Oaths of Senators to support and defend the US Constitution - Senator McConnell

Congratulations to Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated to succeed the late Judge Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court.  Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama, on Wednesday morning March 16th, to fill the seat on the Supreme Court left open by Justice Scalia. Now, the US Senate must advise and consent as required by the law in our Constitution.

\

Judge Merrick Garland - A native of the Chicago area, Garland graduated from Harvard College and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. After serving as a law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States, he practiced corporate litigation at Arnold & Porter and worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he played a leading role in the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers.

In compliance with our US Constitution, our US Senate now has a sworn responsibility to interview Judge Garland and to vote on his nomination to the US Supreme Court.

May 5, 1789
The Senate's First Act -- the Oath Act

On May 5, 1789, the Senate passed its first bill -- the Oath Act. That first oath, for members and civil servants, was very simple: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

To Senator Mitch McConnell who put down an unprofessional and unethical threat to President Obama about appointing a successor to the deceased Judge Scalia, the message is this: You will loose this challenge to President Obama's responsibility to nominate a successor to Judge Scalia. Although your threat not to interview or call for a vote on Judge Garland may receive some short term negative gain, but the long range prediction to your stupid obstinance will be politically destructive to you and the US Senate. 

Eventually, the issue of when a President can name court appointees will somehow find its way to the United States Supreme Court. At that time, the issue will be resolved with a definitive interpretation of the US Constituion. 

A US President has the responsibility to appoint his nominees as stated in Article II, section II of the Constitution, ie, our nation's laws: (The President of the United States...) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law....

When Seantor Mitch McConnell abdicates his responsibility to interview and call for a vote to advise and consent on President Obama's appointment of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, he is in violation of his oath of office and, therefore, is unfit to serve in the US Senate.

If Senator McConnell continues to defy his Constutional responsibility to bring Judge Garland to a vote for approval before the judiciary committee, then he must be voted out of office. 

Senator McConnell is proviing himself as unfit to serve in the US Senate. He and his right wing Republican colleagues must be removed from political office.

Ted Cruz needs American citizenship training

It's the epitomy of ignorance, but Texas Senator Ted Cruz wants to amend the US Constitution to require the Supreme Court to be elected, rather than appointed.  The US Constitution created three branches of government, with the Supreme Court being equal to the President (Executive) and the Congress.

The US Constitution included the laws to establish a United States Supreme Court

Americans who fall for the Ted Cruz Supreme Court ruse should be exported, faster than any undocumented immigrants called for by his radical followers  Here are the facts.  Americans are seldom enamored by US Supreme Court rulings. Nevertheless, the court rules when the political system breaks down. In other words, like them or not, the Supreme Court justices make decisions and move public policy forward, while the Congress, and the President are stagnant and locked in gridlock. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, meaning their decisions are supposed to be exempt from political persuasion. Obviously, Supreme Court justices are selected for approval by the political system of influence at the time they are appointed. In other words, Democrat presidents are inclined to select liberal justices while the Republican executive officers are likely to appoint conservatives. During their lifetime appointments, the balance of the 9 court justices, somehow, manage to rise above politics, at least most of the time.  

For Ted Cruz to ignorantly recommend a Constitutional amendment to require Supreme Court justices to be elected is ludicrous.  

Cruz is probably calling for another Constitutional Convention, or a follow up to the 18th century meetings of the founding fathers to rewrite the tenets of our nation. This would be a huge waste of tax payer money. Indeed, this stupidity is driven by his political ambitions, rather than for a reverence for the intention of the US Constitution as written by the creators of America.

Agree with them or not, the Supreme Court justices are not influenced, like elected officials.  Justices are not subject to election campaigns, television media purchases or political action committees. In other words, Supreme Court decisions are based on the US Constitution and they are not influenced by the whim of politicians who want to control the judiciary.  

It's really time for Ted Cruz to disclose his roots as a Canadian and stop trying to re-write the US Constitution.  

Moreover, Cruz should have an educational certificate of evidence that he's taken American citizenship training. He must prove he understand how our government works, before recommending any amendments to the US Constitution, a documents that he swears, as a US Senator, to uphold.

Tragic Fort Hood deja vu more preventable gun violence on a secure military base

American news continues to be consumed by preventable gun violence incidents. These seemingly limitless incidents cause deaths and injuries, because of the unregulated access people have to own and use weapons that cause death.

Although we seem to be inoculated against street gun violence caused by gangs, the deadly incidents on military bases are particularly concerning. These bases are supposed to be the places where our nation is being defended against terrorism. Now, the bases are apparently the places where domestic terrorism incidents are clustering.

It's time for the Second Amendment rulings of our United States Supreme Court to be held responsible for individuals who abuse the liberty. I've always been reluctant to hold the high court responsible for an individuals behavior, but when the Second Amendment trumps the rights of people to be protected from those who abuse this constitutional liberty, then the court must be replaced. 

Has anyone thought about a class action suit by victims of gun violence against the US Supreme Court? Of course, such action would just be a gesture, but it would get attention and might even remind the high justices about their moral obligation to balance the law with the protection of innocent people.

Now, Americans are faced with a seemingly deja vu gun violent incident at Fort Hood. This is the same military base where Hasan, the Army terrorist who perpetrated the 2009 crime, has yet punished although, even though he admits to the crime.

Our US Supreme Court has clearly lost it's way as a moral compass for Americans. The Court's libertarian leanings have done nothing whatsoever to support average Americans living in the 21st Century. Deja vu violence is being supported because of concrete interpretations of the US Constitution written to protect citizens who lived in the late 18th century.  

I'm not qualified to be a law commentator, but it's clearly wrong for the Supreme Court to continue supporting unbridled Second Amendment Rights. 

It seems like Americans need to find protection from the US Supreme Court and dangerous rulings by right wing justices.

Costly Government Shut Down and the Tea Party's Tyrant Influence

Tyrants are people who exercise power oppressively, like the Tea Party.

Clearly, Tea Party right wing Republican extremists are tyrants. They're imploring oppressive and undemocratic pressure on the government to leverage a federal shut down for the purpose of oppressively forcing repeal of the health care reform law, known as Obamacare, just because they happen not to like it. 

It's completely unclear to me how Republicans get away with this tyrannical behavior, when we live in a democracy where Obamacare was voted into law by a majority of the people's Congress. Subsequently, the law was also upheld by the US Supreme Court as a Constitutional law.

Even more repressive, the Tea Party zealots are costing tax payers lots of money by using obstructionist tactics to get their tyrannical way. Here's why:

1.  Obamacare is currently being operationalized by hundreds of health care organizations and insurers who are preparing to implement the law on October 1, 2013, and provide January 1, 2014 insurance coverage. Any delay or unfunding of this momentum will cost tax payers and insurance beneficiaries money in opportunities cost, because the implementation cannot pay in 2015 (the proposed delay) with 2013 money.  In other words, unfunding will require preparation to cease, a cost in and of itself, and re-implementing will be more costly in 2015, after the price is adjusted for inflation.

2.  Much of the Obamacare law is already implemented.  Do Tea Party zealots mean to roll back that which is already in place?  If so, this is plain crazy because how does one take a 23 year old off of a parental insurance policy if they don't have other coverage? Does the Tea Party really mean to remove children with chronic health care needs off of their parents health care plans?  Really?

3.  Obamacare is law. Therefore, the President of the United States must do whatever is necessary to implement and uphold the law. There's at least one precedent for a President's to uphold the law in the face of obstructionism. Do Tea Party zealots remember when President Dwight Eisenhower used federal troops to escort Negro children into racially desegregated schools, after the US Supreme Court upheld the landmark Brown versus the Board of Education ruling?  Upholding Obamacare may require President Barack Obama to prevent the shut down of government against obstructionism by Tea Party zealots, because their tyrannical tactics are focused on destroying our national economy for the purpose of bringing down a federal law. Obviously, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer like President Obama, but it seems to me the intent of closing down the government is to obstruct implementation of a federal law, which requires executive intervention.  In other words, President Obama must keep the government open and implement Obamacare, overriding the minority influence of the tyrannical Tea Party. In my opinion, people will welcome this high level of intervention if it means our nation will pay bills already incurred and allows Obamacare to move forward as required. All the above is costly in time and enforcement, while tax payers pay the bill

Tea Party zealots screech like cats mating when they see the government spending money to help people with important programs like Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans and Unemployment benefits. Nevertheless, they have no morals, whatsoever, when wasting money to break the health care reform law. 

It seems like hypocrisy and tyrannical behavior go hand in hand.

Tyrants have always been an ugly part of the human condition, but at some point, ethical and legal leadership must restrain their undue influence. It's time President Obama takes action on behalf of the law. As as Commander in Chief, he must exert Executive leadership to keep our government from shutting down. In doing what's right, and anti-tyrannical, President Obama will prevent the harm and cost caused by closing down government and protect the implementation of the Obamacare law.

A value added to doing what's right and Constitutionally justified is the elimination of the undue influence of the tyrannical Tea Party. This will save the government the money wasted by Tea Party obstructionists, who are obsessed with undermining our democracy for the sake of forcing their unlawfully zealous agenda.