This is a post I made 2/1/08 on another thread. You don't seem to be on it so I'll repeat it for you.
The president has very few things granted to the office to do. One of those things amounts to a very large thing, but is ignored in a quality sinse. It's found in Article II, Section 3 -- "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's one of those things that seems to be very easy to glance at, assume that it relates to established law, and then forget about it. But there is more that is ignored.
Please, someone define just one word out of that quote from the president's duties. OH, I have a Black's Law dictionary, so I'll do it for everyone.
Black's Law defines FAITHFULLY -- "Conscientious diligence or faithfulness in meeting obligations, or just regard of adherence to duty, or due observance of undertaking of contract." OH, there is more supporting comment, but that's enough.
A president also has a constitutional obligation to 'sign into law' bills presented from congress. But there is also a constitutional obligation to support and uphold the US Constitution. That makes it an obligation to ensure the Bill has no unconstitutional provisions.
Now, for those who would like to debate otherwise, consider the Constitution as a pact, or more directly put, a contract. Well, that's the way our founders viewed it, shouldn't we?
What's wrong with holding the president responsible in this regard?
But there is more potential available if people want to use it. Article V of the US Constitution, last sentence reads; "and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate."
I don't want to define 'suffrage' for you hear because it would be too easy, and besides folks should take it upon themselves to search such things out. But, I will recap something about the Senate, and interested folks should check what I say out for themselves.
Originally, senators were selected by the state legislatures, their purpose was to guard the interests of the state. The states interests were expressed, first in the US Constitution, and again in the 'Enabling Act Providing for Admission into the Union of States.' In doing so, they were in the senate to, for one, prevent unconstitutional acts.
In 1913, we changed the way senators are chosen to popular elections. We assume then, because we are taught that way or by assumption, that the Senate became just another legislative. But Amendment XVII, Popular election of sentators did not change the purpose of the Senate. And it did not change the State's interest in preventing unconstitutional acts.
So, there you go, three neatly packaged idea that are constitutional and available to hold politicains to their responsibilities. But will the public use them. I wonder.
And to add; That's one reason we need to get Dr. Ron Paul elected.
Here's another one: Article I, Section 8 "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as my, by cession of particular states, and the aceptance of congress, become the seat of the govenment of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful building."
If the above is what the US Constitution grants to federal government, why does it hold title to all that BLM, National Forest, Natinal Parks, etc, etc. Constitution doesn't grant the authority. Here's what it does grant concerning pulblic lands. Article IV Section 3, The congress shall have power to DISPOSE OF and MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES and REGULATIONS respecting the teritory or other property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state." Plus Article VI, first paragraph: "All debts contracted and engagedments entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under the Constitution, as under the confederation."
So, you see, the Constitution grants federal government authority to dispose of public lands withing the bounds of a State, and to set use limits on them, like forest reserves, health resort spas, public parks, and for other needful and appropriate uses. Article VI brings in the negotiations between the States and Continental Congress to render title to the various County governments of a new state when organized. The process was necessary when the king of England granted all lands in the original States and in the territories. He was sneeky when he granted every acre equally to all the ten new states equally. It was resolved by the original States agreeing to transfer title to the Continental Congress for temperary holding so that title transfer to pioneer settlers would not have to go to every State for signoff of title, thus expiditing settling of the territory and forming of the new states.
From there you should research to connect the dots. It's a good exercise because you'll find that much of our public forests and parks were NATIONALIZED by presidential proclaimation and congressional misconstruction and abuse of power. Didn't the use of "National Park' ever give you a clue? Well, as typical, it escapes most of us until we question the actions of government.
So, now I'm tired and will go back into the shadows.
Tugboat
