Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

Picking a U.S. President

Every four years, American voters head to the polls to elect a president and a vice president. Yet those votes are just part of a detailed system known as the Electoral College, which is used by the U.S. to determine its executive leaders; a system set up by the Founding Fathers of our nation.

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electoral votes divided among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to be elected.

The number of electoral votes each state receives ranges from 3 to 55 based on the number of Congressional seats the state holds, which is essentially linked to the population of the state. The District of Columbia gets 3 votes because the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution grants it the same number votes as the least populated state in the union. The territories of the U.S. like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, etc. get no Electoral College votes.

The Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election.

The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

The voting public’s ballots make up what is known as the “popular vote”, and in 48 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, the candidate receiving the most popular votes in a state will receive all of that state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes among candidates through their state’s system for ‘proportional allocation’ of votes.

In the rare event that no candidate gets the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the office, the House of Representatives elects the president from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state only gets one vote, so it could be a long process and full of contention among the state representatives to decide on that vote.  That has never happened in U.S. history. 

However, in the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.

Over the decades the discussion of doing away with the Electoral College has arisen often, but after studying the process, one sees that there is a reason the Founding Fathers put it in place. Little that our Founding Fathers put in place has needed to be altered or changed. Many feel that these scholarly men were inspired and guided by a higher power while creating Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any Electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

The Choice for 2012:

In some elections there hardly seems to be a difference between the two tickets and in others the two candidates and their party’s platforms could not be further apart. That is where we find ourselves this time, the election of 2012.  In recent years the two parties and their platforms have generally moved farther and farther apart.  America has become a ‘house’ divided which is at the heart of many of our problems.  And in the election of 2012 the top of the two tickets represent two completely different philosophies of government, leadership styles and experience.  Yet, had the Republicans chosen someone like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin or even Ron Paul the differences would be even greater and that point should appeal to many of the Independents!

2012 is perhaps the most important election in America’s history and definitely of our lifetimes because it is a defining election. 2008 was an election that will go into the history books because it proved America had moved beyond the question whether Americans would ever elect a president of color.  The race also included only the second women and first Republican woman ever to be on a National ticket.  But, 2012 will be the election that will decide whether America will continue down the entitlement path, becoming a Nanny State, where Americans choose Big Brother and less individual freedom and opportunity in order to guarantee themselves benefits and cultural equality, like Europe has over the past two decades, a socialistic democracy type of system over a return to American Exceptionalism that guarantees everyone an equal playing field but not governmental mandates and guarantees of welfare or equality and is based on the foundation and documents our Founding Fathers left this country.

So before you vote, if you have not already, make sure that you really know what you are voting for.

A vote for Barack Obama, a community organizer, is a vote for more government control in every aspect of our lives. Four more years of his administration will take us from the position of strength, though waning, on the world scene to one of weakness because his style of leadership will take you and your children… and grandchildren further down the road to greater debt owed to foreign powers who will then control us which will not lead us to a domestic recovery or prosperity. The job numbers we have now or worse will become the norm and so will our dependence on the government and in-turn the government’s control over us.

A vote for Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and a man with experience in turning things around, like the failing Utah Olympics into a financial success and win for America, will turn around our economy, put Americans back to work and as the our debt declines our position in the world will be revived as number one. He will also overturn ObamaCare and will replace it with real reform… something that will work and that we can afford as a nation.  He learned from Romneycare and believes in states rights and individual choice.

And another thing to consider is that we now know, thanks to a few patriotic insiders and a few reporters who are doing their job instead of promoting their political agenda, that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, VP Joe Biden and other leaders in the Obama Administration knew in advance that a terror attack was coming on 9.11.2012; They knew that Ambassador Stevens and others at the Libya Embassy/Consulate in Benghazi were asking for more help with security because they knew they could not defend themselves against an attack, and that the aforementioned leaders watched the terror attack in ‘real-time’ on a video from fed directly from the Consulate and did nothing. Instead they actually told teams and individuals who were in a place to help, to stand down while they watched our Ambassador and his team being murdered.

Can you really trust your life and the life of your children, grandchildren and the future of this country to a Commander in Chief who watches his Ambassador and other Americans being murdered and does nothing and then lies to their families and to you, to us… the American people? What else is he lying about? Think about it before casting your vote.

23 million people are out of work, our national debt has grown to a number that most of us never could have imagined  and our economy is worse under President Obama… and he has no new plan for the next four years; America cannot afford ObamaCare and there are hidden surprises in the Affordable Care Act that you won’t like… And then there is Benghazigate that Team Obama is doing their best to bury until after the election, as the Obama-Hillary foreign policy is unraveling.  Will you let them ‘cool out’ your vote?

"Democracy, as well as the survival of our Republic, demands an educated and informed electorate"

Know why you are voting for the candidate, party and issue you have chosen and the truth behind the issues…

Ask Marion~

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Whether Romney or Obama wins tomorrow… America will begin down a new path, which path is in the American voters’ hands.

h/t to NARA – the Electoral College

Related:

References

Read The Federalist Papers at: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html for the founders' views on the Electoral College:

• Alexander Hamilton's design for the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68
• James Madison's views on the republican form of government in Federalist No. 10

Search the writings of Thomas Jefferson for his views on the Presidency (especially, Letter to George Hay, August 17, 1823) at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Technorati Tags: history,informed choices,U.S. Presidents,former presidents,elections,Election 2012,2012 Election,Electoral College,The Choice,informed voters,U.S. Constituion,educate yourself,U.S. Elections,picking a president,popular vote,23rd Amendment. Mitt Romney,Barack Obama,Romney-Ryan,Obama-Biden,Federalist Papers,U.S. territories,voter fraud,civics

Forum – Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

JoshuaPundit on Oct 29 2012 at 12:36 am - The Council Forum

Last week, the New York State Appeals Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling itself was based on a very narrow criteria, since there was a plaintiff that obviously suffered financial damages because of a spousal deduction she would otherwise have received on the estate tax on her deceased partner’s estate as a result. But with the Supreme Court set to rule on the Constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, this week the Council addresses the question: Is DOMA unconstitutional? How will the recent ruling affect coming Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage?:

The Independent Sentinel: I don’t want the federal government involved in this at all. I prefer it be a states rights issue. I feel the same way about abortion. I am opposed to big government and I am against changing the constitution for social issues.

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional but I think it should be found Constitutional on the basis of states rights and the right of people to choose.

I will become concerned about this issue if it begins to affect freedom of religion. Religions that only marry one man and one woman must be allowed to do so or I don’t think we can call ourselves free any longer.

I believe the only civil rights issue in this country is the abuse of African-Americans through slavery and decades of oppression. No other issue, not even an important social choice issue, should take away from that.

The Colossus of Rhodey: It seems the main problem the recent court ruling against DOMA has is with the law’s Section 3 which defines marriage *federally* as between a man and a woman. The ruling invoked “equal protection;” if the SCOTUS rules as the circuit court did, it will enshrine a right to collect benefits (from the feds) for legally married gay couples. BUT — it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the rest of DOMA would be stricken. The Act allows states to decide whether they want to recognize gay marriages (and those performed in other states), and a cursory reading of the Constitution’s Article IV shows that this part of the law *should be* constitutional re: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Clause notes that “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” In other words, those in favor of striking the entire law would have to demonstrate how Congress does *not* have the right to prescribe how its laws are enacted, or, in this case, why another state would *not* have the right to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

It will be difficult to guess what the SCOTUS will rule. If the states still get to decide the question of marriage, then could a gay couple still be able to collect federal benefits from a non-gay marriage state (if they were “married,” in a state which allowed such, but they didn’t actually *reside* in such a state)? If so, how and why? Or, can only those who were [gay] married in a state which allowed such unions be permitted to collect such benefits?

The Glittering Eye: There are two ways of answering that question. The answer in law is absolutely, positively not. But the practical answer is different. The practical answer is that whatever the currently sitting Supreme Court justices say is unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

I’m guessing that, considering that there’s a majority of sexual libertarians on the court,the present Court will strike down the DOMA.

The Noisy Room: Yes, DOMA is unconstitutional for the simple reason that its foundation premise, that government has any business moderating marriage, is fundamentally broken. DOMA falls into that broader fascist category of “good ideas enforced at gun point.” If a constitutional foundation can be found and established for the concept that government is somehow the appropriate arbiter of the act of marriage at all, then a case can be made for DOMA because to the degree that government brokers marriage, government must then define it. However, the constitution offers no support for what was at the time a cultural and religious construct which more modernly, has been annexed as one of the “proper functions” of government.

I don’t see any constitutional support for it and in fact, it plays into the concept that government can replace religion. And this is one of the greasier slopes on which one can embark. This goes further to a broader premise that government somehow owns “citizens,” or as the British prefer to call them, “subjects.” As the premise broadens, it encroaches on education (all your kids are belong to us) and “health and welfare.” We have to keep you healthy so you are productive, our revenue depends on it. This, then, “logically” flows into mandated morality, and while actual crime is a province of government, what you eat for breakfast, how you iron your shirts and with whom you spend your nights is not. See Atlas Shrugged.

So, although this is a blatant attempt to pander to the gay community by Obama, DOMA is not constitutional in my viewpoint. Marriage is a personal (or religious) act, not a government province.

Bookworm Room: Yes, I do believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not contemplate marriage at a federal level. For that reason, it is a matter that, technically speaking, should be left to the states. Having said that, let’s get to the modern wrinkles. When the Constitution was ratified, the Founders could not have imagined same-sex marriage. It did not exist at the time. Had the notion existed, the Founders might have chosen to address marriage in the Constitution for one very specific reason: The full faith and credit clause, which obligates each state to recognize the duly passed laws of the other states. The problem with laws that provide fundamentally different definitions of marriage (such as those allowing polygamy or same sex marriage) is that, as people move from one state to another, they may be legally married in State A, but not in State B. Any subsequent property, child custody, or third party contract disputes become a nightmare.

With new definitions of marriage never imagined by the Founders, the correct way to deal with the issue is through a Constitutional amendment. If I could draft the amendment, I would remove “marriage” from government control and leave it solely to religious institutions to “marry” people. Government should have power over “civil unions,” and that power should be exercised in whatever way is most beneficial to advance state goals of economic stability, generational property transfers, and the overall best situation for children. Civil unions could certainly encompass same sex couples. I would be loath to extend civil unions to polygamy, though, because of the problems with economic stability and generational property transfers. (England, which legally recognizes polygamous marriages from Muslim countries, demonstrates that, in a Western culture, it’s hard for a single man to support multiple women. These polygamous families end up using welfare disproportionately.)

I’m deeply concerned that, if same sex “marriage” becomes a constitutional right, we’ll have a major constitutional clash between church and state, one that makes the current fight over funding abortion look like a kindergarten party. Think of it: In the Catholic faith, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine what will happen to the First Amendment freedom of religion if it crashes headlong into some new amendment mandating gay “marriage.” If, however, the state passes an amendment recognizing civil unions, churches can continue to marry whomever their doctrine recognizes.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Technorati Tags: DOMA,New York,Defense of Marriage Act,unconstitutional,law,marriage,Watcher's Council,bloggers,blogosphere,watch the other hand,educate yourself,alternative media,news,news nuggets,US Constitution,same sex marriage,Founding Fathers,states rights,you be the judge,First Amendment

Cui Prodest? – Who Stands To Gain From “The Innocence of Muslims” Film?

By: Aeneas Lavinium - ICLA - Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom and AskMarion

Was the controversial “The Innocence of Muslims” film a false flag operation designed to undermine freedom of expression in the West?

A rather interesting article on the issue of the authorship of the film has recently been published by Walid Shoebat. [1] In many ways the article makes a lot of sense. Please take some time to read his essay which can be found HERE.

The video which resulted in rampaging mobs running around the streets in opposition to freedom of expression has resulted in Western leaders giving only a lukewarm defense of freedom of expression. It seems that the video could turn out to be the excuse for Western governments to finally give in to the demands of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for a global blasphemy law. This is despite the fact that freedom of expression is what guarantees freedom of religion. Falling back to the human rights ‘standards’ of some OIC member states will do nothing to serve either freedom, but it will allow governments to clamp down on dissent!

The last riots on this scale took place during the “Danish Cartoons Crisis” and for similar reasons. Those events ushered in increased suppression of freedom of expression in the West. Perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood and their fellow travellers thought that was time to diminish freedom of expression still further using similar tactics. The Danish Cartoons were published on 30 September 2005, but the protests did not break out until January and February 2006. [2] It seems that the lack of spontaneity was the result of the tour by Danish Imams in the Middle East who deliberately stirred things up. [2]

After the way the Danish Cartoons riots were orchestrated it would come as no surprise if the “Innocence of Muslims” film was the product of a false flag operation. Was it actually a project of the Muslim Brotherhood? Were Western Governments who proved to be very effective allies of the Muslim Brotherhood in the ‘Arab Spring’ involved in some way? Both seemed to have a lot to gain from the film, and both seem now to be pushing for payment. Of course such ‘theories’ are mere speculation at this time, but they are certainly compelling when you look about who stands to gain.

Mr. Shoebat, himself a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, certainly has a unique perspective on their operations. Even though he has turned his back on them and become a peace activist his insights are still valid, he knows how they think and how they work. It is good that the Western world has an informed person like Mr. Shoebat to shine light onto these matters.

In his essay, Walid Shoebat considers the motivations of the film maker(s) and makes the following important point:

“Why would any anti-Islam Christian or even Jewish activist want the destruction of his own? It makes zero sense, unless of course this person intends to do harm to his real enemies—Israel and the Copts.” [1]

The plight of the Copts is something that ICLA is deeply concerned about. The Copts are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians. Since the Islamic conquest of Egypt their proportion of the population has declined dramatically and today are a persecuted minority in their own country. Their plight has got even worse in the aftermath of the Western supported ‘Sharia Spring.’ Why then would a person of a purportedly Coptic background make matters even worse for his kith and kin back in Egypt? Of course Western politicians have not used the film as an opportunity to make statements about the mistreatment of the Copts. They are too busy making excuses for the violent mobs who prowl the streets – it is clear that Western politicians don’t give a damn about religious minorities in the Islamic world!

Mr. Shoebat concludes his article as follows:

“The results of this entire fiasco will not be the apprehension of terrorists, but the continual chipping away at the First-Amendment, since Americans by and large are still practicing the art of self-blame while they ignore the real culprits who enter our country with the intent of doing it much harm.” [1]

The implications of what is revealed in the Shoebat article opens up the possibility that contradictions and clandestine skulduggery are being kept from public view. Again we ask the question – Cui Prodest?

_______________________

1. Innocence of Muslims Film was Made by Terrorists (Walid Shoebat)

2. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (Wikipedia)

Technorati Tags: Muslims,films,freedom of speech,undermining the freedom of expression in the West,Islam,Sharia,Shariah Law,winning through intimidation,Organization of Islamic Cooperation,OIC,global blasphemy law,Walid Shoebat,Copts,ICLA,UN resolution 16/18,US Constitution vs. International Law,Cui Prodest,First Amendment,Muslim Brotherhood,Christians,Jews,Israel,The Innocence of Muslims,Egypt

Panetta: ‘International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

Frightening… Secretary of Defense  Leon Panetta tells Congress that they will get International, UN and global permission to defend the nation and its allies… and then will go to Congress and ‘tell them’ what they are doing… Hello?!? 100% unconstitutional and anti-American.  Wake-up people… they are telling you that they are moving us toward and Global New World Order and away from sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.

If you understand what this means and love your country and your freedom… you must vote in November 2012 and you must vote against the present administration or our life as we know will perish… and that is not an exaggeration!

Panetta: ‘International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military

Video: Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria

Related:

He said what?!? Panetta & international permission

Sovereignty, schmovereignty! Defense Secretary Leon Panetta showed just how ridiculous the foreign policy of this administration is. He admitted he will seek international permission before congressional approval on matters of foreign military affairs. Fits right in with Barack’s lean-forward foreign policy. Glenn Beck had the audio and reaction on radio yesterday.

Breitbart TV Video: Panetta: 'International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

Health Care, Barack Obama, and the U.S. Constitution

Who cares about the U.S. Constitution, when Barack Obama’s vision for America is weighing in the balance?

Don’t count on the U.S. Congress to care.

In the aftermath of the Senate’s passage of an Obamacare bill, Attorney’s General from multiple states have begun to announce that they are launching investigations into the legality, and constitutionality of the Senate legislation. Chief among their concerns is the possibility that that the bill places Americans outside the state of Nebraska at a significant disadvantage, financially and otherwise, to residents of the state of Nebraska.

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, along with the Attorneys General in the states of Washington, Michigan, Texas, Colorado, Alabama and North Dakota – have joined forces to consider, among other things, if the Obamacare bill in the U.S. Senate violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 10th Amendment stipulates that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States , are reserved to the states or the people.

As such, the 10th Amendment may pose constitutional challenges to the Obamacare bill itself. Does the constitution grant to the federal government the “power” to provide healthcare? More curiously, does the constitution grant to the federal government the “power” to mandate that people buy anything - including health insurance (the Senate version of the healthcare reform legislation stipulates both)?

Additionally, state Attorneys General should also be concerned about Obamacare for another reason: it could be in violation of the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Concerns over the Fourteenth Amendment appear to be present (this is based on what we know of the legislation, which, because of Pelosi and Reid’s secretiveness, is not a lot) in the portion of the Obamacare bill that grants special (and expensive) privileges to residents of the state of Nebraska. In the Senate’s Obamacare bill, the state of Nebraska is afforded special financial advantages from the federal government - to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year – for the funding of Medicaid. The reason this provision appears in a Senate healthcare bill, as many readers of this column are aware, is because the bill could not be passed without the vote of Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska .

Obamacare is strongly opposed by roughly two-thirds of American voters. And according to a survey published less than two weeks ago by the Tarrance Group polling firm, sixty-seven percent of Nebraskans oppose Obamacare, while ninety percent of Nebraskans are happy with the heatlhcare they currently receive and don’t want it to change.

Additionally, the Senate Obamacare bill is vague, at best, as to when and where it funds abortion procedures – and Nebraskans overwhelmingly find the aborting of unborn children to be abhorrent. And for all these reasons, Senator Ben Nelson had every reason to vote against the Obamacare bill.

So, given Senator Nelson’s incentives to oppose the Obamacare bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid crafted a special deal to incentivize Nelson to vote in favor of the bill. The “incentives” included special economic incentives for the state of Nebraska , incentivizes that people in the other 49 states don’t receive.

Using the law to single-out certain individuals, or certain groups of individuals, and impart to them either special privileges or penalties that don’t apply to other Americans, is, well – Un-American. And it may very well prove to be un-constitutional in court.

Residents in the other forty-nine states pay taxes according to the same federal taxation structure as do Americans in Nebraska. Furthermore, in as much as we are U.S. citizens, we are all deserving of the same “protections” under the law to which Nebraskans are subject.

But the Senate Obamacare bill sets aside Nebraskans, and makes a special privileged class of them. If this bill becomes law, Nebraskans will be entitled to subsidies from the federal government that those of us who belong in the category called “non-Nebraskans” are not.

This disregard for the U.S. Constitution and matters of “equal protection” do not begin and end with Senator Ben Nelson. Earlier this winter, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) was asked a simple question by reporter Nicholas Ballasy of CNSNews.Com: “What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals have to purchase health insurance?”

In response, Senator Landrieu (who, much like Senator Nelson of Nebraska did, essentially “sold” her vote in the Senate despite opposition to Obamacare in her home state of Louisiana) replied “we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.”

Yes, of course – “the lawyers clean up all details” as American poet (and “classic rock” star) Don Henley once lamented about his country. The fact is, however, that Senator Landrieu couldn’t answer the question if she tried.

But just like the legal profession itself, our current President and Congress have little regard for the U.S. Constitution, and for the rights of the human individual. Just as it is with the practice of law, the process of “law making” revolves around “leverage” – what can one individual or group force another individual or group to do? What does it take to accomplish what we, the politicians, want to accomplish?

Will any more among the 535 elite Americans in Congress dare to raise any constitutional concerns about this? And how about the Attorneys General of the other 43 states? Does the Constitution matter any more?

By: Austin Hill - a Talk Show Host At Boise, Idaho's 580 KIDO Radio, and a frequent Guest Host on the Fox Newstalk Radio Network. He is the Author of "White House Confidential: Revised and Expanded Edition," And Co-Author of the forthcoming title "The Virtues Of Capitalism: A Moral Case For Free Markets" (Northfield/Moody Press, 2010).

Source: TownHall