DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY: THE PRESIDENT'S DUTY

DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY: THE PRESIDENT’S DUTY

Article II, Section I of The Constitution of the United States: The Presidential Oath of Affirmation states “I do solemly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Any federal law that has justly been approved and entered into the United States Code becomes part of the Law of the Land, the Constitution. Therefore, the protection of our country, in any terms from protecting our borders to protecting our environment, is a direct obligation of the President of the United States. Question: When is the President of the United States of America guilty of violating the Law of the Land? Answer: when he willfully violates the Oath of Affirmation.
The current President, Barack Hussein Obama (heretofore to be referred to as BHO) has willfully violated his oath on many occasions in just the first 17 months of his ongoing term. For the sake of argument, this evaluation will focus on specific events.
BHO, as the leader of his administration, has violated 18 USC 600, which states “Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” In addition, BHO has violated 18 USC 595, which states (in part) “Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States…uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” These violations of federal law occurred on two “recent’ occasions: during the attempt by representatives of the BHO administration, directly (as in the deputy chief of staff Jim Messina) to coerce Andrew Romanoff to back out of his candidacy as Democratic nominee for Senator of Colorado by offering three federal administrative positions and indirectly (as in attempt by former President Clinton by request of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) in offering a “high level, non-paying position”, as stated by White House press release, to Rep. Joseph Sestak in lieu of his backing out of his candidacy as Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania. WHERE IS THE LEGAL OUTRAGE AND JUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THESE ADMITTED ACTIVITIES?
BHO openly violated Article II, Section 2 by appointing “czars”/advisors who are openly involved in policy making but were not subjected to consent by the Senate. The childish argument that “this has been an ongoing practice” is not justification for violating the Law of the Land. It is time for this practice to be outlawed by the judicial system and condemned by the Senate. WHERE IS THE LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE OUTRAGE AND JUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THESE ADMITTED ACTIVITIES?

For sake of argument, I will submit the following judicial interpretation of Executive Orders: Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
Executive Orders allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress, which is in contrast to the logic of the Constitution’s “checks and balances” philosophy. On many occasions, Congress have passed laws without any direct method of how to implement them. Basically, these leaves any federal agencies affected by such law with the decision as to how to implement the law. The President is overall in charge of all federal agencies during his or her term(s). This scenario allows for wide open interpretation, which Presidents have followed thru by providing specific details via Executive Orders. This is the case for Jones Act of 1920. One problem in implementing this law, which requires intercoastal shipping of goods in U.S. maritime vessels, deals with the cost incurred by U.S. maritime in moving overseas cargo incoming to the U.S. from foreign to U.S. vessels.
When Denmark offered the use of their numerous scrubbers in the Gulf of Mexico immediately after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster, BHO refused to initiate an executive order to temporarily exclude the requirements the Jones Act, which ultimately resulted in the widespread oil slick, along with the crude oil’s inwater separation that has created plumes underwater. This is a flagrant action by BHO to neglect his duty to protect our shores and territorial waters. A future post will also show how BHO has violated the Jones Act by allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in American sea lanes. WHERE IS THE REAL OUTRAGE FROM THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND FROM THE LEGISLATIVE BODY??

One of the major duties of the President of the United States of America encompasses protecting our country (and therefore our borders) from enemies, foreign and domestic. However, BHO has openly shown his neglect to protect our southern border from illegal immigration. The only actions that BHO has taken are providing personnel to help in an administrative fashion, while the illegal immigration rate continues to increase and brings over violent criminals. What is needed to protect our border is more manpower on the ground controlling the border, along with completion of the border guard fence. However, the BHO administration continues the same actions that were evident in our last administration by refusing to provide the necessary means to stop and turn back any attempts at illegal immigration across our southern border. This has resulted in the passing of Arizona’s immigration law 1070, which will go into effect in July. As a response, the Justice Department announced on June 21, 2010 that a federal lawsuit will be filed against Arizona’s immigration law based on the supremacy clause of the Constitution. What the BHO administration has failed to recognize (or acknowledge) is that Arizona’s state law mirrors federal law Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code. In addition, the treatment and disposition of any illegal immigrants found in Arizona’s immigration law 1070 is to turn the illegal alien over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. In contrast, the federal law (Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code) declares an illegal immigrant has committed a federal crime and is punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment up to six months. Repeat offenders are treated under the federal law can incur up to two years in prison. As Governor Brewer (Az) said in response to the impending federal lawsuit, “Bring it.” By not providing protection on our borders from enemies foreign and domestic, BHO has once again violated his Oath of Affirmation. WHERE IS THE LEGISLATIVE OUTRAGE AND JUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION??
Now the latest regarding border protection and comprehensive immigration reform: Today, June 21, 2010, a video tape of a meeting between Arizona’s Senator Jon Kyl and citizens revealed that recently Senator Kyl was involved in a one-on-one conversation with BHO in the Oval Office. Kyl has reported that BHO stated that he would not support increased border protection because it would take away any leverage from Republicans on Capitol Hill in supporting his comprehensive immigration reform practice. Almost, immediately, a White House press corp designee denied that this was ever said, from which Senator Kyl has reconfirmed what he had previously said. The questions for We, the People are : Who do we believe? Does the remark by BHO reflect his obvious stance as regarding enhancing the protection of our Southern Border? I know what my answers are; what are yours? LET THE OUTRAGE BEGIN!!!