Skip to main content

 

Yet ANOTHER Democrat ready to dismiss the Constitution. But then, it IS Jesse Jackson Jr., another "jewel" in the Democrat "crown", who displays the effects of smoking crack on the job.

 

Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”

 

"President Obama tends to idealize — and rightfully so  — Abraham Lincoln, who looked at states in rebellion and he made a judgment that the government of the United States, while the states are in rebellion, still had an obligation to function,” Jackson told TheDC at his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday.

“On several occasions now, we’ve seen … the Congress is in rebellion, determined, as Abraham Lincoln said, to wreck or ruin at all costs. I believe … in the direct hiring of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head, some more than $40,000, some less than $40,000 — that’s a $600 billion stimulus. It could be a five-year program. For another $104 billion, we bailout all of the states … for another $100 billion, we bailout all of the cities,” he said.


VIDEO:
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10...ction/#ixzz1af96fW44



Original Post

Did anyone remind Jesse, that relocation of the Cherokee and other tribes, aka "The Trail of Tears," was an extra-constitutional act by Andrew Jackson -- the Supreme court having ruled against it. In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the supreme court re-established limited internal sovereignty under the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government, in a ruling that both opposed the subsequent forced relocation and set the basis for modern U.S. case law.

 

When, the President attempts to bypass the representatives of the people by extra-legal means and impeachment is not practical because of a divided Congress, there still remains a second legal alternative.  The House may take action before the courts to have the President arrested.  Interesting alternative --he'd still be in office, but a fugitive from the law.  Wonder which of his law enforcement officers he might trust to protect, not arrest, him.

 

In short, when the regressives can't get their way legally, they go for the throat.  All federal employees who participated in such a scheme might be reminded they would be fiscally responsible for any extra-legal funds spent.   

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×