by Bill O'Connell on March 22, 2011
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.—War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 2(c)
How many times have we heard both during the 2008 presidential campaign and since that Barack Obama was a constitutional scholar? Where did he find the time? Between being a community organizer, a Illinois state legislator, a law school professor, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, when did he find time for his constitutional scholarship?
Click to read more
by Bill O'Connell on March 15, 2011
You almost have to wonder, why in the world did he run for president? Was he swept up in the ego trip? Was he reading too much into his own press clippings? Did the historic opportunity of being the first real black president, sorry Bill Clinton, in U.S. history overwhelm a careful consideration of what the job entailed?
[click to continue…]
by Bill O'Connell on February 5, 2011
After the deranged Jared Loughner was subdued in Tucson, it took virtually no time at all for Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dubnik to start blaming rhetoric on the right to have driven Loughner to his deed. As the story unfolded, there was no such evidence to support the sheriff’s claim. If anything, Loughner’s leanings were leftward.
Click to read more
by Bill O'Connell on February 1, 2011
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. – Judge Roger Vinson opinion in STATE OF FLORIDA v UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Perhaps the most arrogant, condescending act of Congress was the passage of ObamaCare. Opinion polls consistently counted the American public to be strongly against it. Town hall meetings during the summer before its passage were raucous and united in opposition as politicians cowered before their constituents. Many politicians who voted for the bill stopped holding town hall meetings, choosing instead to hide under their desks. During the fall 2010 elections, rare was the Democrat who boldly campaigned on ObamaCare.
Click to read more
by Bill O'Connell on January 21, 2011
The bedrock principle of the First Amendment is to protect political speech from government censorship. That is what the Founders intended as a way for the citizens to disagree with their government without fear of reprisal.
Click to read more
by Bill O'Connell on January 4, 2011
The Tea Party has some major accomplishments to their credit that will be on display this week. The first is a reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives to open the 112th Congress, the second is the change to rules that require any bill to state where in the Constitution Congress has the authority to enact that legislation.
Click to read more
by Bill O'Connell on December 20, 2010
The news reports called it a coup. President Obama called it illegal. Liberty’s Lifeline followed this story with several posts defending the action of the Honduran’s to enforce their laws. The one position we disagreed on was exiling President Zalaya rather than dealing with him within Honduras. Part of the disclosure of WikiLeaks sheds some light on the issue.
Click here to read more
by Bill O'Connell on December 14, 2010
Whether you call it an iceberg or a torpedo, ObamaCare just struck something or vice versa and it doesn’t look good. The ship is taking on water and you can hear the orchestra tuning up as they rearrange the deck chairs.
Click to read more
by Bill O'Connell on December 10, 2010
Comments submitted in response to a previous post, “The Progressive War on Federalism,” focused on the Electoral College and a movement called the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com) bill. Rather than argue against my point it only seemed to reinforce it. The objective of this movement, which before this commenter’s contribution I was unaware of, is to abolish, or should I say neuter, the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president. This movement looks to further weaken the states and move us away from federalism and toward a strong monolithic central government. Here is my analysis.
Click here to read more
by Bill O'Connell on December 6, 2010
I still find myself in awe of our Founding Fathers who created our form of government. The competing ideas that they sifted through to come up with our Constitution and the safeguards in it is wondrous. The designs upon it by the progressives is by equal measure disturbing.
Click here to read more
