Is The Obama Administration In Violation Of Our Constitution?

Commenter Ro says so. I think her comment is worth consideration:

I do disagree with you on a fundamental point, Pastorius. I do not believe the take-over of the car cos.; the forcing of the TARP; the (apparently) forced acquisitions by BofA; the AIG bail out; etc. are merely "outside the American Tradition." I believe that they are illegal.

Just as illegal as the FDR programs were.

We are exceptional because we were founded as a nation of laws and not of men. No majority vote of a President gives him the legitimacy or authority to do what this administration has done. (Bush was similarly overstepping legal boundaries at the end of his tenure).

The Constitution is clear - power is to be spread amongst the branches. Power is split among the federal government and the states. This is law, not tradition or opinion. 

I don't care if a court says it is OK to ignore the bankruptcy code, or to disarm citizens, or to enforce "hate speech" laws - ALL THOSE THINGS ARE ILLEGAL under our foundational law. 

The courts during FDR's tenure finally reached the right conclusions about his programs - but not before his infamous scheme to "pack" the court to bless his socialism.

If people do not understand and acknowledge that the Constitution is the basic legal architecture of this country, we are left with mob rule.

Why do you think this administration is supporting an anti-Constitutional usurper in Honduras? How can our leadership possibly support an attempted coup by the violation of the rule of law??? 

Well, the exact same thing is happening here, just less overtly. And it happened under FDR. And they amended the US Constitution to ensure it would not happen again - hoping that term limits could limit the damage a power-hungry executive could inflict on the citizenry.

So, if subscribing to the law of the land makes me a right-wing extremist or unrealistic, or fear-mongering, or alarmist - so be it.

If we lose the battle for our Constitution, we have lost everything. We are then completely a nation of men and not of laws.

Those usually end up as dictatorships. Which I guess is better than the alternative - failed states.

If people think I am overstating this, they need to read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg and then GO READ SOME OF THE ORIGINAL SOURCES.

Reading a bit about the philosophical foundations and history of the Enlightenment wouldn't hurt, either.

Because they probably don't teach anything about that in public school anymore, do they?

I am in fundamental, but not technical, agreement with Ro here. 

Obama and his collaborationists in Congress have passed TARP legislation, and have approved the government takeover of banks and automobile manufacturers. 

Obama is President, and of course, the Congress is the Legislative Branch of our government. Obama proposes policy to his friends in Congress, and he works with them to get that policy passed into law.

That is all according to the Constitution.

Ro may be correct in principle (and I think that, largely, she is), however, until the Judicial Branch rules that the Executive and Legislative Branches have exceeded their authority they are, technically, working within the law of the land.

As Epaminondas has stated her recently, this all has to work it's way through the courts. And, it will. 

If the Judicial Branch goes treasonous on us, then we will have a real problem on our hands.

The other day, Pamela at Atlas Shrugs was talking about the question of where to draw the line when deciding whether one might need to take up arms against a tyrant. She stated she draws the line at Speech. When the Freedom of Speech is taken away, then it is time to fight.

I agree, and that said, the only way they're going to shut me up is to come and tear my tongue out of my fire-breathing mouth.