Column for March 3, 2011

The United States Constitution in Article IV Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Not to be confused with the GOP (Republican Party), it simply means that we have a representative republic for a national government. We don’t have a democracy, an oligarchy, a monarchy, or a dictatorship. We allegedly have the rule of law, division of branches of government, and a system of checks and balances. That seems to be lost on our current Commander in Chief.

There were three decisions by the Obama administration that directly affect some or all of us, depending upon your status, all of which are beyond the constitutional authority granted to the executive branch of government. Over-reaching power is nothing new. As a matter of fact, as of this writing (Monday afternoon), I will be teaching in a few hours on a huge power grab by the Supreme Court in the Marbury vs. Madison decision of 1803.

The Obama administration has determined that they will continue to enforce the so-called Obama Care health care reform legislation even though two courts have ruled it as unconstitutional. In another instance, the Obama administration has refused to allow the re-importation of historic military surplus rifles back into the United States, thus violating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Thirdly, the administration has decreed that the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by then President Bill Clinton is unconstitutional and therefore will not enforce its provisions.

In the instance of Obama Care, it is sheer arrogance to continue to ram down a defeated and unwanted agenda. The government and the American people have bought into the principle of judicial review, a power never granted the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) or judicial branch yet was usurped anyway. That power was specifically debated and denied the judicial branch during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. If the judicial usurpation is accepted, then it applies regardless and we can not cherry pick what laws they can declare null. Either the court’s decision stands or it does not. If the law is indeed unconstitutional, then its continuation must also therefore be considered as such.

In the case of rifle importation, the Obama administration has simply decided to disallow the return of what General George Patton termed “The greatest battle implement ever devised”, the M1 Garand rifle. It served us brilliantly in World War II. During the Korean War, we left nearly a million M1 Garands and M1 Carbine rifles with the South Korean government.

I am a federally licensed Curio and Relics firearms collector. That means like thousands of other collectors in the nation, I went through a background check with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Many freedom loving, law abiding Americans, and/or shooting and history enthusiasts would also love to own an M1. This right is being denied by Barack Obama under the guise of not wanting the guns to “fall into the wrong hands”. Somehow I doubt that criminals will be engaged in using a long gun designed in the 1930’s that only holds 8 rounds when handguns are the preferred weapon of your average criminal. It is sort of hard for gang members to conceal the rifle, to carjack a car with, or for burglars to carry an M1 Garand during a break-in. This ban on the re-importation of historic rifles made by Americans for Americans is ridiculous.

Believe it or not, I tend to agree with Obama that the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. However, the opportunity for the executive branch of government to declare it as unconstitutional rested with President Clinton. A later President can not simply declare something as unconstitutional and therefore not enforce the laws of the country. If you find the law repulsive, repeal it. We have a process set up for that. If we really want DOMA to be the law of the land, we should make it an amendment to The Constitution.

I have a copy of the letter sent to the Speaker of the House by the Attorney General’s office. The reasoning that DOMA “violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment” is preposterous. Not only is the Attorney General in error (the equal protection clause is not in the Fifth Amendment, it is in the 14th), but the amendment was designed to provide equal treatment under the law to people regardless of their skin color. Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do, so there is therefore equal protection under the law.

For the executive branch to simply deem a law unconstitutional and therefore refuse to enforce the law is a dangerous precedent, not to mention that ironically is in itself unconstitutional. What if a future president decided that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and therefore refused to enforce it? This sort of thing can cut both ways.

We are supposed to be a representative republic, but if we allow things to continue, we are well on the way to becoming the very sort of dictatorship that President Obama has recently condemned in Libya, Egypt, and the Middle East.