The Republican Primary was a disappointment. In more ways than one. Not only did Parnell receive the nod to move on to the General Election, but he was given a free pass on his violation of his oath of office. Parnell has violated Article II Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, not once, but twice. Now, we hear that it may actually have been 3 times with the appointment of a State employee to Dahlstrom's seat.
Parnell has deferred owing up to his indiscretions by alleging that he acted upon the advice of an unnamed junior attorney at the Dept. of Law. This excuse completely ignores the fact that Sean Parnell is a lawyer himself. What? He no longer understands the Constitution, much less now apparently has a diminished capacity to understand the English language?
Art. II Sec. 5:
§ 5. Disqualifications
"No legislator may hold any other office or position of profit under the United States or the State. During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member. This section shall not prevent any person from seeking or holding the office of governor, secretary of state, or member of Congress. This section shall not apply to employment by or election to a constitutional convention."
What part of "for one year after" does not this governor understand? I think the provision is very clear. Gee, even I understand it.
What I find most disturbing are those who voted for both Joe Miller as a strong constitutionalist versus Lisa Murkowski as the compromised insider who ignored the Constitution. Yet, many of these folks voted for Parnell. How does one reconcile that paradox?
Sarah Palin campaigned on a platform that included integrity. Sean Parnell cannot lay claim to that, given his violation of the State's Constitution, to which he swore an oath to uphold and defend. Which, given the Dahlstrom and Therriault affairs, he did not.
How could one vote for Miller, then vote for Parnell?
How could one then claim the moral and legal high ground over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid trashing of our national Constitution?
Another excuse that I heard was that Faibanks and North Pole hold former Sen. Gene Therriault in such high regard that they were willing to ignore the fact of the constitutional affront by his appointment on the part of Governor Parnell.
Allegedly, the Palin crowd was also a factor, voting for Joe Miller, and then voting for Parnell due to his association with Sarah. Let me remind that Sarah Palin did not select Sean Parnell during the 2006 Primary. Parnell won the slot as her Lt. Gov. by winning the Primary. That he did on his own. I do not recall Sarah Palin going out of her way for Parnell’s election.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that these folks hold the Constitution of the State of Alaska in such low regard that it can be violated with impunity by a sitting governor, so long as that governor is Republican?
There are those who believe in "my party, right or wrong". I am not one of those. I believe in the rule of LAW.
If one can violate one's oath with impunity, then what's next?
I am more than worried about the integrity of the Alaska Republican voter and the hypocrisy demonstrated in this election. Even more troubling is the lack of integrity and honor demonstrated by our current Governor.
Will the new Legislature have the courage to impeach this governor, if he prevails in the General Election?
Showing posts with label violation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violation. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, January 31, 2009
First Obama, now Hillary? A Constitutional Crisis?
First came the challenges to Barak Obama's qualifications under Article II of the Constitution regarding the legitimacy of his claim to naturalized birth in Hawaii. Now, it appears that Hilliary Clinton may be in conflict with our Constitution as regards her ability to be appointed as Secretary of State: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87451
The issue with Hilliary is that she was a Senator who voted on not less than three pay raises for the very office to which she was appointed. This fact should have prohibited her from being appointed as Secretary of State.
The danger in overlooking the restrictions in our Constitution regarding qualifications to hold office or to be appointed to an executive office are profound in their impact. If these restrictions are overlooked, then it can be reasonably argued that they no longer apply by virtue of ignoring them. That's how our law works. Conduct can be as persuasive as a written article in our Constitution. Ignore an article of the Constitution, by acting in violation without obedience, and the courts will consider it moot.
How is the Constitution being subverted and minimized?
By terming provisions out of date, in need of change to reflect changing social and moral values, by ignoring them altogether as alleged in the court challenges to both Obama's citizenship and Hilliary's acts as a Senator impacting the pay in her current appointment.
Therein lies the danger to you and me. Ignore, minimize, and subvert, and our protections and rights have been usurped without our permission. After all, this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, right? Or is it?
You willing to fight to defend the Constitution, or sit on your fat butt and watch soap operas and allow our heritage and rights to disappear?
The 2d Amendment is an amendment targeted by the Obama regime. The 2d Amendment was the only amendment not named by the new President of United States as being in an individual right. He named the 1st, the 4th, and the 9th in particular as being individual rights. He overlooked the 2d. And, I believe, given the manner in which he answered the question put to him during the debate, that he excluded the 2d Amendment purposefully. Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and look at his legislative priorities. Control and restrictions on firearms is a major initiative according to his agenda.
It was Obama's response in delinating which rights he believed were "personal" and "individual" that caused me to take better notice of what was being said, and not being said on his part. I now listen very closely to what this guy says.
Thus far, it is not much, just fluff and fear mongering.
What is extremely important in this discussion is that Hilliary and Obama both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, both as United States Senators, and then, again upon taking the oath of their respective offices. It is unclear as to whether or not Obama is in violation regarding Art. II, but it is clear that Hilliary's appointment as Secretary of State certainly stands in contravention of the intent of the Constitution. She could not be appointed to any executive office having been a sitting Senator voting on pay raises for that very office to which she was appointed.
What is clear, is that there is an overt attempt to ignore and to circumvent the intent of the Constitution by the democrat political machine.
Our Constitution cannot become a capricious application of law, it must be held inviolate and the supreme law of the land, or it is ineffective and the tool of the oppressor. In which case, one must be that much more distrustful of the intent of the new regime with respect to our rights and upholding the intent and the law that is our Constitution.
Take away the Constitution, and the U.S. becomes like every other oligarchy in the world. The citizens of Commonwealth countries have no free speech, no right to keep and bar arms, no guarantees of any kind, except to due process under certain situations. We have these rights and they should be defended to the death.
Arlington National Cemetary is filled with those who died to uphold and protect our Constitution.
We should be wary of any leader who turns his or her back on any provision of the Constitution, and of any official who purposefully subverts the law to their purpose of attaining power.
If you want to learn more about the Constitution . . . :
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
The Federalist Papers are on-line via Google. Search "Federalist Papers" or "U.S. Constitution"
The issue with Hilliary is that she was a Senator who voted on not less than three pay raises for the very office to which she was appointed. This fact should have prohibited her from being appointed as Secretary of State.
The danger in overlooking the restrictions in our Constitution regarding qualifications to hold office or to be appointed to an executive office are profound in their impact. If these restrictions are overlooked, then it can be reasonably argued that they no longer apply by virtue of ignoring them. That's how our law works. Conduct can be as persuasive as a written article in our Constitution. Ignore an article of the Constitution, by acting in violation without obedience, and the courts will consider it moot.
How is the Constitution being subverted and minimized?
By terming provisions out of date, in need of change to reflect changing social and moral values, by ignoring them altogether as alleged in the court challenges to both Obama's citizenship and Hilliary's acts as a Senator impacting the pay in her current appointment.
Therein lies the danger to you and me. Ignore, minimize, and subvert, and our protections and rights have been usurped without our permission. After all, this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, right? Or is it?
You willing to fight to defend the Constitution, or sit on your fat butt and watch soap operas and allow our heritage and rights to disappear?
The 2d Amendment is an amendment targeted by the Obama regime. The 2d Amendment was the only amendment not named by the new President of United States as being in an individual right. He named the 1st, the 4th, and the 9th in particular as being individual rights. He overlooked the 2d. And, I believe, given the manner in which he answered the question put to him during the debate, that he excluded the 2d Amendment purposefully. Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and look at his legislative priorities. Control and restrictions on firearms is a major initiative according to his agenda.
It was Obama's response in delinating which rights he believed were "personal" and "individual" that caused me to take better notice of what was being said, and not being said on his part. I now listen very closely to what this guy says.
Thus far, it is not much, just fluff and fear mongering.
What is extremely important in this discussion is that Hilliary and Obama both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, both as United States Senators, and then, again upon taking the oath of their respective offices. It is unclear as to whether or not Obama is in violation regarding Art. II, but it is clear that Hilliary's appointment as Secretary of State certainly stands in contravention of the intent of the Constitution. She could not be appointed to any executive office having been a sitting Senator voting on pay raises for that very office to which she was appointed.
What is clear, is that there is an overt attempt to ignore and to circumvent the intent of the Constitution by the democrat political machine.
Our Constitution cannot become a capricious application of law, it must be held inviolate and the supreme law of the land, or it is ineffective and the tool of the oppressor. In which case, one must be that much more distrustful of the intent of the new regime with respect to our rights and upholding the intent and the law that is our Constitution.
Take away the Constitution, and the U.S. becomes like every other oligarchy in the world. The citizens of Commonwealth countries have no free speech, no right to keep and bar arms, no guarantees of any kind, except to due process under certain situations. We have these rights and they should be defended to the death.
Arlington National Cemetary is filled with those who died to uphold and protect our Constitution.
We should be wary of any leader who turns his or her back on any provision of the Constitution, and of any official who purposefully subverts the law to their purpose of attaining power.
If you want to learn more about the Constitution . . . :
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
The Federalist Papers are on-line via Google. Search "Federalist Papers" or "U.S. Constitution"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)