Violating the Constitution is fine, so long as it’s done by a Democrat

By Frank for Liberty

President Obama faced criticism from both parties for completely bypassing congress and getting the United States involved militarily against Libya.

Democrat Representatives Barbara Lee of California, Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Jerrold Nadler of New York all felt that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the strikes without congress. Republicans including Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky, Richard Lugar of Indiana and and Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland agreed with their Democrat counterparts.

Ironically, many on the left are now apologists for Mr. Obama’s actions. These very same people would not have hesitated to kick and scream if this would have been done by former president Bush. It is unfortunate that the false left-right paradigm has seemingly removed the ability of so many people to critically think for themselves and see the larger picture of the manipulation on the population’s minds by the complicit media and their gatekeepers.

The violation of the constitution is extremely unacceptable no matter the party of the acting stooge who violates it, especially for a Constitutional scholar like Mr. Obama. The patriot act was unacceptable when a gullible and frightened congress was manipulated through fear to rush the legislation through. Democrats continually cited the so called “Patriot Act” as a violation of the constitution by George W. Bush’s administration but then voted Mr. Obama into office despite his having voted for renewal of the patriot act.

Is the Patriot Act alright now that the acting president has a D next to his name rather than an R? Is indefinite detention alright now because his party mascot is that of a donkey rather than an elephant? Is unconstitutional military action without an approval from congress alright so long as the so called anti-war left is leading the charge?

It should also be noted that the Patriot Act was written long before 9/11/2001. Many parts were taken from Joe Biden’s 1995 bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. “I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,” Biden said when the Patriot Act was being debated after 9/11.

President Bush took us to war with 17 United Nations resolutions. Overriding congress and our Constitution was much easier to do in the international arena. The United Nations likes having the power vested in one government official rather than any sovereignty set in place by local laws because it limits some of the red tape so it was only natural that this would be the chosen route. Additionally, they have an additional method of sidestepping criticism with absence of war by simply naming certain aggressive military actions as “Military Operations Other Than War”. Oftentimes these operations are sugarcoated as humanitarian aid missions and is easily accomplished by the complicit mainstream media.

While many of Mr. Obama’s fans make the claim that the president acted constitutionally regarding the “kinetic military operations” in Libya, it should also be noted that in 1957 (Reid v. Covert) the Supreme Court ruled that any international treaty that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law. Congress did not declare war on Libya and the administration’s attempt at wordsmithing to have the military strikes in Libya be classified as anything other than war leave many of us wondering exactly what kind of change we were promised.

Sources:
Joe Biden basically wrote the Patriot Act
Bipartisan Lawmakers: Obama Flouted Constitution
USA Patriot Act was planned before 911
Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW)
Give Peace a Chance
The Obama Administration’s “Kinetic Military Action”