Published By: TheNatPat on October 21, 2014
By Craig Andresen on October 21, 2014 at 2:41 am
It had to be somewhere between pissed and panic mode after what transpired Sunday in Maryland and I’m willing to bet there were people hiding under their collective desks trying to dodge the verbal hand grenades, tirades and mayhem.
On Sunday, Obama forewent the golf course to do something he has, by and large, been begged NOT to do.
He campaigned for a liberal.
Most liberals in this midterm election year have kept the Dictator far, FAR away from their campaigns because, like rats off a sinking ship, they knew him to be a pariah.
Sunday…the ship deserted the rat.
The Lt. Governor of Maryland, one Anthony G. Brown, is running for the lead chair in his state and, in a move he’ll most likely wind up regretting, he asked Obama to speak at a rally.
Obama delivered a 25 minute speech but…just 10 or 11 minutes into his sad and sorry rhetoric…the crowd…started leaving.
They got up…they turned on their heels and…
Posted in: Countdown to Absurdity, Economic Policy, Education, Energy, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, History, Immigration, International, Life in America, Media, Politics, Race in America, Red/Blue Divide, Socialists and Communists, Special Features | Comments (0)
Published By: TheNatPat on October 20, 2014
By Craig Andresen on October 19, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Sooner or later, the proof that liberals suffer from mad cow disease would surface and, now we have it.
On Friday, the Dictator did what any left thinking ass hat would do to ease people’s undue panic over Ebola.
He named an EBOLA CZAR because, as everybody is aware, Czars have a long history of fixing things.
So…who IS our czar savior from the rampaging wild Ebolas?
Why…it’s none other than the FIRST person anybody would THINK of for such an important position. It’s the name that virtually LEAPS to mind when our health is at risk.
Ron Klain of course.
Ron Klain…oh come on…KLAIN…RON KLAIN!!!
I know what you’re wondering. Just who in THE hell is RON…FRIGGIN’ KLAIN??? He’s an…ummmmm…attorney. Naturally…but not just ANY garden variety ambulance chaser…oh NO…THIS Ron Klain used to be the chief of staff for…
Posted in: Countdown to Absurdity, Economic Policy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Immigration, International, Life in America, Media, Politics, Race in America, Red/Blue Divide, Socialists and Communists, Special Features | Comments (0)
Published By: Dr.RobertOwens on October 17, 2014
America was founded upon the principles of Natural Law. The Progressives led us into the realms of Legal Positivism. The vast government apparatus they have constructed has progressed into a dystopian fantasy land beyond law where faceless bureaucrats in an alphabet soup of departments create regulations with the force of law from thin air. Such is the journey from tyranny to tyranny in ten generations. Such is the journey from law to anti-law.
We built this Republic on the foundation of Natural Law:
The opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence is unarguably the most famous. Countless American students have memorized it, regurgitated it for exams, and many can still recite it many years later.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
While many will point to this preamble as a statement of why the Declaration was made few in our present generation can define what Thomas Jefferson was referring to, which was a common term and a common understanding at the time of its composition, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
In his book, The Five Thousand Year Leap, by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen,he points out that “…the debates in the Constitutional Convention and the writings of the Founders reflect a far broader knowledge of religious, political, historical, economic, and philosophical studies.” He also states, “The thinking of Polybius, Cicero, Thomas Hooker, Coke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, John Locke, and Adam Smith salt-and-peppered their writings and their conversations. They were also careful students of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and even though some did not belong to any Christian denomination, the teachings of Jesus were held in universal, respect and admiration.”
The ancient Roman Cicero was a victim of turbulent power politics and eventually killed for writing against the dictatorship of Caesar, but in his writings On the Republic and On the Laws he spoke about Natural Law. He spoke of it as True Law or Right Law. “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting;…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people…one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law,…”
Introduced in 1766, Blackstone’s became the law book of the Founding Fathers. In fact, political scientists have shown that Blackstone was one of two most frequently invoked political authorities of the Founders. Like Cicero more than a thousand years before Blackstone recognized Natural Law as the sure foundation of human society when he stated, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (the law of nature’s God), depend all the human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”
In essence what all this means is that there are laws greater than any laws man can make therefore there are areas which are beyond legislation. In America we attempted to safeguard those areas such as individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity with a constitution. This Constitution was written to limit the power of government to those powers and only those powers which had been specifically delegated to it.
The final amendment in the Bill of Rights reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It would be hard to be more clear. However this amendment has been interpreted into irrelevancy as the Progressives made their long march to power.
The Progressives nudged us into Legal Positivism:
Throughout the last twenty five years if we spoke of “the laws of nature” many Americans would think we are speaking of doing whatever comes naturally as typified in the saying, “If it feels good do it.” Most seem not to consider the relevance or even the existence of absolute truth or God’s Law.
To the leaders of today and the compliant populace they and their government controlled schools have indoctrinated man’s law as supreme. The epitome of this is extolled in the belief in a “Living Constitution.” One in which everything is constantly evolving, and where people, legislatures, and courts do not seem to be concerned with a constitution meant to limit the power of government. Instead they say relevance and necessity drives them to interpret a constitution which empowers government to do anything it decides is necessary.
This brings us to the legal philosophy which undergirds this assault upon traditional American law: Legal Positivism.
This legal philosophy posits that law consists exclusively of that which is created and directed by the human will. In other words with the limiting guide of Natural Law removed the appropriateness of government action becomes a question of mere legality. Anything which has become law is acceptable. The Final Solution of the Third Reich was legal. The purges of Stalin were legal.
As one German professor intellectually paving the way for the Nazi dictatorship stated in his analysis of the death of limited government after World War One, “fundamentally irretrievable liberty of the individual … gradually recedes into the background and the liberty of the social collective occupies the front of the stage.” He further notes that this change in the emphasis of freedom from the individual to the collective signaled the “emancipation od democratism from liberalism.” Remember that in this context Liberalism had its original meaning, which is advocating liberty, and not its corrupted American meaning, advocating for exactly what the good professor was describing.
This newly liberated democracy equates the state with the legal code. Whatever the majority decides is legal is right. This leads inevitably to the position that there are no limits to the power of the legislator. There are no natural rights and no fundamental and inviolable liberties.
Turning traditional reasoning on its head the proponents of Legal Positivism advanced the position that when a state is bound by law it is an unfree prisoner of the law. They reasoned that in order for a state to act with true justice it must be free of the law. Since personal freedom and the rule of law are inseparable as Legal Positivism overtakes a state, personal freedom becomes progressively more proscribed until the individual is enmeshed in a bewildering web of laws.
By the end of the twentieth century America was tangled in law after law. The Federal laws alone fill more volumes than anyone could carry: libraries full of laws written by lawyers often weighing out the gnat while swallowing the camel. There were laws about this and laws about that until finally there were laws about everything. Until even those we have elected to protect and defend the Constitution believe, as one Congressman said, “The Federal Government can do most anything in this country.”
Today we are entering the rule of Anti-Law.
With the prevalence of omnibus bills numbering thousands of pages written to read like telephone books with addendums and commentaries in insurance speak, the legislature has abdicated its power to bureaucrats who fill in the blanks.
The situation is typified by statements by some of the leaders of the post-constitutional Obama Congress. From the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s famous, “We’ve got to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill,” to perpetual incumbent Congressman Conyers outburst, “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
The philosophical position of the rule of bureaucracy has been best stated by Soviet political theorists attempting to explain and justify that great prison of nations: the USSR. One put it this way, “Since it is impossible to distinguish between laws and administrative regulations, this contrast is a mere fiction of bourgeois theory and practice.” Perhaps the best description of the Soviet position is from another Russian, “What distinguishes the Soviet system from all other despotic governments is that … it represents an attempt to found the state on principles which are the opposite of those of the rule of law .. and it has evolved a theory which exempts the rulers from every obligation or limitation.”
Or as a Communist Theorist summed it up, “The fundamental principle of our legislation and our private laws, which the bourgeois theorist will never recognize is: everything is prohibited which is not specifically permitted.”
Here we are in a land strangled by regulation. Our elected officials pass laws they don’t read about things they don’t understand and unelected bureaucrats fill in the gaps. As can be seen in the IRS scandal they see themselves as above the law and there seems to be no way to make them accountable. Like a runaway train involved in a slow motion wreck the citizens stand helplessly by as our nation implodes. We can vote for one of the parties of power; however, they are merely two heads on the same bird of prey. No matter which one is in power the government grows and grows.
How do we end this death spiral? How did Washington, Jefferson, and Adams do it? We started with the Declaration of Independence so we might as well end there,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.
These were dangerous words then, and they are dangerous words now. Let each citizen swear to do and be whatever is necessary to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. God bless America.
Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Published By: TheNatPat on October 17, 2014
y Craig Andresen on October 17, 2014 at 3:33 am
A Conversation Between Craig and Diane
Craig: I think it’s time we have a conversation about the election coming up on November 4th. I’m seeing a lot of stuff in social media that has nothing to do with the election and it’s starting to concern me that people are getting apathetic and won’t go out to vote.
Diane: Yeah Craig, I know what you mean…apathy just like in 2012…and we all know how that turned out now don’t we.
Craig: It seems a lot different now in 2014 than in the last midterm in 2010. In 2010 everybody on our side was on the same page, we showed up at the polls in record numbers for a midterm, and we voted on the politics and policies of Obamacare.
Diane: ObamaCare…the anything but healthcare we were promised…lie after lie being shoved down our throats by those who didn’t even bother to read it before they voted on it.
Craig: It seems to me that we only have a couple of weeks left to get our side motivated and focused on the real issues. If we can do that we can turn this midterm into the 2010 midterm part 2.
Posted in: Abortion, Constitution, Countdown to Absurdity, Economic Policy, Education, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, Healthcare, Immigration, International, Life in America, Media, Middle East, Politics, Red/Blue Divide, Religion, Socialists and Communists, Special Features | Comments (0)
Published By: TheNatPat on October 15, 2014
By Craig Andresen on October 15, 2014 at 3:31 am
Just a few months ago, on June 23rd, 2014 as I outlined in a National Patriot article, Bush Was Right – Saddam Had WMD ISIS had overrun and captured Al Muthanna…the Saddam Hussein chemical stockpile in Iraq…the very chemical weapons liberals far and wide have claimed never existed.
In that article, I stated two VERY important things.
First: “Muthanna is, in fact, where Saddam Hussein manufactured and stored…WMD and is now believed to be where the gas he used against the Kurds came from.”
And Second: “ …if they can find a way to transport the sarin, the VX and the mustard gas stored there, if they can find a way to disperse it in populated areas…the horrors we’ve seen over the past two weeks perpetrated by ISIS will pale by comparison.”
ISIS…the marauding 7th century barbarians have now used 21st century weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds in the Syrian city of Kobani and if you think they will stop at that…
Posted in: Countdown to Absurdity, Foreign Policy, Immigration, International, Life in America, Media, Middle East, Politics, Red/Blue Divide, Socialists and Communists, Special Features, War and Peace | Comments (0)
Published By: TheNatPat on October 12, 2014
By Craig Andresen on October 12, 2014 at 4:19 am
We have an election in 3 week’s time. It may well be THE most important midterm election of our lifetimes and rather than paying a lick of attention to the things that really matter…far too many are being distracted by…
OH LOOK…A SHINY NEW BALL!!!!!!
A couple of days ago, Lala Land airhead Gwyneth Paltrow makes some oozy, schmoozy comments about the Dictator and yesterday…social media was CHOKED with the crap.
WHO GIVES A RAT’S ASS WHAT PALTROW SAYS OR DOES???
Last Wednesday, an off duty cop shot and killed some upstanding 18 year old in St. Louis and the streets of Ferguson LIT UP with BURNING AMERICAN FLAGS and once again, social media was clogged up tighter than eco-toilet at a democrat national convention.
WHO REALLY GIVES A CRAP? The punk had a rap sheet, an ankle monitor and, according to his cousin, a sandwich.
Cops recovered the 9mm stole sandwich which this piece of garbage was pointing and firing at the off duty cop from the scene.
3 weeks people. That’s all we have left is 3 weeks and if you’re not paying more attention to the midterm election in your state than you are to each and every shiny ball rolled across the floor by liberals than YOU are part of the PROBLEM when you SHOULD be a part of the SOLUTION!!!
OH MY GOD…
Posted in: Abortion, Constitution, Countdown to Absurdity, Economic Policy, Education, Energy, Entertainment, Environment, Europe, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, Healthcare, Immigration, International, Life in America, Media, Middle East, Politics, Race in America, Red/Blue Divide, Religion, Socialists and Communists, Special Features | Comments (0)
Published By: Dr.RobertOwens on October 10, 2014
The once haute couture No Drama Obama has fumbled his way to the “What me worry?” of Alfred E. Newman.
After almost five full years of the coolest, smartest, least prepared president America has ever had it has become obvious, even to the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media, that except for efforts to transform America into a Social Democracy we are rudderless.
In Josh Kraushaar’s “Obama’s Pass-the-Buck Presidency” in the National Journal we are told, “The president has a pattern of deflecting blame and denying responsibility.” After an off-duty officer tackled the recent fence jumping knife totting intruder in the White House, after a gun totting felon was allowed on an elevator with the President, and after it was revealed that there have been more than a thousand security breaches on Obama’s watch one Secret Service Agent told a Congressman recently, “We just keep getting lucky.”
There in a capsule is our hope for America. Let’s just hope we keep getting lucky. We have been able to survive the Clinton interlewd. We survived George II and his endless wars for peace. If we are lucky we will survive BHO and his campaign to remake America. That is a big if.
While President Obama seeks to throw the Intelligence Community under the bus for his failure to react to the rise of ISIL it turns out that he has been getting explicit warnings all year. Now we learn that he skips over half of his intelligence briefings or as one source at the State Department puts it “He receives briefings whenever he can.” One Obama national security staffer said, “Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president’s daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about ISIL have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the 2012 election.”
Maybe if we put the cover of Golf Digest on the intelligence briefings they would get a closer read? Perhaps somebody could put them in the 10 letters he reads every day to stay connected to the common people.
I don’t believe that he isn’t told. I don’t believe he doesn’t know. I believe he doesn’t care. His only interest is in his agenda: the transforming of America. Anything outside of that is a distraction, and something to be shooed away until the polls say he has to do something. Except for the transformation processes it is government by reaction moving by fits and starts into the shabby dim future.
Whether you agree with the president’s new war or not the fact that he seems to learn everything from watching the news should be disturbing to anyone. Especially since anyone who has been watching the news knew about ISIL at least since they captured Fallujah back in January. It makes me wonder what news is he watching: The Daily Show?
They called Reagan the Teflon President because no matter what happened nothing ever seemed to stick to him. Perhaps we should call BHO the Teleprompter President. It seems as if he doesn’t read it on his teleprompter he doesn’t know about it. Then again without the teleprompter and the Hollywood script writers he doesn’t sound quite as slick as we usually hear him in his stage-managed photo ops.
Or perhaps it is as the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media spin it, “Obama is so smart that his mouth can’t keep up with his brain” This explanation resonates in Academia where Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss is on record stating that BHO is the smartest man to have ever been elected president even though he admits he has no idea about the president’s IQ. Or as Mark Steyn explains the spin, he is just too smart to be President and we were too dumb to know he was too smart.
Just like the legions of economists who are constantly surprised by whatever seems to happen next, our Teleprompter President is waiting to see what he reads next to know what happened yesterday. Perhaps we should change our national anthem to “Don’t Worry Be Happy,” our national motto to “What me worry?” and our national pastime to watching BHO golf.
So while our soon-to-be lame-duck president rides his golf cart into the sunset singing, “It ain’t me Babe, no, no, no it ain’t me babe” blaming everyone else for everything or as Bart Simpson is wont to say, “I Didn’t Do It, Nobody Saw Me Do It, There’s No Way You Can Prove Anything!”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2014 Contact Dr. Owens email@example.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Published By: TheNatPat on October 10, 2014
By Craig Andresen on October 10, 2014 at 4:06 am
KNOCK IT OFF ALREADY would ya? The wild Ebolas are not going to stampede through your town or neighborhood and get you.
Don’t get me wrong…there are precautions you should take to minimize any chance that you could be blindsided by a marauding Ebola and primarily among them is this carefully guarded bit of advice…
If you’re out and about, running errands or doing your daily business and you happen upon a puddle of someone’s bodily fluids…don’t…and I repeat…DO NOT frolic about in it….especially if it is a fresh puddle as the Ebola virus will only live for a matter of a quarter of a day or so in such conditions.
That, as I said, is the primary precaution one should take to avoid being attacked by a wild Ebola but there is one other very important and necessary precaution one should employ…
DO NOT WALLOW ABOUT IN LIBERAL BULLSHIT as THAT is a definitive carrier of the virus.
Good grief people…get a grip.
You want to worry about an epidemic? Worry about the epidemic of LIBERALISM which has been characterized by some as a MENTAL DISORDER. I however, see it differently. To ME…LIBERALISM is more like a brain eating amoeba and unlike the wild Ebola, liberalism is airborne.
Every time one of the infected opens its mouth, there’s a chance of it spreading and while you may THINK you’re immune to LIBERALISM, even a slight case can be deadly.
By spreading LIBERAL BULLSHIT across social media in regards to Ebola, you are, in fact, spreading LIBERALISM.
Here’s how it all works…
Posted in: Constitution, Countdown to Absurdity, Economic Policy, Education, Energy, Environment, Europe, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, Healthcare, Immigration, International, Life in America, Media, Men and Women, Middle East, Politics, Red/Blue Divide, Socialists and Communists, Special Features | Comments (0)
Published By: fsalvato on October 2, 2014
With the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder, unquestionably the most activist – and most divisive – attorney general in the history of the country, everyone seems fixated on who will replace him, and rightly so. The position of nation’s “top cop” is one of extreme importance. As was witnessed with Mr. Holder’s tenure, a biased, activist and agenda-driven attorney general can tear at the fabric of our society. But while everyone seems pre-occupied with who his successor will be, the possibilities of Mr. Holder’s future is what has some forward-thinking people concerned.
If Pres. Obama is swift of feet – and with Valerie Jarrett as his task-master it is hard to believe that he won’t be, he will see his next nominee for US Attorney General fly through the Senate confirmation process. This will happen courtesy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manipulation of the confirmation vote process. Susan Ferrechio writes in The Washington Examiner:
“Democrat changes to the filibuster last year should give President Obama’s attorney general pick a gliding path through the Senate in the lame-duck session.
“Last November, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate rules so that nominations for Cabinet positions and most judicial posts needed only 51 votes, instead of the 60 that had been required. That means the person President Obama nominates to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder will not face a potential Republican filibuster.
“Lawmakers plan to return Nov. 12, and no matter who prevails in the Nov. 4 elections, Democrats will remain in the Senate majority until the end of the year. Democrats control 55 votes, while Republicans make up 45 of the chamber’s lawmakers.”
No doubt, We the People will have to suffer through two more years of an activist Department of Justice, one too pre-occupied with “social justice” to give a second thought to “justice for all” or “blind justice.” Of course, it is hard to imagine a more divisive social justice activist than Eric Holder. Nevertheless, I am sure the man – or woman – who takes the helm at the DoJ will provide adequate protection for the Obama Administration, just as Mr. Holder did.
The question now is this. What is Eric Holder going to do? Mr. Holder, as it the case with the total of the Obama Administration sans Joe Biden, is a young man in political terms. His has a long and influential future ahead of him as the first Black activist US Attorney General. My fear is that Mr. Obama may want to reward his political “bag man” with a nomination to the US Supreme Court. And while it is not a sure thing, it is a possibility.
New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait reports that while Progressives wish to see Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire so that President Obama might seat another Progressive activist on the US Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg is none too fast to agree:
“If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”
Mr. Chait continues:
“The facts Ginsburg describes are true, but the conclusion she takes away from them is almost certainly wrong…
“It is true that Republicans retain the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. They may use this power to restrain the president from nominating a particularly objectionable figure, as both parties have done in the past. But if they use it as a generalized blockade, stopping Obama from nominating any mainstream Democratic figure, then Senate Democrats would almost surely enact another rule change. If Senate Democrats won’t sit still for Republicans using the filibuster to take away Obama’s right to appoint a federal judge, they surely wouldn’t sit still as Republicans prevent Obama from filling a Supreme Court seat…”
To wit, it is not only possible, but plausible that Mr. Obama, at the insistence of Valerie Jarrett and the Chicago Progressive machine, could nominate his trusted social justice foot soldier – before the new Congress is convened – to his just reward as a candidate for the position of United States Supreme Court Justice. All they need to do is to move the arguably less radical Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of the way to usher in Eric Holder, who would unquestionably serve as the most radically ideological justice ever to serve on the court.
So, the ultimate question for those who honor the Constitution is this. What is to be done to defend against this scenario becoming a reality?
One avenue to travel is to execute an all-out assault on every incumbent Senate Democrat running for re-election; an assault that would send the message that should they agree to confirm Mr. Holder as a Supreme Court Justice, extremely well-funded recall campaigns will be launched in the most vicious of manners against each and every one of them.
Another avenue that could be traveled is to take a page out of the Texas Legislature’s Democrat handbook. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could instruct the total of the Senate Republicans to refuse to return to Washington, DC, after the 2014 Midterm Election in an effort to refuse Mr. Reid a quorum call. Of course, Mr. Reid being the slippery politician that he is might find a way around that.
But one solid avenue would be for Republicans to thoroughly examine the constitutionality of the idea of the impeachment of a United States Supreme Court Justice. Fortunately, there is a wee bit of latitude in the US Constitution for this measure.
Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states clearly:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Emphasis mine)
That Mr. Holder was found to be in Contempt of Congress during his tenure as the attorney general, it is fair to say that he exhibited “bad behavior” during that time. In accepting a nomination to the US Supreme Court – and assuming the Reid-led Senate would confirm him, he would be taking the Oath of Office as a US Supreme Court Justice under false pretenses, as his past performance proved beyond doubt that he repeatedly violated the US Constitution by ignoring equal justice under the law for all Americans.
None of these choices are optimal but each presents a possible solution. And each should be considered seriously. An Eric Holder nomination to the US Supreme Court would be a direct threat to the United States Constitution, and one we can ill-afford.