Honest Question, Seeking Honest Answer, Regarding BHO & Newt

[twyacht]

So BHO is circumventing Congress at a variety of levels. We Bit** and moan about it.  Now he is willing to give missile tech. to the Russians...

Fine. Just freakin swell...

Newt also said that activist Judges "legislating from the bench" should be called before Congress Judiciary Committee's and their rulings ignored if their rulings go against mainstream logic and ideology.

Here's a reference, I would like you all to scan and read first....Than reply.

http://arcticpatriot.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-on-nullifying-constitutional.html

1.07.2012
A "How To" on Nullifying Constitutional Checks and Balances...

I though that sharing missile defense secrets with one of the few countries that poses a missile threat to us would count as treason, spying, etc., and be punished accordingly.

I guess not if no one is willing to enforce the law.

(h/t to a friend)

And look here boys and girls, all of a sudden, our President is concerned with the Constitution (In the same way as are those who use "general welfare" to authorize everything they wish):

    "Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority."

Further on:

    Mr. Obama said in the signing statement that he would treat the legal restrictions as “non-binding.”

    “While my administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications,” Mr. Obama said, incorrectly identifying the section of the law containing the restrictions.

This, in English, means that he is intentionally ignoring the will of Congress, that is, the Constitutionally built check on an imperial president.  If a legal restriction is "non-binding", it is no longer effectively in force and is, for all intents and purposes, negated and dead.

So...  I declare that since provisions in NDAA 2012 threaten to "interfere" with my constitutionally outlined rights (authority as a citizen), it is non-binding.  As a result, I would be sorely tempted to treat anyone attempting to "detain" myself or my countrymen under this law as I would an average, everyday, happy-go-lucky kidnapper.

Just thought you all would like to know about our president and one of his latest strokes of genius.  It will go unpunished.

This is not a partisan issue though.  I believe it was the Dead Elephant Gingrich who declared that he, as president, would ignore any law he deemed "unconstitutional".   Well.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Something like that.

So, how's that PT coming along?  How about the family crisis/zombie drills?

Have a good weekend.

****

What's the Diff? A POTUS that can pick and choose Congressional edicts? aka LAW....Or a candidate, that can pick and choose what "laws" and "rulings", he doesn't agree with...

 

[tombogan03884]

Laws are fallible. would you obey a law that said teaching blacks to read and write was against the law ?

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/aalaws01.htm

The Constitution is the scale all laws are supposed to be measured against whether SCOTUS chooses to do their job or not.

[twyacht]

So where is Newt getting his frame of mind?

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it."

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them, it is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Barry Goldwater

[santahog]

Perhaps the answer you're looking for is the one you already know.. It depends on whose ox is being gored...
Judge shopping is a reality, whether it's legal or not, and leftist judges really are out of control. The Pres doesn't have th authority to impeach. I'd be willing to give the overseer a free hand, just to see what happens..
Sometimes Newt reminds me of my mother back in her glory days.. She's used to say, "Give me a shot at it. I'd fix it or fix it so it'd never be fixed".. I'm afraid that's where we are today anyway. I'm happy to go for broke, at this point.. At least he'd set the left so far back on their heels that they'd be 10 years after he left before they could regroup for another full on attack..
(I still like Perry. I'm duty bound to mention that...)