obama along with a willing media, are daily calling out a list of things that will happen when a mere $85 billion worth of budget cuts takes place in 2013 due to the agreement he signed into law and was gleefully for back in November 2011.
Key elements with the Budget Control Act of 2011 are unconstitutional right from the onset (See Sec 2 below) show how this act is itself unconstitutional.
Thankfully the House Passes the ‘No Budget No Pay,’ by a count of 285-144. Thirty-three Republicans opposed the measure, while 86 Democrats voted to approve it, sending the legislation to the Senate where it is also expected to pass, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. There may be hope, but it is going to take people to speak the capital T Truth!
Back to the Budget Control Act of 2011 a most egregious and awful corruption of our Constitution, yes OUR, Constitution.
It may be sooner than later that no one in government will be getting paid. That might be very good for a new lease on Life and Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -PBN
SEC. 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or any application of such provision
to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act and the application of this Act to any other
person or circumstance shall not be affected.
In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the “Budget Control Act of 2011″ (“BCA 2011″) were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of “bi-partisan consensus “to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.
First, the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process” in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.
The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” As two of America’s leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is “inseparably connected” with that of “raising a revenue.” Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress — vested with the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts,” — kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.
To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.
However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process.” Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to “determine” that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments,” subject only to congressional “disapproval.” For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.
Under the new process established by this bill, if the President determines, no later than December 31, 2011, that the nation’s debt is within $100 billion of the existing debt limit and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the debt limit automatically increases. The President need only to certify to Congress that he has made the required determination. Once the President acts, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow $900 billion “subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted” by Congress.
But this is not all. Title III also provides that if Congress fails to disapprove the debt ceiling increase in the amount of $900 billion, the President may again certify to Congress that he has determined that the debt subject to the new ceiling is within $100 billion and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments. So the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to borrow another $1.2 trillion. Indeed, the Secretary may borrow even more — up to $1.5 trillion if a proposed balanced budget amendment has been submitted to the states for ratification. As was true of the first round of ceiling raising and borrowing, the President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which, itself, is subject to veto by the President.
By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation’s commitments, this bill turns the legislative process on its head. According to Article I, Section 7, before an act can become a law, it must first be passed as a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus, any action taken to authorize the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States – whether such action is a formal bill or a vote or resolution — must be initiated by Congress and, then, presented to the President for his veto or signature. This bill creates what it calls a “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process” whereby the constitutional process is reversed. Instead of Congress’s initiating the decision to borrow money, the President has the initiative. Congress is relegated to the role of having to disapprove the President’s decision to lift the debt ceiling and authorize the Secretary of Treasury to do what the Constitution says only Congress may do — borrow money on the credit of the United States.
Instead of constitutional order, in which Congress presents a law authorizing the borrowing of money to the President to sign or veto, the President presents to the Congress his determination that more money is to be borrowed, subject to the acquiescence or veto of Congress.
Second, the joint select committee on deficit reduction provision undermines the constitutionally established bicameral legislative process.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 establishes a joint select committee of 12 members, six from the House and six from the Senate. Three of the six House members are appointed by the Speaker of the House and three are appointed by the House minority leader. Three of the six Senate members are appointed by the majority leader and three by the leader of the minority.
Title IV of the Budget Control Act vests in that joint select committee the power to draft legislation to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
Here, members of Congress yield their individual legislative duties and responsibilities to a “Super Congress” selected not by the people — but by Republican and Democrat leaders.
How many of these Congressmen and Senators campaigned on the platform that they would be elected, get sworn in, and then obediently surrender the power their constituents vested in them to the very same Republican and Democrat leaders who have created the problems they were sent here to solve?
To facilitate passage of the joint committee’s legislative proposals, Section 402 contains a number of procedural rules designed to expedite consideration of the joint committee recommendations. Generally, the rules require action by both houses no later than December 23, 2011, on a joint committee recommendation that must be submitted no later than December 9, 2011. Additionally, the section prohibits amendments to the proposed legislation and prescribes severe limits on the time for debate. In short the procedural rules dictate unity of action of a majority of each house to accelerate adoption of the deficit reductions recommended by the joint committee within a two-week period of time.
The Constitutional order is quite different. Article I, Section 1 vests the legislative power in a bicameral Congress composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The members of each body are elected in two very different manners. Each senator is elected by the vote of the people of an entire state, and each state has the same number of senators regardless of population. The members of the House are elected by the people in congressional districts divided into districts, each state being guaranteed at least one representative and the others allocated according to population.
The composition of each house then is deliberately designed by the Constitution to represent vastly different majorities. And for good reason. As the Supreme Court observed in I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 949 (1983), “by providing that no law could take effect without the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief … that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation’s elected officials.”
The Budget Control Act of 2011 departs from that commitment vesting incredible power in the joint committee, virtually guaranteeing that deficit reduction legislation will be “carefully and fully considered,” if at all, only by 6 of 100 elected senators and 6 of 435 elected representatives.
These are not matters of constitutional form without meaning — the process was considered central to the founders.
In the debates on the need for a bicameral legislature, James Wilson warned: “Is there a danger of a Legislative despotism? Theory & practice both proclaim it. If the legislative authority be not restrained, there can be neither liberty nor stability; and it can only be restrained by dividing it within itself, into distinct and independent branches.”
Even the last defender of monarchy among the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned that to “accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty [would] entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived.”
Thus, as the Supreme Court noted in Chadha, James Madison “point[ed] up the need to divide and disperse power in order to protect liberty”: “In republican government, legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and the common dependence on society will admit.” The Federalist, No. 51 (emphasis added).
The Budget Control Act of 2011 does just the opposite. Instead of ensuring action by two “distinctive bodies,” to be “exercised only after opportunity for full debate in separate settings,” the Act truncates the deliberative process by shortening debate, excluding amendments, and commanding uniformity. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951.
Expedition was never the principal object of the legislative process created by the founders. The object was to preserve limitations on the power of government in order to protect the liberties of the people. Liberties can be lost when bad precedents are set in the atmosphere of crisis — and crises can, and often are, manufactured. Precedents established can be hard to overturn. Rights lost can be hard to regain.
The 74-page Budget Control Act of 2011 was not written over the weekend. Yet it was posted on the House Rules Committee website with no fanfare, only hours before it was to be voted upon, breaking the pledge of the House Republicans to provide at least 72-hours advance public notice.
Contrived crisis, appeals to fear, emergency legislation, and suspension of Constitutional order — these are the indicia of abuse of power, leading to tyranny.
Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding Dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or Olsonlaw@twitter.com
Obama could care less about the 22nd Amendment, we are sure he already has his sites set on 2016 as a third term.
A list of layoffs since the election and we’ve had about 100,000 layoffs publicized since November 7th, 125 businesses, including some large chain stores, have announced they are closing and there have also been a number of bankruptcies announced.
You can thank the stupid American voter who either voted for Obama, or didn’t turn out to vote for Mitt Romney in the recent election for the recent layoffs. Obama has made it quite clear that he want’s to destroy the economy, as have far left Marxist Democrat!!
Since this list was made more lay offs have occurred and more Businesses have shut their doors
Layoffs Announced Since Election
Unemployment for the youth is extremely high, and it will only get higher if obama is allowed to serve another 4 years as our president…Young people , white, black and Hispanic, you may think obama is cool, but you can’t buy your cars and gas and stylish clothes with coolness, it takes a job, think twice before you pull that lever on November 6. Romney may be a square to you but he will create policy that will allow businesses to create jobs for you and that is what being a President is all about.
Pollster John Zogby told Secrets this week that support among younger voters aged 18-29 is down for President Obama and the new October unemployment rates announced Friday morning may explain why.
According to the government, the overall youth unemployment rate is 12 percent. But for younger black voters, a critical Obama support block, the rate is a staggering 21.4 percent. And for Hispanic youth voters it is 13.4 percent.
According to the youth-focused group Generation Opportunity, which pulled the youth figures out of the overall labor numbers, the picture might be worse.
“The declining labor force participation rate has created an additional 1.7 million young adults that are not counted as ‘unemployed’ by the U.S. Department of Labor because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs,” they said.
Generation Opportunity President Paul T. Conway, said “For the president, the failure to address young adult unemployment and to understand the negative impact on their hopes will, in retrospect, be seen as the reason why he lost support among millions of who once believed in his ability to affect lasting change.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today demanded that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turn over documents concerning what he called “excessively lavish” spending for official White House state dinners.
Issa also released a video titled “All the President’s Parties” comparing President Obama’s promises to cut wasteful federal spending with examples of extravagance drawn from the dinners for foreign dignitaries.
“During these tough economic times, Americans are reining in their spending wherever possible,” Issa said in the Nov. 1 letter to Clinton, citing recent reporting by The Washington Examiner. “The executive branch should be mindful of this. Reports of excessively lavish events, however, indicate the opposite.” (See the complete letter in the embedded viewer beneath this story.)
The Examiner reported on Oct. 26 that a May 2010 Obama state dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderón cost nearly $1 million, or $4,700 per attendee. Three other Obama state dinners since 2009 cost half a million or more, according to official documents cited by the newspaper.
The Massachusetts-based battery maker A123 Systems received a $249 million grant in December 2009 through President Obama’s stimulus program, of which the company received about $129 million before it went bankrupt this month. Like all other recipients of stimulus loans or grants, A123 Systems was required to report job creation statistics to Recovery.gov.
The latest quarterly report on file with a federal stimulus tracking database shows just seven positions created through the grant from April to June this year. Previous quarters’ job reports contained anywhere from a handful of positions created to more than 100 new jobs.
omg I do not think obama has ever had hurt feelings, and Bill Clinton is turning into as of a liar as obama and Biden…Liberals just tell lie after lie, do they have no self respet….
Obama plainly told the world his first car was a Ford Garnanda …
I have to confess; my first car was my grandfather’s car,” Obama told AAA in an interview. “Which was a Ford Granada.” http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/obamas-first-car-a-ford-granada/1#.UI8LuIaN-Sq
Today Clinton was at a campaign rally, he told the crowd that President Barack Obama’s feeling were hurt over Mitt Romney’s ad suggesting Jeep might move some of its production facilities overseas, awww the truth does hurt a liberal…
He went on to say: “I saw the reports of Governor Romney’s latest ad saying that the president had allowed Jeep to move to China,” said Clinton. “And so this morning, before he left Florida and went back to Washington, he said, ‘You know, of all the things Governor Romney has said that probably hurts my feelings the most.’ He said, ‘You know, I never had any money when I was a kid. and the first new car I ever owned I was 30 years old it was a Jeep.’”
Lie one is about his first car and the age at which he got it, lie two he was not poor…Obama went to a fancy private school in Hawaii, his grandmother was Vice-President of a bank, and his stepfather worked for Exxon in Jakarta. From fifth grade through high school he attended the elite college-prep Punahou School.
Third lie Obama owned a red Fiat. “Before returning to Hawaii, Stan bought his grandson a present: a beat-up old red Fiat that they found at a Los Angeles used car lot,” writes David Maraniss in Barack Obama: The Story.
The biggest lie, is Clinton claims the ad is false, but not according to Bloomberg
Coming hot on the heels of speculation that some Jeep production may be moved to China comes a bombshell from a Bloomberg report. Fiat is now considering moving Chrysler and Jeep production to Italy.
According to the piece, “To counter the severe slump in European sales, (Fiat CEO Sergio) Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said.”
So, let’s be real clear here, we are talking about vehicles that will be built in Italy and exported to America. The evidence is clear that Fiat is looking at ways to move production of vehicles from the US to elsewhere, whether it be China or Italy, costing American jobs. This is becoming indisputable, despite outcries from certain parties to the contrary.
Mitt Romney has rightfully criticized the Obama Administration for handing over Chrysler to the Italians and now leaving the fate of American workers in the hands of Fiat management. Fiat is not a healthy company and the auto industry is in as great a risk as ever. The insistence that all is well by those with political motivations does not mask the danger. More jobs are at risk of being lost and more taxpayer money may be lost as well.
Oliver Stone the famous film maker, offers a scathing critique of President Barack Obama’s time in office.
Stone, who wrote “The Untold History of the United States” with historian Peter Kuznick, puts forth a liberal interpretation of American history from the turn of the last century to present day. The 618-page book, slated for release Tuesday – a week before Election Day – from Gallery Books, slams Republicans and Democrats alike, and the authors’ assessment of Obama’s presidency is tinged with disappointment.
The country Obama inherited was indeed in shambles, but Obama took a bad situation and, in certain ways, made it worse,” Stone and Kuznick wrote. “…Rather than repudiating the policies of Bush and his predecessors, Obama has perpetuated them.”
Obama’s election “felt like a kind of expiation for the sins of a nation whose reputation had been sullied, as we have shown throughout this book, by racism, imperialism, militarism, nuclearism, environmental degradation and unbridled avarice,” they wrote.
But on subjects from Wall Street reform to health care to Afghanistan, Stone and Kuznick rip Obama for breaking campaign promises and continuing the policies of President George W. Bush — who’s roundly condemned throughout the book. In some instances, they write, Obama went further than Bush’s White House toward anti-progressive policies.
Ten Reasons NOT To Vote For Obama
1. Jobs not being created
Don’t let the official 7.8 percent unemployment rate for September fool you; work-force participation is at a record low and 23 million American are looking for work. Ten times as many people have dropped out of the work force during Obama’s term than have found a job. His last attempt at helping the unemployed—the 2009 stimulus package—cost nearly a trillion dollars with minimal impact on creating actual jobs.
2. Debt crisis spiraling
Under Obama, the nation has accumulated nearly $6 trillion in debt over four years and a second term would likely add more. The cost of financing the national debt will quickly skyrocket as interest rates rise. Obama’s only plan to staunch the bleeding is to tax the rich. But even if he succeeds in letting the Bush tax cuts expire for families with incomes over $250,000, the annual deficit of $1.2 trillion would only fall to $1.12 trillion.
3. Obamacare outrages
Obama’s signature achievement—the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—is more unpopular today than it was when he signed it into law. Obamacare adds to the deficit, while raising taxes on Americans of all stripes, even while harming job creation. Many families will lose their current health care coverage and surveys of doctors show many will flee the profession.
4. Foreign policy unraveling
The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi—and the administration’s incompetence after—is a dramatic example of the unraveling of Obama’s entire approach to foreign policy. Now Muslim mobs are protesting the United States around the world, apparently unswayed by Obama’s Cairo outreach. Add his ill-fated Russia “reset,” and his snub of world leaders at the United Nations and the result is a foreign policy with not a single positive achievement.
5. Economic anemia
We didn’t expect a rapid recovery after the recession, but we’re past a point where the economy should have begun to show steady growth as businesses become more confident, hire workers and consumer spending increases. But growth this year is under 2 percent. With crushing burdens and uncertainties heaped onto businesses—from Dodd-Frank and Obamacare to EPA regulations and tax hikes—Obama has managed to defy the business cycle.
Bloomberg’s interview with Jeep’s president said the automaker plans to restore Jeep production in China, suspended in 2009, and is considering making all Jeeps in China. “Fiat SpA, majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region,” reported the business wire service.
Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia and president of the Jeep brand, told Bloomberg, “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio” to China.
Chrysler builds Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley said the firm is in talks with China’s Guangzhou Automobile Group Co.
Let the spin begin, those worried this might effect obama’s chances even more to be re-elected are now saying Bloomberg is making Jeeps president statement to say what they want them to, In other words they are taking them out of context
It looks pretty straight forward to me, if you say you are considering China to make your product, it is hard to take that out of context.
Romney at a speech in Ohio told the crowd he had read this article, now liberals are having heart spasms trying to tell the world that HE, Romney lied and is using scare tactics, even if the Bloomberg article is wrong, Romney wouldn’t be the one guilty of lies. I read that same article and it clearly says Jeep is moving to China~
Read the article in it’s entirety here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/fiat-says-china-may-build-all-jeep-models-as-suv-demand-climbs.html