were however, well on their way back to financial health by the time of the convention.

All were considered highly solvent at the time of the convention. Thirty one were owners of personal property (merchants, attorneys, holders of continental securities and specie.) Twenty four including Washington had more wealth concentrated in land holdings than personal property.

This was certainly no meeting of the economically ordinary.

Other Characteristics

In an agrarian society largely of farmers, there were no actual farmers at the convention. (Broom and Few were claimed as “small farmers” but their backgrounds hardly substantiate that claim.) There were planters like Washington but he was primarily a military man who also ran a plantation when on the home front.

Directly or indirectly, the delegates consisted of lawyers (33 total bearing in mind that unlike today one could become a lawyer through self-study in a matter of weeks, as Hamilton did), bankers, merchants, ship-owners, slave-traders, slave owners, privateers, money-lenders, investors and speculators in land and securities. In general, not exactly representative of “We the People”.

Anticipated Results

With this kind of background one would not be surprised in the production of a document with the nature of the Constitution that came out of these meetings.


With essentially no Christians in the group we can expect that a secular, perhaps even anti-Christian sentiment would prevail in the nature of the document. That is, in fact what surfaced which I will cover in a future post.


Washington_Crossing_quipWith the military backgrounds, one would also anticipate an authoritarian approach which we find.

The decision to go to war would be the responsibility of our representatives rather than the people who would fight the wars. It’s also no surprise the President, or their leader, would be determined to become the Commander in Chief.

Not only was the power to declare war granted but also to raise money for both the army and the navy.

It follows then that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

That is, they (Congress) could declare war but the people who would ultimately fight it would also have to pay for it through taxation. Is it any surprise then that we are continually embroiled in war these days and generating debt at the velocity and level noted in the beginning of this post?

The Courts and Law

With all those lawyers, lifelong politicians and the military bearing, one would anticipate that the Court would be deemed a “supreme” court and that the document would also be deemed the “supreme Law of the Land”

One could also anticipate that the court being supreme would become the ultimate determinant of the meaning of the Constitution, not “We the People.” A characteristic that patriots like Patrick Henry feared and railed against. A characteristic that Hamilton promised in Federalist No. 78 would be the weakest branch of government because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse”.

Unfortunately, the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct as we more recently saw with the approval of Obamacare on an obscure reference to Congress’ power of taxation by the Supreme Court. No influence on purse? I think not.

Economic Influence

Do the rich ever create legislation that limits them? I think we all know the answer to that one. As expected, this group of wealthy men had little to say about the limits of wealth. I have no complaint about that, not because I am wealthy, but rather because as Jefferson once stated “that government is best which governs least”.

However, as time has passed, the rich are being given more and more advantages while the middle class is shrinking and the number of poor are growing. Corporate monopolies are growing as small businesses struggle mightily to stay afloat under the heavy regulatory and taxation climate of continually expanding government encroachment.

Perhaps the clandestine convention in Philadelphia could have used a few more commoners with a say in the proceedings?

Up Next

Hopefully, the above demographics can help you to have a better understanding of why the Constitution developed as it did and how it helped plant and germinate the seeds for what we have today. There are some other factors we still have not covered.

We can also understand how the secular, man dominant emphasis tends to support an authoritarian control over the people. Perhaps, the little acknowledged military background of the Washington Posedparticipants can help also explain why the seeds of war planted in the Constitution has become as much a part of our lives these days as driving a car.

Less transparent but clearly there is the anti-Christian nature of the document which explains the rise of non-Christian influences and the rejection of the Christian values that our nations real founders relied upon. I will probably address this issue further in a later post because it is more influential than acknowledged. It will also explain why the claim that the Constitution is a Christian inspired, practically sacred document is patently false and absurd.

Next, let’s take a closer look at quite possibly the most revered character in American history and guiding force of the Constitutional convention- George Washington. Without his presence and influence, it can probably be safely said that the Constitution would never have been ratified.

Read more in Part Four.

If the Constitution Was the Solution- Why Hasn’t It Worked- Part Two

As noted in tUS Constitution and Flaghe first post on this issue, it’s pretty obvious that the Constitution is not working as we are told it was intended to. We have been led to believe it was originally designed to limit our government, in turn both protecting and maximizing our personal freedom. The flag is all wrapped around it. You are considered unpatriotic if you do not embrace it as the foundations of our liberty.

However, unless you are sleepwalking through life here in America. simply, not paying attention. One can see that this intended result is pretty much a sham with no real meaning to it. Additionally, the so-called limited government is in our faces at every turn and growing ever more intrusive with every passing day.

However, even for those paying attention, there are other myths attached to the Constitution which distract us from the realization that perhaps the Constitution is not all that it is cracked up to be and has become quite possibly exactly what is was intended to be.

Perhaps if we actually saw the Constitution for what it actually is, rather than what we are told it is or supposed to be, we would begin to realize that the reasons it is not working today are buried underneath the myths attached to it.

Constitutional Myths

There is this aura associated with the Constitution. I mean, the fact that I can refer to the document as “the Constitution” and that nearly all Americans and even non-Americans immediately know what I am referring to points to how deeply embedded this myth actually is. Some even go far as to claim that it was divinely inspired. Many say that it reflects the principles of the Christian culture and the Christian God of the bible that dominated the colonial period.

There are books that even refer to it as a miracle like Catherine Drinker Bowen‘s “Miracle at Philadelphia” or the popular “conservative” classic “The 5000 Year Leap” which has on the top of the cover “A Miracle That Changed the World”. Through patient study and as a reformed Constitutionalist, I beg to differ with those characterizations.

Secret Meetings

Secret meetings are usually held because they wish to cover something up. One would not expect elected public officials to be engaged in them. Perhaps you would expect a few to gather US Constitution Meetingclandestinely to do something underhanded or illegal, but certainly not a large and geographically varied group. Yet, the meetings which resulted in our Constitution were conducted as such.

The “framers” of this document held closed-door meetings. They were not even permitted to disclose the contents of these meetings. The story of Ben Franklin on the steps being asked by the woman, “Well, what have we got?” who answered, “A Republic madame, if we can keep it.” confirms how little people actually knew about this meeting. Nothing to be proud of actually.

The obvious reason for this, as we now know, was that to rewrite government and create a Constitution was never the stated purpose of the Philadelphia convention in the first place. The meeting in Philadelphia invited 74 delegates, 55 showed up. (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were not among them.) The stated purpose of the meeting was to amend the Articles of Confederation. It was NOT to construct a completely new form of government which is what the Constitution actually did.

The “Unintended” Result?

The plain fact is that the meetings in Philadelphia ultimately led to a complete abandonment of the existing form of government. Under the Articles, we operated essentially as a league of nations. The nations being each state and the league being a general association of the States for the purpose of creating mutual cooperation and agreements.

The Constitution on the other hand is a document that established a central form of government or as noted in Article 4, Section 4 a “Republican form of government“. This is altogether a new form of government.

This was not the original intended purpose of the meeting scheduled in Philadelphia. I think we can plainly see here that this is why the meetings were held in secret. (That also may be why a true Christian patriot like Patrick Henry when asked about why he declined to attend the Philadelphia meeting later remarked, “I smelt a rat.)

This also may give us the first clue as to why characterizing the results of this on-going set of meetings in Philadelphia to generate the Constitution as a “miracle”is, in fact, over the top and incorrect.

A Miracle?

Looking back now, how is it possible to characterize the Constitution as a miracle? There is nothing miraculous about the Leviathan that our so-called Constitutional government has become. If anything, as debt and regulatory oversight of our lives continues to climb, far from being a miracle it has become a monster.

I don’t believe we can think of our Constitution as a “miracle” any more. Now, we have to wonder, why has it failed us? So let’s dispel this first myth of the Constitution. It is far from being a miracle.

Another Popular Myth

The Constitution was inspired by and reflected Christian principles. It is something akin to a sacred document. To be venerated along with the bible in fact.

Sorry to burst the bubble on this one, but sad to say that is simply not the case. Let’s begin with the fact that nowhere in the document is there any mention of God. Let me repeat that again, nowhere!

The Declaration of Independence mentioned “the Creator” and “nature’s God” but heck Deists like Thomas Jefferson (credited as its author) and even pantheists, accept a Creator and nature’s God. Deists and pantheists are certainly not Christians.

The actual reality is that the Constitution never mentions God once, anywhere!

So then where is the evidence that the Constitution was a divinely inspired, Christian oriented document? It is not in the document itself. That much is plain.

The PreamblePreamble of the US Constitution

Perhaps if we read the document we can get an idea of what it actually does represent. Let’s begin with the Preamble. “We the People…..” Wait! Let’s stop there for a moment.

What is this “We the People” thingy? The meetings were held by a small minority of appointed representatives in secret. “We the People” didn’t know anything about the results of those meetings until after they had ended. The people had no input whatsoever into the document. The men who attended these secret meetings were the ones who created it not “We the People…”

So for them to begin this document with the words “We the People” is a bit disingenuous shall we say? (That’s a euphemism for “telling a lie” or as Merriam-Webster’s puts it “not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere.”) The people had no clue as to what the meetings produced until after they were concluded.

Wasn’t Ratification “We the People” Then?

Well, you may say, the people had access to the information during the ratification meetings didn’t they? As it turns out, only about 20 to 25% of the eligible voting population voted during the ratification process. It passed by a 5 to 3 margin on average. Taking the highest percentage of 25% voting, that means that only a little over 16% of the colonial population ever voted to ratify the Constitution. That would not have included woman and blacks of course who were not able to vote at that time. That can hardly be considered a mandate of “We the People”.

Window Dressing Only?

One could claim then, “Well they only really used that phrase “We the people” for window dressing.” That is, it was only used to produce the view that the people created this document. This would help to assist in its approval. After all, it was really FOR We the People wasn’t it? So how could it hurt to dress it up a bit and make it look more attractive?

OK, let’s suppose that were true. Well then, doesn’t that also amount to another deceptive practice? Why the need to continue to resort to subterfuge after the document was completed and put before the people? After all, the document was already put together in secret (You know, like the Bilderburger meetings are conducted). Why the need for additional deception?

Christian Inspired?

What is more, “We the People” actually also constructs another God, so to speak. That is, a God substitute (since He is never mentioned anywhere in the document) calledWe the People“.

Doesn’t the authority for this document then become, in place of God, “We the People“? How then can Christians claim that it was a divinely inspired, sacred document or “a miracle” when it never mentions God once, and it makes “We the People” (Not God!) the authority for the document?

Fact is, by taking the document at face value, as it is (Which is something Constitutionalists push for, claiming that if we only stuck to the limited nature of the text of the document, it would be the solution for all of government overreach.) it is a secular document! Secular meaning- not spiritual nor religious.

How then can one claim it to be a Christian document? On face value, that is, what it actually presents to us with its language- it is not!

In fact, sad to acknowledge, while it may not be quite as blatantly generous to the State as the Russian or Chinese Constitutions, it is still a secular document just like them. This is to say, it places authority for rule squarely in the hands of man and clearly outside of the laws
of the Christian God of the bible.

In actuality, there is really no specific reference to Christianity in the document anywhere, nor God, certainly not Jesus. No, the God referred to in the Constitution, if any, would be “We the People”!

Can you begin to see where this may create a problem further on down the road? Oh and by the way, it didn’t take long. Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, and James Madison, a Unitarian, wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the 2nd President John Adams (a Unitarian) Alien and Sedition Acts which they (Jefferson and Madison) felt was a clear US Constitution Burningoverstep of the boundaries of the Constitution and human rights.

Next on the Hit Parade

I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Check out the Constitution itself. See if you find any reference to God in it. Read the Preamble and see what is established as the authority. If you have any familiarity with the bible, read it and see if you can find the parallels to the biblical laws of God. Could this be a contributor to why the Constitution has failed to accomplish its mission of limited government and preservation of freedom?

What I would like to touch upon next is the background of the men who wrote the document. After all, since it is basically a secular document and was written in secret, who were these men really? Why would Christians construct a secular document and completely disregard anything Christian? Let’s take a further look at the Constitution by peeking at the men who wrote it to see if this can help us to understand why this so-called “miracle” has so utterly failed us.

Read more in Part Three.