Constitution Study, Temecula CA, August 5, 2010 with Douglas V. Gibbs
Article I, Sections 4-7; Executive Comparison; Executive Orders; Recent Judicial Activism That Violates Article III
Article I, Section 4 addresses elections, and assembly of the U.S. Congress (both Houses).
Article I, Section 5 addresses the internal rules of the Houses of the U.S. Congress.
Article I, Section 6 addresses compensation for members of Congress, and all rules associated with compensation.
Article I, Section 7 addresses bills, and the process of such bills becoming law.
The powers provided to the Executive Branch are very different than to the Congress, and does not allow the Executive Branch to make law in any way. The office is primarily tasked with protecting the union.
Executive Orders are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Many believe that executive orders, in addition to the functions of modifying how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change), or to issue a proclamation, can modify existing law. Modifying law, however, would need to accompany the authority to make law, and that authority rests solely with the Legislative Branch. Therefore, any executive order that modifies the law is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants to the Congress all legislative powers, therefore, the Executive and Judicial branches cannot make law, repeal law, strike down law, or modify law. Only Congress can.
Executive Orders are nothing new, for George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations. Executive Orders and Proclamations, once again, are not law, but they do sometimes have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor.
The Emancipation Proclamation had a broader effect, but did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a law. It was a proclamation. It did change the course of the war, proclaiming the Civil War to be all about slavery, which encouraged the European Nations to step back in regards to their support of the Confederacy.
In line with that, we have often seen Executive Orders instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. But since the executive orders hold no power over law, we can simply refuse to follow unconstitutional Executive Orders if we wish. Congress can refuse to follow Executive Orders that modify law, as well, since the Legislative branch alone is tasked with making law. Problem is, Congress has not been functioning in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and has been allowing the Executive branch to wield more power.
This is why November is so important. We need to make sure that we vote into Congress representatives that understand the U.S. Constitution, or else Obama will continue his attempt to make Congress irrelevant, and will continue to pursue a course of making the Executive branch more powerful than our Founding Fathers ever intended it to be.
Recently, federal judges in district courts made rulings on the Immigration Law in Arizona, and Proposition 8 in California. The attached articles explain:
California Proposition 8 Declared Unconstitutional is Unconstitutional
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Proposition 8 in California was approved by voters in November of 2008. The new amendment to the California State Constitution dictates, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” A pair of gay couples sued, stating that the state constitutional amendment "deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 1983 is legislation put into place in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, a lower court federal judge, made his ruling on the case today, and came to the conclusion that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, claiming it violates the civil rights of those that exhibit gay behavior.
There are a number of issues regarding this issue and the U.S. Constitution. Not only is marriage a state issue, which means this case has no business in the federal courts, but also the decision by Judge Walker creates a contradiction in the court system.
A few weeks ago U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, indicating that the law "interferes with the right of a state to define marriage."
So which is it? The Left uses Case Law to define the Constitution, rather than the text of the founding document, and they use precedent law as their guiding light. Yet, the precedent law in place by Judge Tauro doesn't matter to Judge Walker. And how lawless does it make our system if two judges can disagree on whether definition of marriage is a state issue, and the Democrats agree with both?
On top of that, the courts claim they are enforcing the 14th Amendment. The amendment was designed to ensure that the emancipated slaves received the same rights and privileges as whites. The intent of the amendment is race, not behavior. If it is applied to behavior, such as the sexual behavior of homosexuals, how long before kleptomaniacs use it to justify their behavior, or pedophiles use it to justify their behavior, or polygamists use it to justify their behavior? Where would it stop?
One must also consider that the 14th Amendment ends with the words "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Yet, what we are seeing is the judiciary trying to enforce it.
A conflict of interest also exists in this case. Judge Walker is gay, so of course he is going to rule against Proposition 8.
What we are seeing is judges ruling based on personal opinion, or political agenda, rather than the law of the land. How is that the rule of law?
The losers of this ruling will appeal, and when the case goes to the next level, it will be appealed again by whichever group loses. Ultimately, this case will go to the Supreme Court, and with it, state sovereignty will go on trial. The real question is, will the Supreme Court apply the law, or act lawless as well?
Judge Bolton Blocking Parts of Arizona Law Unconstitutional
By Douglas V. Gibbs
We know that the Democrats could care less about the U.S. Constitution. They hold case law higher than the law of the land. In fact, sometimes I am not even sure they have read the Constitution in the first place.
A great example of how ignorant these bastards are when it comes to the Constitution is Judge Bolton's decision to strike down parts of Arizona's Immigration Law (SB 1070).
It is bad enough that the federal government is suing a State government. It is worse that the reason for the lawsuit is that the federal government is angry that the State of Arizona is willing to enforce the law. . . law that the federal government, many folks believe, is supposed to be enforcing themselves.
Well, according to the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, the federal government "shall protect each [State] from invasion."
As for the enforcement question, if one reads the Constitution, the federal government is not granted the authority to enforce immigration law (aside from sealing the border to protect us from invasion) anywhere in the text of the document. The 10th Amendment states that if an issue is not a federal authority, nor prohibited to the States, the authority belongs to the States. Therefore, enforcing immigration law at the State level is not only Constitutional, it is their responsibility.
The Constitution, when it comes to this lawsuit, comes to the rescue again in Article III. In the Ninth Circuit Court, which is an inferior federal court, Judge Susan R. Bolton struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law. Problem is, she didn't even have the Constitutional authority to hear the case in the first place.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…
“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court), meaning it should bypass all of the lower courts, and jump right up to the U.S. Supreme Court, simply because the State of Arizona is one of the parties in the case.
Sadly, this not only proves that Bolton either does not understand the U.S. Constitution, or is blatantly ignoring it, but that Attorney General Eric Holder, who filed the case in a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear it in the first place, also is either ignorant of the Constitution, or is circumventing it as well.
Jan Brewer, if she understands State Sovereignty, and the U.S. Constitution as I believe she does, now has a fantastic avenue to pursue. She can file a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, U.S. Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.
Then, if Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal (and as a liberal she probably would), Governor Brewer should then file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (an order to a lower court to do something correctly) in the U.S. Supreme Court asking that high court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal district court judge has unconstitutionally taken a case the U.S. Constitution prohibits the lower court from hearing, and that is a usurpation of power.
Let's hope Governor Brewer is also aware of this.