Our Voice

The President

The Constitution of the United States is comprised of:

SEVEN ARTICLES

Each has a specific purpose, defining the federal government, how it will operate and the authority and responsibility delegated by the Constitution to those various entities. The terms and conditions of the Constitution are very specific, limited and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution reserve all of the powers not so delegated in the seven articles to the states or to the people. It is clear that the Founding Fathers intended that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as constituted would be limited in scope and power, protecting and preserving the rights of each of the 13 states (at that time) and any future states admitted to the Union.

The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Constitution was determined, defined and implemented by:

 

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The Constitution was a people’s document intended by the Founding Fathers and all men and women in the then less than perfect Union to FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION.

And to establish justice. That was critical for them.

And to ensure domestic tranquility, peace among the people.
And provide for the common defense. And promote the general welfare.
And secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.

A more perfect Union, establishing a new and more permanent kind of justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, peace among the states and foreign governments, providing for the common defense wherever necessary to accomplish Constitutional objectives, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Noble objectives all and the reasons why the states gave up their individual rights so that collectively, they together could form a:

MORE PERFECT UNION

 

A brand new UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The Constitution in ARTICLE II provided for the establishment of the office of:

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Hear the words of ARTICLE II, SECTION 1:

THE EXECUTIVE POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
HE SHALL HOLD HIS OFFICE DURING THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS,
AND, TOGETHER WITH A VICE PRESIDENT CHOSEN FOR THE SAME TERM…
 

Four years to serve as President and then, in 1791 and beyond, subject to reelection or the return to private citizenship. Interesting how Section 1 refers to the President as HE. The founders never contemplated a SHE ever being President. I wonder their reaction when there is some good possibility SHE Hillary Clinton may become President of the United States.

In the course of American history since 1787, no President had ever been elected for more than two terms. In fact, first President George Washington steadfastly believed that he as well as other Presidents should not serve more than two terms even if reelection to a third term would be possible. But then came Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was elected, then elected to a second term, and then a third, and even a fourth where he died in office. That led to the ratification of the XXII Amendment ratified February 27, 1951 which forbad any citizen of the United States from holding the office of President for more than two terms, not 12 years, nor 16 years as FDR had hoped.

SECTION 1 of ARTICLE II further states emphatically that no person shall be eligible to be elected to the Office of President unless that person is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. There were many who thought in 2008 and do today that Barack Hussein Obama was not in fact a natural born citizen of the United States and should as a result not have been eligible for election as President, no matter the alleged legal birth certificate he produced from the State of Hawaii. There has even in this Election 2016 been accusations that candidate Ted Cruz was not a natural born citizen but apparently, that notion has been dispelled.

Further, says the Constitution ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 in order to be eligible to be elected as President, you must be at least 35 years old and the candidate must have been “14 years a resident within the United States.” In those early Constitutional days, lifespan was much shorter than today, education and maturity factors were different, sufficient thought the Founding Fathers for election having attained the age of 35. Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama is a modern day version of that age requirement, elected President as a man in his late 40s perhaps equivalent to 35 of old.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 provides that should the President be removed from office (impeachment), or death, or resignation, or inability (disability) to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Vice President shall succeed permanently in the event of death, resignation or impeachment, but only temporarily in the event of disability, the elected President being restored to office when the disability has been removed. In any such case, one can see how critically important the choice of Vice President by the President can be for that citizen, male or female, could very well become the President permanently or acting in any of those four years. Now come Clinton and either Trump or Cruz, presumptive nominees and one of those three will very well be the next President of the United States. We should watch ever so carefully the choice made by the candidate for Vice President. As voters, we should require that the citizen chosen should be, in our voting estimation, fully qualified to lead our great country. We the people can elect the nominees, and ultimately elect the President him-herself. We have little or no influence or input with regard to the choice of a Vice President by any candidate. But again, that choice should very much influence our vote.

So then, WE THE PEOPLE elect a President. Before that citizen enters “on the execution of his office,” he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND WILL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

So that, the first and primary duty of the newly elected President is to:

PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

Not interpreted, not find ways to work around it, not to exploit gray areas or add definition to the rights, privileges and duties granted by the Constitution. But only to:

PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND

So many think Barack Hussein Obama, supposedly a Constitutional student and even expert, has done anything but. In fact, in so many ways his Administration has ignored the Constitution, reinterpreted it, challenged the states and the Supreme Court with Executive and Agency actions and otherwise sought to radically redefine or eviscerate the clear demands of this great document and its Amendments.

And, there is more to come, nine months more.

There are powers granted by the Constitution expressly and implicitly to the President to issue Presidential orders, so-called:

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

As the President is charged with the implementation of the Constitution and the laws and legislation of the federal government, and with respect to the functioning of federal agencies, the President can issue Executive Orders which have the force and effect of law. Those Executive Orders can even circumvent the law, ignore the plain wording, reinterpret meaning and even establish new policy. No President in the history of the United States has issued more or more radical Executive Orders than Barack Hussein Obama. With, in his words his “phone and his pen,” Obama has preempted much of the authority of Congress, House and Senate, ignored judicial precedent and implemented his philosophies and priorities wherever possible so often without regard to Constitutional or legislative requirements. This President has often disrespectfully ignored Congress and operated independently of the legislative body often with impunity. The Constitutional checks and balances with regard to the House and Senate of Congress, and the Supreme Court are ignored as this President takes the OFFENSIVE by issuing his far-reaching EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

The Constitution requires a full respect of states’ rights by the federal government, its entities and of course the Supreme Court as constitutionally determined in Amendments IX and X. The EXECUTIVE ORDER SYNDROME of Obama has ignored those rights and treated the rights of the 50 states guaranteed by the Constitution in disrespectful ways, evoking the so-called powers of the President through Executive Orders to accomplish his-Obama’s objectives. Consequently, Constitutionality, the Rule of Law, the balance of powers and especially states’ rights are now all in disarray and a certain governmental chaos exists federal and state, litigation everywhere, demands upon the Supreme Court for final interpretation and resolution so that in de facto ways, the country is ruled is ruled by six people, the President of the United States and at least five of the justices of a Supreme Court of the United States. Such a state of affairs in America today was never intended or even comprehended by THE FOUNDING FATHERS. It is, many think, the Executive power of the United States run wild, a President out of control and Executive Orders trumping legislation and the Rule of Law at the whim of one man. Some doubt that Constitutional order and balance will ever be restored. WE THE PEOPLE then live in uncertainty, unsure how to plan our lives or how the laws, rules and regulations of our country will change virtually at any time. That fosters a certain chaos and civil unrest which many think may eventually lead to CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. One man exercising the powers of the most powerful office in the world in unconstitutional ways can radically change the rights, privileges and duties of WE THE PEOPLE at any time.

Then comes ARTICLE II, SECTION 2. The first words read as follows:

THE PRESIDENT SHALL BE COMMANDER AND CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NACY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND OF THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Think then, my fellow citizens, of the awesome, the unbelievable power invested in the President to make decisions, ultimate decisions for the functioning of the military of the United States. This President, any President has the power and authority to order the use of a NUCLEAR BOMB, atomic weaponry of any kind. The President can order the Army and Navy as well as the militia to go to war, invade, protect and defend and otherwise use the ARMED SERVICES as he thinks right. The President can appoint those who are philosophically and politically akin to the President and his personal philosophies, and otherwise organize and discipline, lead and direct, devise military tactics as they see fit. In the case of our current President, the Armed Forces have become overtly politically correct. There are constant attacks against Christianity and the profession of faith in the services. Chaplains are harassed. American warriors are chastised, even Court Marshalled for expressions of faith no matter the Constitutional rights to do so. Punishments grow. Intolerance seems everywhere. That includes fostering the Gay Agenda often with preferences to the rights of any in the services who are LGBT.

Military budgets are often frozen or fundamentally and strategically changed in accordance with the priorities of the President. This current President Obama wants to reduce the might and power of our military forces and consequently military budgets have been restricted or reduced. Many are concerned about the defense of our country especially with nuclear capabilities, even on the part of terrorists, and the now current ability of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-armed, on the part of war-mongering nations to reach and wreak havoc on American soil. This day and age requires the most sophisticated modern and state of the art military awareness and preparedness but this COMMANDER IN CHIEF neutralizes and fails to invest in the American military and all of its forms as the dangers of this modern world require. So, we the people now think in terms of quite likely Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becoming in November:

COMMANDER IN CHIEF
OF THE ARMED SERVICES

Which of those three, would you invest with the awesome power and responsibility of ordering the explosion of a nuclear bomb or defending against one? That determination should be uppermost in your mind as you cast your vote in November. Which of these candidates would be better in the awesome responsibility of PROTECTING, PRESERVING AND DEFENDING this great country and we the people, as the Constitution requires? Which one? The future of our great country depends upon THE RIGHT CHOICE.

As COMMANDER IN CHIEF, there are few checks and balances as military decisions are made. There is considerable discretion in the President even though the Constitution infers collaboration, joint decision-making between the President and the Congress. Sometimes that occurs. More often, the President can and will act independently without advice or consultation and as he wishes. One man, one President initiated the war in Iraq. George Bush alone made the decision for our country to go to war against Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq. One man. That independent, perhaps even arbitrary decision resulted in America, we the people investing billions and billions of dollars in warfare rather than the constitutionally required GENERAL WELFARE, resulted in the loss of thousands of lives whether military or civilian, including the lives of thousands, tens of thousands of innocents, children and women all as the result of the decision of one man, one President. Congress funds the military, establishes budgets but once done, Congress has little authority or check and balance as military decisions are made. In then a military sense, the President can exercise autocratic, even dictatorial powers and decision-making which can drastically and dramatically affect the lives of 330 million Americans. We have no say in that decision-making. We are never consulted, nor are we allowed to vote. The motto and meaning of IN GOD WE TRUST is transferred to IN HIM WE TRUST. We have no choice or recourse other than impeachment which is almost impossible, not to mention time-consuming.

The military decision-making powers of the President can be exercised so as to
protect, preserve and defend our allies and friends and their nations. We can exercise military cooperation with other nations as we did in the Iraq War and Afghanistan and now in the Middle East in Syria and with regard to ISIS. The President in the person of Obama can order bombing, the use of drones to strike specific targets, invasions or otherwise not allowing soldier activity, boots on the ground, exercising the leverage and power of the American military supposedly for the benefits and interests of our great country. There can be no more awesome power freely granted constitutionally granted to one person, one man whose decisions can affect the lives of hundreds of millions of human beings the world over. Think about that, all of that my fellow Americans when you cast your vote in November. Which candidate should have the right to decide whether a nuclear bomb is exploded or the potential of one is defended against? WHICH ONE?

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 grants a further incredible power and right to the President as follows:

HE SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT REPRIEVES AND PARDONS
FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.

The power of the pardon is unbelievably wide and discretionary. For any or no reasons, the President can at any time grant pardons to anyone for any crime committed, erase the record and forestall any further punishment. In short, the Constitution provides for no criteria for the exercising of that incredible power. The Constitution seems to say to WE THE PEOPLE that if you elected this citizen as President, then you expressly or at least implicitly indicate your trust in him to make certain that justice is done that is that as the Constitution states ESTABLISH JUSTICE as the case may require. Presumably, the President when granting pardons is about the business of:

ESTABLISHING JUSTICE

And not granting pardons with any preferential purposes. In so many instances, pardons have been granted for crimes committed or alleged as such for political reasons, for financial reasons, for philosophic reasons for the personal gain of a President, a party, a cause or a common interest rather than for the sake of JUSTICE. That of course is an unbridled exercise of a very special constitutional power but examples of such exercise are replete and constant in American Presidential history. It seems as though every President does it for whatever reason. Barack Hussein Obama has nine months left occupying the Office of President. You may be certain that in January 2017, in his final days, Obama will grant PARDONS AND REPRIEVES to so many as Clinton did, and Bush did, and the other Bush did and in fact all Presidents did. Often, the Presidents wait until the very last moment, even the last day of office to grant and sign the pardons before the right and power to do so vests in a successor. So many of those pardons are not justice at work (established), but rather justice denied. Watch what Obama does in January 2017, my fellow Americans. Watch how Barack Hussein Obama defines, determines and ESTABLISHES JUSTICE.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 further provides instructions for the President as follows:

HE SHALL HAVE POWER, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE,
TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATORS
PRESENT CONCUR.

Yet another awesome responsibility. The President on his own initiative and with his presidential advisors can make treaties with any nation in the world as he wishes, with his own discretion and only after the fact, when the treaty is negotiated and signed, does the Constitution require our President to take a treaty, with national and international ramifications, including considerable legal ramifications to the Senate for approval. What an awesome power. 67 Senators, 67 citizens must agree and ratify. In some cases, that is a difficult task. Recently, there came to the world and our nation the treaty with Iran. So many were against it even as President Obama with Secretary of State Kerry negotiated and executed that treaty. So many thought it was a sham, unenforceable and the vast majority of terms and conditions in the favor of Iran. The treaty was designed to stop Iran in the pursuit of nuclear capability and of course nuclear weaponry. At the same time, economic sanctions against Iran were lifted and there was virtually no protection against Iran continuing to develop nuclear capabilities. Somehow, 67 Senators approved and ratified. Much of the vote was politically driven, along party lines, but any number of Republican Senators had to join Democratic Senators in order to make ratification possible. The end result was American bound nationally and internationally to the terms of what so many regard as a very bad agreement, one which should guarantee nuclear war in the Middle East and perhaps the world over in the near future. That international treaty has the full force and effect of law in the United States and we the people are bound by it. Unbelievable Presidential authority, don’t you think?

In whom of the candidates Trump, Clinton or Cruz do you think we the people should invest such authority? A critical choice, is it not? Think about that when you vote.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 invests the President with the power to appoint ambassadors to foreign countries. So often that is politically done, a reward to contributors or party favorites. Money given for political favor in return, political QUID PRO QUO. Some ambassadors are effective, others not, titular. Others do real and dangerous work like our Ambassador and his staff slaughtered in Benghazi. The man or woman who represents our great country and who relates to and interprets the thinking and political positions of other countries for us to know and react can be critical to the safety of our great country.

And perhaps one of the most important powers granted by the Constitution
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 is:

(THE APPOINTMENT OF)
JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT
AND ALL OTHER FEDERAL COURTS

That is an unbelievable power. Now comes the death of conservative scholar and constitutionalist Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice for 30 years. That death activates the right of Obama to nominate a successor, a new Supreme Court justice and in this case, a nomination which can very well tip the balance of power from conservative to liberal. Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, Chief Justice of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, one essentially liberal in Constitutional interpretation who, if confirmed by the Senate would change the balance and philosophy of the court from essentially conservative to liberal. Republicans have vowed not to hold hearings on the nomination, or allow voting on the candidate, or ratification voting by the full Senate, rather requiring, as the so-called BIDEN RULE states that the candidate should be nominated by the President newly elected in November. The Senate does indeed have that awesome responsibility and thankfully, the check and balance against an arbitrary appointment by the President. It will be most interesting to follow the Constitutional and judicial course of action taken by the Senate, even as the Supreme Court now split philosophically for liberal and for conservative carries out its work until a 9th Justice is determined. The next elected President of the United States will also have this awesome power of Supreme Court Justice appointment. Which of the candidates Trump, Clinton or Cruz do you think most qualified to exercise that unbelievable power?

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 also grants the power to “fill up” all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. Presidential recess appointments are again an awesome power. Obama has done that, and done it illegally, unconstitutionally. Obama, in his infinite wisdom, declared the Senate in recess, and made appointments to a federal agency which were later voided by the Supreme Court. Essentially, with recess appointments, decisions can be made as the President wishes and without regard to Congress or the citizens. That is an awesome power and responsibility and as exercised, often driven by political motivation more so than agency objective decision making. Which Presidential candidate would in your view exercise that power judiciously, fairly, in the interest of ESTABLISHING JUSTICE for the next four years? Think about it.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 then requires the President to “from time to time” give to the Congress information of the STATE OF THE UNION. Presumably, the President advises and consults with the Congress, House and Senate on a regular basis, especially about fundamental issues including and especially matters of finance and budget. That may or may not occur. Often, such contact and information occurs by Presidential staff and appointees. Negotiations are conducted out of sight and the real information flow is done by others before any formal dialogue between the President, House and Senate. Witness ObamaCare. Underlings, staff members drafted the legislation. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and others then in power knew little of the content thereof. Others working for and under the influence of Obama certified the potential legislation as RIGHT AND ACCEPTABLE. Pelosi and Reid bought in, rammed the legislation through House and Senate and it became law even though few if any understood the actual content, terms and conditions. It was what Obama and the progressive side of a Democratic Party wanted and the President had the power with the Bully Pulpit to make it happen with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Presidential power can be incredible even in the drafting of legislation presumably the province of the Congress. The President can in de facto ways draft that legislation himself and begin the political pressure for Congress to approve and ratify the legislation. Extraordinary powers, don’t you think? The President then can as SECTION 3 states:

RECOMMEND TO THEIR (CONGRESS) CONSIDERATION SUCH
MEASURES AS HE SHALL JUDGE NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT.

Which of the three candidates likely to be President do you think would most properly and fairly exercise that significant power?

ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 provides for impeachment possibilities for the President and others. Hear the words:

THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT AND ALL CIVIL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
ON IMPEACHMENT FOR, AND CONVICTION OF, TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

The Congress goes to work presuming of course there is just cause (establishing justice), and evidence of a:

HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR

Including and especially treason and bribery.

One Constitutional scholar has sarcastically indicated that anyone and everyone in Washington, D.C. from the President down should be impeached on the basis of a bribery charge alone! There is such a final line between legal money flow, contributions, support generally and money which is openly given for political gain in return. Witness the activities of the Clinton Foundation. Tens of millions of dollars have been given to this foundation, most of which have been given to the foundation in Canada and then funneled to a second Clinton Foundation in the United States. All such monies were given while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, some such gifts from foreign countries themselves (i.e. Saudi Arabia), international business and others, individuals or entities which may well have sought political favors in return.

Further, recall the IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS against former President Bill Clinton, primarily as a result of lewd and lascivious conduct, the so-called Monica Lewinski driven affair. The conduct of our President was embarrassing to say the least but our country was further embarrassed by having to conduct such an impeachment proceeding with regard to such a matter. Whether high crime or misdemeanor, whatever the intent of our Congress to ESTABLISH JUSTICE as the Constitution requires, the impeachment failed and it was business as usual in Washington, D.C.

Seldom has the impeachment process ever been used whether against a Vice President or civil officers of the United States although the power remains. It is a necessary power vested in the Congress but the use of the impeachment power can be abused even as the Presidential appointment power can be abused. Hell hath no fury than a politician bent on revenge or self-interest. So much of the powers constituted by the Constitution depend upon or are presumed by the Founding Fathers to be vested in TRUSTWORTHY CITIZENS, men and women of integrity, with strong values and morals and a deep patriotic concern and passion for this great country. When those good men and women are not elected, the bad become possessors of such power, misuse it to the detriment of our country and we the people. Nothing is more important to the democracy of this Republic than the election to office with the incredible powers so vested of the right citizens. Think of that the next time, EVERY TIME YOU VOTE!

Politicians, from President on down, and other civil officers of the United States get away with so much. Our federal government and its politicians at work are simply NOT ACCOUNTABLE in so many ways. It seems easy to break the law, get away with it, and whether misdemeanor or high crime, never fact impeachment, much less civil or criminal action taken when in office or out. Perhaps the lack of integrity in political candidates today at work in the federal system has never been greater. Think about that the next time you vote. Vet the character and integrity of every candidate. Nothing hurts America more than corrupt candidates in office. Of the three presidential candidates one of whom bound to be our next President: Cruz, Trump or Clinton, which one do you think is possessed of the most character, integrity and morality, the one candidate most likely to fulfill promises and do what is right for our great country? Which one?

ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 imposes an awesome duty on the President of the United States:

HE SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.

Perhaps that is the first priority of the President. He (and perhaps she) must take care that every law, every federal law which includes rules and regulations be faithfully executed. Presumably, there is implicit power on the part of the President to issue Executive Orders to make sure the laws are “faithfully executed.” Notice that the Constitution gives no right to the President to interpret, deny or nullify. The President has no right not to act, not to enforce. In fact, that has occurred in the Obama Administration. Recall Attorney General Eric Holder, one of the worst in American history, who failed to enforce any law he (perhaps Obama driven) felt was unjust, unconstitutional and consequently unenforceable. The very same course of conduct is now carried out by Attorney General Lynch, another special Obama appointee who seems, like Holder, to do his bidding. The President acting alone or through the Attorney General can engage in what is known as:

NULLIFICATION

Of the laws by simply ignoring them, not enforcing them and otherwise directly or indirectly considering them unjust or unconstitutional. That happens even though the Constitution directs, demands that any President enforce the laws, not interpret them or apply value judgments to them.

The Obama Administration has often enforced some part of the law, certain terms and conditions of legislation and not others. Agencies have been directed to be more active and aggressive in some cases and utterly uninvolved in others. Recall the IRS and Lois Lerner, aggressively coming after conservative non-profit organizations. You may be certain that Obama not only knew about such action, but directly or indirectly ordered such. Earlier prohibitions with respect to so-called abortion rights were also ignored. As were some matters and local-state legislation with respect to the Gay Agenda. Perhaps other Presidents in history failed to faithfully execute the laws as written, not functioning as judge and jury, but no President or Administration in history has enforced those laws only as he wishes more so than Obama. Rather than taking care that the laws be faithfully executed and supported, Obama could:

OFTEN CARE LESS!

This then is so often the conduct of a President who under oath or affirmation, remember that, has sworn to the American people as follows. Hear the words of Barack Hussein Obama:

I DO SO SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND WILL TO TH BEST OF MY ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

And its laws. I will, Obama has told us, take care, TAKE CARE that the laws be faithfully executed. I, says Obama, will be your trusted agent in that regard and make certain that we the people, you the citizens who have elected me, can live in certainty and confidence under:

THE RULE OF LAW

Obama has broken that promise, violated that oath with impunity, perhaps like no other President before. Think about that when you vote in November. Which candidate Clinton, Trump or Cruz will be the one most likely:

TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED 

Which one?
The President also has the enormous power of:

THE VETO

The President can veto any and all legislation he so wishes for any or no reason. The veto can be exercised directly or the Presidential veto can occur simply by inaction, failing to sign the legislation as passed by Congress. There is the constant battle regarding the so-called LINE ITEM VETO which would allow the President to veto some part of the legislation and endorse others. The LINE ITEM VETO would allow the President in essence to make his own laws, legislation which becomes law even as others intended by Congress do not. Any Presidential veto can be overridden but it requires the two-thirds vote of further ratification by both Houses of Congress, Senate and House of Representatives. In so many cases if not all, such an override vote is virtually impossible. The President is then invested with enormous power to frustrate legislation and see enacted only that which he wants. What an unbelievable power.

The President also can initiate legislation whether by general suggestion, draft or the actual writing of a proposed law itself. The President can take up legislation intention or proposal by members of Congress, endorse it, promote it or make such legislation his very own. That further extends the power and influence of the President in the making of the laws which govern our lives.

The President can exercise the power of the so-called:

BULLY PULPIT

The President can encourage, threaten, dialogue and communicate with the power of the Office of President as leverage. The President can bargain and negotiate, compromising, working trade-offs, getting what he wants legislatively in return for giving what others want. Presidential favors can be granted in so many ways to cooperating Senators and congresspersons which can influence their vote or support. Some of the most effective powers are those indirect, assumed rather than vested by the Constitution directly. Awesome powers indeed.

The President appoints the secretaries of federal agencies which have become unbelievably powerful entities. In fact, those agencies have become de facto the fourth branch of government. They are unbelievably powerful, controlling and as a result of the appointment of the secretaries and heads of those departments, rule and regulate so often as the President wishes. Presidential power can extend through the agency and consequently have dramatic and incredible effect upon our great country. Agencies often act independent of Congress, investing themselves with their own authority subject only to litigation and the authority of the judicial system to correct and reform. That occurs today in America. Witness the uncontrollable, autocratic actions of the IRS. Or the EEO. Or the EPA. As with Executive Orders, agencies will often act and regulate outside the law or the authority vested by Congress. The next President may very well do the same. Who do you think that President should be?

The President has enormous economic influence. As the federal budget is set, the President can influence taxation policy among others. The budget responds to the general needs of America on the one hand and special interests on the other. The President and the members of the House and Senate can create preferences, even as actual law and financial requirements in the budget itself. Special funding can occur as we have just witnessed with regard to Planned Parenthood. An immoral and often corrupt organization, special funding and financial preferences are granted to organizations like this, preferences which are the exact
opposite of the Constitutional requirement to ESTABLISH JUSTICE.

And the same with foreign policy. Tens of billions of American dollars are gifted to or invested in other nations, often dictatorial, undemocratic and even in some cases, actual enemies of or hostile to the United States. The President has the power to direct much of those monies especially in times of emergency. Another awesome power to be exercised by the next President of the United States. Who do you think that will be?

We now have in America a state of imbalance, federal political imbalance. Our Constitution calls for CHECKS AND BALANCES. There are strict and absolute powers invested in the President, and the House of Representatives, and the Senate, and even strong expectations with respect to the Supreme Court which is required constitutionally to:

ESTABLISH JUSTICE

Much of that simply does not happen today and under the exercise of constitutional powers by the Obama Administration. One in eight Americans approve of the actions of Congress. One in three Americans approve of the Presidential conduct of Barack Hussein Obama. The majority of Americans feel that the Supreme Court is politically influenced, philosophically opinionated and biased, never certain how nine individuals will rule and consequently change the course of the lives of every American. We live in a current state of incredible UNCERTANITY AND INSECURITY. We the people are deeply concerned about our economy, our rules and regulations improperly enforced, the evisceration of our beloved Constitution and politicians elected and run amok. So many are deeply concerned by the federal government virtually ignoring Amendments IX and X, ignoring and trampling the rights which are reserved to and retained by the people and those reserved to the states. Federalism comprising the legislative and constitutional cooperation of the federal government and the states exists in name only.

Now comes the next President of the United States in November 2016. Who will he or she be? The next President will either continue and broaden the unconstitutional powers exercised by Barack Hussein Obama with the same pen and phone he used to do what he wanted or be a candidate who will change course and resort to the proper exercise of Presidential powers, restore the integrity of the Constitution and the checks and balances it creates and requires among the President, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme and all other federal courts, and in fact the federal agencies themselves. Which of the candidates of either party will do that?

And, my fellow citizens, how will you vote? And more than ever:

YOU MUST VOTE

Too many of we the people abnegate, and ignore our civic responsibilities, so many of us failing to vote much less become politically active. What a tragedy for America and our way of life. Your voice must be heard my fellow citizens. IT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE HEARD NOW AND IN NOVEMBER 2016! The election of our next President will determine whether America continues on the Obama path or CHANGES COURSE and returns to our Constitution and the Rule of Law. Which path do you choose and how will you vote?

THE FUTURE OF AMERICA DEPENDS UPON YOU!

Crawford Broadcasting Company