Although it is hard for this old Welshman to believe, I now realize that I live in a monarchy, under the authority of a King. My King's name is Obama. Although he does not call himself a King I am smart enough to recognize the marks of kingship. When a man walks like a king and talks like a king, he is a King. Obama has all of the monarchical trappings except the scepter and the throne so I am forced to conclude that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is actually a functional kingdom, with Obama on the non-literal throne. Let me explain my position to you.
Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States (what the Socialist Democracy of Amerika was governed by when it was first established) describe the authority of a person it calls the "President." Here, in part, is what it says about this mythical figure, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...he shall have the power to grant pardons for offenses against the United States...he shall have the power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties...he shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, appoint Ambassadors...Judges of the Supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein provided for...He shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate...he may convene both houses and, on extraordinary occasions, he may adjourn them until such a time as he think proper." The above selections from Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution delineate all of the powers delegated to the President of the United States. Any president who attempts to do anything that goes beyond the powers specifically described above is in violation of his vow to uphold and defend the Constitution and should be impeached for doing so.
What I just wrote sounds quite quaint, doesn't it? What an ignorant and silly little man I must be. Don't I know that the Supreme Court has declared that the Constitution is a "living" document, free to be added to and subtracted from at will? Am I totally unaware that the Constitution is a "living" document and, as such, contains hundreds of civil rights not specifically described therein? How can I possibly be blind to the fact that the Constitution guarantees a woman the right to conspire with a government certified doctor to murder her baby? I guess I am just not very good at hermeneutics. When I read a document that is amazingly simple to understand I actually understand what it says. When the Constitution declares that it exists for the purpose of granting powers from the states to the Federal government and that whatever power is not granted within the document is reserved to the states, I don't have a problem understanding that. I guess I am just too simple minded to understand how the historical document known as the Constitution can be interpreted exactly the opposite of what it says and I somehow then end up being the crazy person in the room.
There is one more little thing that the President is permitted to do. It is found in Section 3 and says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Are you aware that that little phrase serves as justification for the mulit-million dollar process, paid for by the taxpayers, of creating and serving the President's Budget upon Congress? Where in the Constitution is the President empowered to create a budget? Nowhere. In fact, the Constitution specifically states that all revenue bills must originate in the House. The Senate may not propose a tax increase and the Executive Branch, including the President, has no authority whatsoever to propose a tax increase. In fact, neither of them may have anything to do with tax bills at all. Section 8 of Article I specifically states that Congress shall be responsible for all spending bills and, thereby, is exclusively responsible for the creation of the federal budget. This being undoubtedly the intention of the original governing documents of this land, where does the President get the authority to propose a budget? I conclude that the President does not have the authority to propose a budget. I also propose that we do not have a President, we have a King.
An Associated Press article written by David Espo described the President's proposed budget for the upcoming year. Here is some of what Mr. Espo wrote, "With higher taxes on the wealthy and billions in new spending, President Barack Obama's no-balance budget lays down an audacious challenge to Republicans who swept to full control of Congress last fall and now claim a mandate to elminate deficits in the next decade. Make that the second audacious challenge in the past three weeks -- coming after a State of the Union address in which Obama threatened to veto Republican legislative priorities and demanded lawmakers enact his own....To do that he tars Republicans as apostles of 'mindless austerity' that has set back the economic recovery....the word 'austerity' appears seven times in a 17 page introduction, none of them favorable and usually attributed to Republicans and described as mindless or needless." Does the President/King's budget make constitutional sense to anyone? Please help me to understand. Where in the Constitution, which the President swore an oath before God to uphold by the way, does it say that the President has the right to "demand that lawmakers enact his own" budget? Furthermore, the belief that the budget of the federal government of the United States, as it now approaches $4 trillion in spending as well as massive annual deficits, is somehow an example of austerity must make us question the sanity of our President/King.
What I find most interesting in this entire matter is the fact that nobody is pointing out what I am pointing out in this blog post. Republicans are screaming to high heaven about how the President's budget is dead on arrival in Congress but nobody that I have seen or heard is saying anything about the fact that the President has no right to propose a budget in the first place. The role of the President, as clearly defined in the Constitution, is simple. The Republicans are up in arms over the fact that he has said he will veto many of their proposed new laws but the right to veto is a right given to him by the Constitution. That presidential right is found in Article I, Section 7, under the powers and authorities granted to Congress. So I find myself in this strange new world where Congress is complaining about the constitutional things the president might do while, at the same time, accepting all of the unconstitutional things the president does. Have they all gone mad?
I will answer my last question. No, they have not all gone mad. They have all made the rational decision to ignore the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution. Both Congress and the President do not want to be limited in their powers so they have struck a new deal in which they pay lip-service to the Constitution, even going to the point of mocking God by swearing a false oath to it, and then go about their business under the terms they have agree to among themselves. Under the terms of the new agreement, which are written down nowhere and disclosed to no one but themselves, the office of President has been transformed into the office of King. Most important to all concerned, the new rules are designed to allow them, both Congress and the King, to promulgate their positions in perpetuity. The new rules create a permanent ruling class of career politicians. That, of course, is their goal. Leading the country is just a ruse designed to fool the electorate and keep themselves in power. It works quite well, does it not? Long live the King!