OBAMA'S QUEST TO CONSOLIDATE & EXPAND THE POWER
OF THE U.S. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
By Christopher G. Adamo
Of course, the primary suspect in this scenario is Elena Kagan, the newest member of the Court. It may seem pejorative to suggest that she could so flagrantly compromise the integrity of her office, except that, by remaining involved with the Obamacare court case, she has already done just that. Having stumped for Obama’s massive governmental power grab as his Solicitor General, she can by no means be objective in her current position. Yet, she flatly declined to recuse herself from the case. So, regardless of whether or not she actually divulged last week’s decision on Obamacare, the Supreme Court, as it currently exists, is in a wholly compromised condition.
Nor was the outrageous commentary on Monday, April 2, 2012, the first effort by Obama to wage war on the U.S. Supreme Court and all of those irritating constitutional limitations to his power that it currently represents. In the wake of his latest rant, many are recalling how he used the 2010 “State of the Union” message to disparage the Supreme Court for ruling against Campaign Finance “Reform.” Yet, his latest outburst reveals something much broader in scope and far more sinister than an episode of mere jockeying for power between two branches of the United States government.
Long before his inauguration, Barack Obama made clear his intentions to expand the reach and power of the U.S. government beyond any formal boundaries. In truth, this was the real essence of the “hope and change” rhetoric of his campaign. He and his kind are convinced they can usher in utopia, but only if they are first able to amass the power to forcibly make it happen. To their dismay, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not imbue their kind with that degree of unfettered authority.
So, in response to these circumstances, a sinister strategy was implemented to garner just such a capability. In rapid succession, every governmental office under Obama’s dominion began to exceed its boundaries and ignore any limits to its authority. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency was redefining its mission by implementing changes to environmental law through regulation, with no legislative authorization or oversight. Meanwhile, the U.S. “Justice” Department essentially legalized voter intimidation, as long as such acts were perpetrated by minorities against white America.
Although, in the past, these excesses would clearly have been construed as illegal abuses of power, it soon became painfully obvious that the “mainstream” media had no intentions of holding the Liberal perpetrators accountable. Instead, they consistently ignored such contemptible actions on the part of the political Left, while focusing like a laser on any critics of the Obama administration, with a goal of wholly discrediting the critics.
However, to the general dismay of Leftists, the public has responded by becoming informed and involved. Mainstream America is now alert to such mainstays of the Liberal agenda as “judicial activism,” and the dangers to liberty and constitutional law it represents. Consequently, the ability of unelected judges to make or abolish law, merely by subjugating it to their personal opinions, while remaining unnoticed and avoiding criticism, is a thing of the past.
In particular, the confirmation hearings of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito re-emphasized, and to a major degree reaffirmed the fundamental role of a Supreme Court Justice in upholding the principles of constitutional law, and not exploiting the office as a means of dictating personal policy to the masses. Assuming office within a few months of each other during President George W. Bush’s last term as President, Roberts and Alito were able to brave the onslaught of Liberal attacks and smear campaigns intended to thwart their confirmation by continually refocusing divergent questions from Senate Liberals on their constitutional merits, or lack thereof.
In contrast, the confirmation strategies of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama’s two Leftist appointees to the Court, were predictably centered on gender and ethnicity, with little consideration given to their total lack of objectivity in past adjudicating. While the intent of Conservatives is to ensure that the Courts preserve the integrity of the Constitution, as it is reflected in the nation’s laws and judgments, the goal of Liberals is to advance Liberalism, through whatever means they can.
Against this backdrop, it is imperative that Barack Obama and his political cohorts dissipate any spotlighting of the Constitution as the definitive standard by which the merits or pitfalls of a law is determined. In its stead, the unquestioned worthiness of Liberalism must be substituted. Hence, Obama has, on numerous occasions, sought to essentially redefine “judicial activism” in the minds of his minions as any opposition to his agenda.
Monday’s comments, whether based on leaked information or merely the general paranoia that characterizes all aspiring authoritarians, represented a brazen effort to diminish and discredit the Supreme Court on the basis that its only legitimate option is to rubber stamp Obamacare. In essence, he attempted to marginalize the Court in the eyes of the American people by dismissing any opinions it delivers which do not coincide with his own.
We have seen this Alinskyite pattern in the past. When unable to endlessly engage in wanton spending sprees under the auspices of government funded “stimulus” for the economy, Obama misrepresented the proper congressional oversight of federal spending as evidence of a “dysfunctional” Congress. In response, he promised to remedy the situation by sidestepping the Congress.
With each passing day, Americans are given further examples of their options for the nation’s future, which will be determined by who they decide to install in the Oval Office next January. Despite U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s subsequent attempts at “damage control,” Barack Obama’s statements stand, and their ramifications are inescapable.
Threats against the Supreme Court from an arrogant and narcissistic radical, based on that Court’s potential decision to preserve and defend the Constitution, foreshadow similar threats against every citizen who, whether at the ballot box or by the exercise of free speech, dares to do likewise.
The Constitution of the United States of America
American Government & the U.S. Presidency:
Presidential Politics & National Leadership
The American Political System:
Politics & Government in the U.S.A.
The American Political & Cultural Left:
Liberals, Statists, Socialists, Marxists, & Other Leftists:
The Democratic Party, Academia, & the Mainstream Media
Liberalism Versus Conservatism in American Politics
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His contact
information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
LINKS TO PARTICULAR ISSUES & SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES
TREATED IN THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, U.S.A.:
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * Foreign Policy, U.S.
France * Germany * Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration * Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor