Does Obama Deserve Reelection?

Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:32 PM By Brian Niemeier , In , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post is not intended to support any particular candidate. Both major parties have done a remarkable job of undermining the prosperity, happiness, and liberty of the American people. However, only one major candidate has transcended the incompetence and elitism that defines the national leadership and set a course toward despotism.

That candidate is the current incumbent, President Barack Obama. Let's ignore the constant stream of partisan propaganda hyping each party's pet economic theories, candidates' personal shortcomings, and fear tactics involving social programs. Instead, let's put these perennial concerns in perspective by taking a step back to examine Obama's worthiness to hold office in light of the presidency's constitutionally defined role.

Article II of the United States Constitution establishes the office of the president and that office's powers. If you took your Constitution test as long ago as I did, here's a refresher: the president is the chief executive of the United States, responsible for signing acts of Congress into law. The president is also Commander in Chief of the US military. In short, the president is the highest law enforcement authority in the nation.

Considering the vast scope of the executive's power, it makes sense that an individual entrusted with so much authority has to swear an oath before taking office. By taking this oath, the president swears to, "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Earlier this year, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act. This law gives the current Commander in Chief and his successors the option to detain US citizens in military prison without trial. The NDAA contradicts several Constitutional provisions, including Article I and the Fifth Amendment.

A second constitutional violation that is perhaps less blatant but more grievous than the NDAA is the Department of Health and Human Services mandate forcing religious organizations to cover drugs and procedures to which they are morally opposed. For example, the mandate will compel Catholic hospitals and universities to include abortifacient drugs and surgical sterilizations under their insurance plans. Helping to pay for such drugs and procedures would make these institutions material cooperators in activities which their religious tradition regards as immoral. The HHS mandate even applies to companies owned by private individuals holding similar values. One such company has already won a preliminary court victory against the Obama administration, with the judge stating that the owners would suffer "irreparable harm" if forced to follow the mandate.

The president's support of his HHS secretary's mandate could be an even graver affront to the Constitution than the NDAA because the HHS mandate violates what is perhaps the single most fundamental constitutional principle: government non-interference in religion as stated in the First Amendment.

When he first took office, President Obama swore a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The oath of office is significant because it sums up the president's duties and sets the limits of executive power. President Obama has repeatedly infringed and ignored the constitutional limits of his authority. In doing so, he has broken his vow to the American people and moved the nation incrementally closer to dictatorship.

Regardless of political affiliation or religious confession, no American of intellectual integrity can deny that President Obama has abused the authority that we entrusted to him. Having made this difficult and disturbing conclusion, anyone continuing to support Obama's candidacy commits the worst hypocrisy.

0 comments:

Post a Comment