It is often said that there is not much the Office of the President can do to right the wrongs currently plaguing our Republic; I disagree. Precedent would argue that new legislation is required to repeal old. However, there is NO support for this notion anywhere in the Constitution. An unconstitutional Law is NO LAW at all and the President’s oath REQUIRES him/her to NOT enforce said measure. Moreover, given that the recent House vote failed to achieve the necessary 2/3 standard for override, the Constitution’s supremacy over all other legislation, the Patriot ACT’s obvious disregard for the 4th Amendment, the MANY unconstitutional provisions in Obama Care and in accordance with the oath of office found in Article II to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” I will not take care to execute the Patriot ACT or Obama Care since they are both most certainly unconstitutional. Furthermore, since Legislation in conflict with the Constitution cannot rightly be said to BE the Law, I would also remove from these two measures the Office of the President’s signature by way of executive order and if the Congress wants them back they would need to comply with Article I, Section 7 and pass them with a 2/3 vote.

 

But all of this talk about 2/3 votes to override, and the fact that the recent passage of the Patriot ACT got VERY close to the 2/3 needed from both the House and the Senate, brings us to consider the “political question” (and I use that term on purpose and will explain why later); If the President knows a Law passed over his veto by the 2/3 vote needed to do so IS STILL unconstitutional, it may well be the Law, but shouldn’t the President then simply refuse to enforce it?

 

Certainly the Constitution requires that the President “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but when a Law, even one passed by a 2/3 majority conflicts with the Supreme Law of the Constitution itself which one should he/she take care to execute? The President is OATH bound to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; not so for mere legislation. Thus, on the books the Law passed by the super majority may remain for the next President to enforce; but if enough Presidents refuse to enforce the errant measure might this eventually push the Congress to fix what makes it unconstitutional?

 

By now some of your are screaming ‘yes but if any President did this the Congress would impeach him/her.’ Not so; the President may ONLY be removed from office by the Congress upon “conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes…” So wouldn’t a President who’s greatest commitment belonged to the Constitution and the Republic be willing to stand up to the Tyranny of the Majority when it is made manifest and blatant as has been done with both Obama Care AND now the extension of the Patriot Act? NO WHERE in this sparring over the political question between the President and the Congress is it necessary for the Supreme Court to intervene if the President is upholding his/her oath. And if he/she is not the remedy is STILL NOT for the Supreme Court to USURP this power for itself as it did Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison.

 

And now that the Supreme Court has been brought into the discussion I return to the “political question” mentioned earlier. The Supreme Court has held time and again that it will not involve itself in issues it considers turning upon the “political question” since these issues are supposed to be settled by VOTERS, We the People, NOT the Court. Moreover,  Judicial Precedent IS NOT our Supreme Law, the Constitution is. Judicial Precedent and Construction DOES NOT represent the will of We the People or our Consent to be governed, the Constitution does. So before you start quoting cases to me as if I was arguing before the court instead of before the highest authority in the land, that being We the People, I would ask you to recall that the Supreme Court broke the 5th Amendment to allow Slavery to continue. It did that again when it allowed Eugenics to be used upon us and again when it allowed all Citizens of Japanese ancestry to be sent off to internment camps. So you see, the Supreme Court is NOT the moral edifice to which so many offer it that deference…it is merely the third branch of a federal government all three of which have grown FAT and DRUNK off the power they have USURPED from We the People.

 

We should NEVER allow our consent to be governed to be infringed no matter what percentage of legislators in the Congress are willing to infringe it and we should certainly be prepared to support a Presidential Candidate running on a platform of checking legislative and judicial tyranny. Of course should the President, as has happened in the past, go too far with all of this, again We the People have the power of redressing THAT political question simply by voting him/her out of office at the next election and into office the opposing Candidate arguing to be the instrument of that redress.

 

Claiming that providing for the common Defense conflicts with the Constitution is nothing more than a lie told by tyrants to make us agree to the absolute despotism of a tyrannical government. Claiming that some Citizens MUST give up their earned wealth for the common good of other Citizens is another lie told by tyrants to make us consent to involuntary servitude. Fellow Citizens, it is well past time that we threw off these nefarious designs, tyrannies and usurpations of OUR POWER and elected a President who is actually prepared to conduct his/her office so as to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as well as the Lives, Liberty and Property of We the People.

 

RJ Harris

Constitutional Libertarian

http://www.harrisforpresident.com

http://www.facebook.com/RJHarrisOfficial