Senator Robert Byrd Speaks Out
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on February 25, 2009 at 6:55 PM in Barack Obama, Executive Orders, FISA, Iraq, U.S. Constitution
I became a huge fan of Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, during the Senate debate on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq resolution. He spoke with conviction and passion, particularly in regard to the U.S. Constitution. And so, when I saw this article, Byrd: Obama In Power Grab, I was reminded of this man whose “hands may shake, but (whose) heart throbs for the Constitution of the United States.” It says something that Senator Bryd is willing to speak out, and speak out he does:
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
Well, I am glad someone is pointing it out. Our system of Checks and Balances have been sorely thwarted over the past 8 years. Sadly, Obama has demonstrated that he is all too willing to maintain what Bush has done (FISA, States Secrets, Extraordinary Rendition, to name a few), and as Senator Byrd points out, is expanding the power of the Executive Branch:
While it’s rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he’s not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that these White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.
“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”
The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the President will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the Administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”
Senator Byrd spoke out on this very thing in regard to Bush:
I must say, though, if Senator Bryd had been paying attention, he would have been well aware that transparency was never high on Obama’s list. This president who has provided no legislative papers, no datebooks, no college transcripts, no graduate transcripts, no authentic birth certificate. To expect any transparency now is almost laughable. If it wasn’t so disturbing…
So far, Obama has not chosen to distinguish himself from some of the more egregious decisions Bush has made, as noted above. There is still time for him to do so:
Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.
Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisors in resisting such subpoenas, by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.
I am glad Senator Byrd is speaking out on behalf of the Constitution. I am glad he is trying to keep Obama’s attempt to expand Executive Powers.
How I wish Senator Byrd had stood with the people of his state this summer (Senator Rockefeller, too). How I wish he had been moved to listen to the majority of people during the Primaries who made their voices clear. How I wish he had supported with his vote the person who would not have participated in these Executive power grabs. But no. Despite his relationship with Hillary Clinton (and her husband), despite two-thirds of his state going for Clinton, he picked Obama. And now he is beginning to see what we saw. Now he is beginning to see the power grabs, the lack of transparency, the move away from Checks and Balances. Now he is beginning to see. I fear it is too little, too late…
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
“Sadly, Obama has demonstrated that he is all too willing to maintain what Bush has done (FISA, States Secrets, Extraordinary Rendition, to name a few)…”
You forgot to mention one that really bugs me. It’s Obama’s continuation of Bush’s Faith Based Initiative, providing money to certain faith based groups. I am now wondering how this is pulled off if Congress does indeed hold the purse strings.
BO said he planned to expand faith based initiatives before he was elected. No surprise.
Oh, yes – I have written abt this a ton of times here, but thanks for adding that to the list above. You are quite right.
Yes, his EXPANDED (as sowsear pointed out) Faith Based Initiatives, for which he ALSO kept that people could be hired based on religion. Oh, yeah. Sheesh.
Thanks, meileen for the reminder!
Yes, I’ve read your posts and was surprised you did not include this effed up program.
Love your work.
Thanks – I appreciate that, meileen!
Glad you mentioned it(sadly, I am sure there will be more as time goes on). It is definitely a big one, to be sure. (Frankly, I still cannot believe all of the progressives who are NOW A-Okay with that horrible violation of Church and State just because Obama wants it. WTH already?!?)
I’m with you girl. All my gay lefty friends still see nothing wrong. And they never will, or at the least, they won’t admit it.
That’s an interesting question, meileen.The Democrats in congress will have their integrity on the line when they vote for appropriations for these programs. Of course, they have no honor left.
No honor or integrity or any real sense of honesty. They threw that out with the baby.
Wait until they decide that Rove doesn’t have to testify. Because of Rove has to answer to the legislative branch, then so do 0bomba’s minions. When they come out with their garbled message, Gibb’s head will do the exorcist movement and the gullible will not know what to think. Mark my words.
He’s going to need a lot of faith because he is in way over his head. I understand they are starting every meeting with the phrase, “Let us pray”, especially with his faith-based voodoo economics taking center stage.
Ferd – been reading through the federalists papers and the founding fathers intent. They did not want the US to be a nation without religion but a nation of peoples with a belief in a Creator. They actually thought this beleif in a creator and reverence was necessary to have a virtuous citizenry. I am not a religious person but enlighten me on how the faith based intiatives is wrong? Is it because we are using tax dollars? Papers also reveal that they wanted a separation of church and state not federal.
I am reading til my eyes are bleeding. There is so much that I did not know and how the original intent of the founders has been twisted like a pretzel.
wow – sorry for ALLLLLLLLL the typos.
athena, “separation of church and state” doesn’t refer to the individual states, but the country as a whole. It’s difficult in retrospect to know with absolute certainty what the “intent” of the founding fathers was with regard to religious belief. It is known, however, many of them were not Christians. Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intellectual signer of the Declaration of Independence and his opinions on the subject would indicate he feared religious tyranny. The faith-based initiatives proposed first by the Bush administration and continued by Obama, in fact violate the Constitution since it allows the discrimination in hiring based on the religious beliefs of the applicant. Almost without exception, this money will go to organizations which will require the person applying for help to attend some type of religious indoctrination or service and since there is such a great variety of beliefs among the population, someone’s tax money will end up promoting a belief that is anathema to them. One of the men who worked in GWB White House, left because he said the programs were being used as political grass roots organizations payed for by taxpayers.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
And they not only discriminate for religion but for gender since many religions consider women too much “impure” to do many jobs and tasks, for example Christianity or Islam
While there were the original colonies several of them attempted to base who could be elected on the basis of their religious belief. This was a problem recognized before the establishment of the US States of America.
This is why the Foundrs said their should be no religious test for office.
As to the Faith Based Initiatives, if the holders of these faiths don’t pay taxes then no tax dollars should be provided for their support.
No taxation without representation. Name one religion that represents all tax paying Americans.
And that last one will be funneling money to Islamists under the guise of Mosque programs for immigrants or the poor.
Reverend Moon was getting a big chunk of the money. The problem with faith based initiatives is that they are not held accountable to any standard for delivering the services they do. None of their services have to be proven efficient or even work. Their staff does not have to meet any qualifications for giving said services, even though a licensed professional may be required anywhere else. They are also exempt from any federal hiring guidelines and may discriminate in their hiring based on the ideological basis of that faith community. There is also a sense that there would be inherent discrimination and or proselytizing to those receiving assistance. Those who receive assistance may feel pressured to accept an ideology in order to continue receiving services.
The view of the “Creator” was different. There was no evangelical movement. In fact the evangelical movement started in this country against the preferred ideology of our founding fathers which was deism.
We know that faith-based initiatives are essentially pay-offs to political patrons. Rev. Moon owns the Washington Times, for example.
Churches are reliable for getting-out-the-vote. Simple as that.
meileen: my personal gripe, too. It’s just vote buying. The FBI and the Neighborhood Project. Promising people tax dollars in exchange for votes. When Bush did it, the Democrats screamed to high heaven, but now that Obie’s doing, it’s fine, it’s fine.
RabbleRouser: are you unaware that Byrd is totally complicit in the ravaging of the geography of his own state by way of mountain top removal? He’s their lobbyist and he’s steered much legislation through to benefit these coal companies who are destroying the drinking water of West Virginians and demolishing the natural environment in that state.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. “Ravaging the geography of his own state”, despicable as it is, does not rise to the level of abrogating our Constitution. On this matter, Sen. Byrd is absolutely right.
Yes, Where was that one senator who needed to object when BO was confirmed?
Obama will redefine the White House to suit his agenda. Everything that is old will be OBAMA SUPER SIZED, GIVE ME MORE AND MORE.
Remember? Obama made the promise to have an administration of ‘openness and transparency’ after the unilateral control of the Bush admin.
More like looking through lead.
LOL – good one, TheBigB. Though really sad for the US (and us)…
Yes another experiences “buyers remorse”.
He did what Teddy told him as far as endorsing Barry.
Just a little reminder of the character of Robert Byrd…
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Someone wrote to me asking if he was taking out the white sheets and I replied that there will be plenty of other people doing that for him.
I realize that was 65 years ago – different time and all, people change and grow – but HOLY COW…I am speechless…
Um, thanks (?), Jackarooty…
Hi RRRAmy,
I have a problem with Bobby Byrd because he stood in the Senate and cried as he endorsed Barry. WTF?
I’m just waiting for the pol bots (Clyburn, Sharpton, etc.) to start flashing the race card…or will they? Nah, they’re too busy yapping about a chimp cartoon.
You know that the pending 28th Constitutional amendment states “if thou shalt criticize Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States you are deemed a racist”.
OT (slightly) How ’bout that Spitty Matthews and his comments about Bobby Jindal? His follow up is worse than the “Oh God” comment!
I wasn’t aware that my representative, Jim Clyburn, had STOPPED flashing the race card!
He sure milked that for all it was worth here in SC, stabbing the Clintons in the back at every opportunity.
And Elise, I do believe in the power of redemption. I had just not seen that particular quote by Byrd before. But I think he has become a stalwart defender of the Constitution, and a believer in the Federalist Papers (which he offered to send to Bush during the debate on the Iraq Resolution).
BUT – I was exceedingly disappointed in him for turning his back on his own people who chose Hillary by a LANDSLIDE. She even went to meet with him personally, and still, he bowed to pressure from the DNC.
I suppose I could have simply said that this past election has opened my eyes in ways I had not dreamed possible…
This showed that Byrd doesn’t have a spine and will follow the leader as he did back in 44.
Thank you! RRRAmy and you summed up my point very succinctly. I don’t care what he has to say now. It’s what he didn’t say during the primaries that pisses me off. I want to know how he’s going to redeem himself for that one.
Perhaps some wierd form of Redemtion for Byrd.
Hear Me, HEAR ME!…. Hear me NOW!
Byrd is right to be troubled. Regardless if his past was a racist one. I do not believe that if one returns from the darkside with sincerity, I would not condem them.
Do you believe redemption is possible, Jackaroody? Even if it was a different time and to get elected to office in West Virginia in 1944 being racist was an unwritten qualification? RRRA wrote about Sen Byrd’s action in opposing the Resolution for Iraq and Obama made a speech opposing it. Look at Sen Byrd’s voting record and then decide if he has grown into a valiant defender of the Constitution of the US. What he wrote in 1944 was horrible and can’t be defended, but if he has sincerely changed and his actions prove it, should he be judged solely by the past? BTW, I was also disappointed he chose to support Obama, but I’m not sure the two things under discussion ( your comment and his decision ) are unrelated. He would have been called a racist, if he had not, and that is a charge yo which he would have been particularly sensitive.
Hi Elise,
Of course I believe in redemption. My reason for posting that statement is that it will be dredged up by the Obots. Anytime Barry is criticized the race card is pulled out of the deck.
He sold his soul when he endorsed Barry and cried about it.
No doubt the bots will present this statement as an argument against the substance of what Byrd said and will probably disagree this is what Obama is doing with the czars he’s appointing even if this is clearly his intention. Byrd probably realizes this is what will happen too, but he sent the letter anyway. He’s already been stripped of his chairmanship, which means his influence is being undermined to make his opinions irrelevant as RRRA suggested.
Elsie Redemption is illusive no?
At times it is, Teak, but sometimes it can be attained with one act of courage. To pass half a lifetime in the search and be denied at the end of life is sad beyond belief. I believe Sen Bryd is sincere, but I have no way of knowing that for sure.
To pass half a lifetime in the search and be denied at the end of life is sad beyond belief.What you describe is the Shaw Shank Redemption
Red’s? Two thirds of a lifetime paying for a crime commited as a young man and a few years as a free man living in a warm place ( Mexico ), listening to beautiful music.
Bots will roll eyes when there is a question about BO and say, “what, that again?” “That is such old news.”
Yet,no problem bringing up something from 65 years ago when it suits em.
As far as the white sheets, I’m following the stories on the Mexican Mafia kidnapping and dismembering people in Atlanta and I’d like to know where is the Klan when you really need them? (Just kidding, but seriously, 50 years ago foreigners would not have dreamt of coming into our cities and pulling this crap).
Now he is beginning to see. I fear it is too little, too late…
I pray you are wrong, but I fear for our country too. I fear that there will be no accountability during this fraudulent administration.
I do pray that someday soon there will be justice for the American people and Obama will be thrown out on his ass!
Those who would support such a man have some serious issues,how they could not see what was right in front of their eyes is beyond me.
Why would anyone commit to lie, cheat and steal for someone so corrupt?
Corruption breeds pure corruption. Obama had the help of the entire DNC to “put one over” on the American people.
It seems as though this time around there were enough on Capitol Hill that were already so corrupt that a pay off or two would be more than enough for them to participate in defrauding the American people.
Either way, it is what it is and we can only hope that there will come a time, very soon I hope, that Obama’s world will fall apart and we will finally have justice.
I believe that those who lie and cheat to get what they want will be found out, maybe not today or tomorrow, but they will have to pay for what they have done.
Karma, I believe in Karma and I know Obama will be found out for the fraud that he is.
Off topic: Nancy Pelosi must visit No Quarter. She had to have seen the $49.99 Solvit Deluxe Bench Seat cover (shown above right) with the dog and bought one for her frock last night. ;}
ROFL!!!! What is she contantly picking on in her mouth? Disgusting….
Well we warned them. We told the people that the Obama would try to rewrite history in his ugly image.
Right down to the simple detail that the CAR was Not invented here in the USA. THe first car was made by Karl Benz. ANd last I looked he was from and in Germany at the time.
We are in trouble and BYRD is right but the warning comes too late. Hold on tight folks it is going to be a bumpy ride. Let us hope we have a nation left in 4 years and a constitution by which to rebuild.
Elwood Haynes constructed the first automobile in Kokomo, Indiana and took it out for a spin on July 4, 1894.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwood_Haynes
Karl Benz’s first motorwagon was not constructed until 1895.
Obama is correct.
Nope. Benz built his car in 1895. A US inventor named Elwood Haynes had already built and driven the first American motor car in Kokomo Indiana on the 4th of July, 1894. Haynes was also the inventor of stainless steel.
Here’s a circa 1894 photograph of Elwood Haynes in his first automobile:
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/es/in/es_in_elwood_1_e.html
Actually, there were several international automobile manufacturers before 1894.
Benz’s company began in 1888, and the French Panhard et Levassor (the first company formed exclusively for auto manufacturing) started in 1889, with France’s Peugeot starting up in 1891.
Even the Duryea brothers started up auto production in 1893.
You’re right. I just read up on Benz. His successful motorwagon prototype dates back to 1885.
We’ve still got an American Automotive First, however, thanks to the Duryea brothers of Illinois that you mentioned.
Wikepedia says one of their vehicles was responsible for the first known automobile accident.
An American automotive first. Not the first Automobile.
I hate to tell Senator Byrd but as soon as this Chicago politician stepped in the door of the WH it was too late–look at the people surrounding him, Holder, Emanuel, Axelrod, Duncan, Geithner and others who are outright racists, tax cheats, and crooks. He should have looked alot harder at this fraud before he dumped HRC, now we’re all paying the price for soemone who’s probably not even a U.S. citizen.
Byrd can kiss my ass.
Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia can go take a hike. He lost me when he endorsed Oblahblah over Hillary Clinton who whipped BO’s ass in W. Virgnia. He had his chance and made the wrong choice. Now he can live with it like the rest of us have to.
Totally agree. Hillary won West Virginia by a huge margin. Byrd endorsed Obama anyway. Guess it didn’t matter what the voters wanted.
Byrd and all of these other politicians selected Obama. Now they have to live with it. They knew what they were getting, since you can’t tell me they didn’t notice his cheating ways to to nominated. They knew exactly what they were getting and now they’re getting burned.
No, we’re getting burned and if anyone of them repents of their past support and wants to confront him, we should support that effort. No time to be churlish.
Agreed. I am for anyone who can accurately point out (and back-up) any Constitutional discrepancies perpertrated, or endorsed, by anyone in power.
In this instance, Byrd did just that. My admiration for him (or lack of) as a whole, has no bearing on his pointing out the truth, and defending the Contitution.
Again, I am grateful to anyone who steps forth to do such, at any time.
Amen, Sandi78.
you are right. Byrd should have endorsed Hillary. I guess he endorsed Bo to prove he is not a racist.
In any case I cant stand Bo everything is over the top with him. The greek columns. The huge inaugeration the press conference every day!
I am sick of him already and he has only be in office one month. I am apalled that a person with bos connections rezko Ayers bought himself the White House.
I think it took tremendous courage for Sen. Byrd to say what he did.
Apologists for the POTUS are indeed playing the race card (read the comment section of the original Politico article) and are dredging up Sen. Byrd’s long ago association with the KKK — blaming the messenger and totally ignoring the message.
From where I sit, the man has displayed more integrity and honor in expressing his grave concerns about these administration czars than ANYONE has dared. This is very serious stuff and the POTUS is making Bush look like a piker. We can rant until we’re blue in the face about Alinsky methods, etc., but something like this coming from a fellow and venerable Democrat speaks volumes IMO.
God Bless Sen. Byrd!
Patience…Your points are well taken and I agree that Byrd finally showed spine by confronting Obama and his plans for absolute rule.
Obama wants to bring back
The Divine Rights of Thugs!
I see it. Is the ego of a pathological liar. Absolute rule. No pathological liar would go to sleep without meditating in it.
I agree, Patience. And I don’t think the Robert Byrd of 2009 is the same man with KKK associations in 1944. Unlike many of our Senators and Representatives, Byrd has devoted many years to defending the Constitution. He may be one of the few who has read it and studied it (and that includes our “pseudo professor of constitutional law” who occupies the White House. Byrd’s letter is talking about issues that go to the heart of the nation and how we are governed. And if his personal/political history doesn’t pass muster with some, let’s not forget that Washington and Jefferson and a few other names on our national documents were slave owners. They’ll play down Byrd’s comments as the rumblings of “an old man” (remember, they slapped that label on McCain as well). But his long career shows the evolution of a politician. While Byrd may be “the oldest,” he’s no bird brain. He has a passion for the Constitution. This country could use more of that passion.
I second that!
I believe we’ve all had to transform our racist opinions and attitudes…that is, if you’ve lived long enough. Very few people were born into families without some racist programing. It’s the courage to move past it that counts and I believe Senator Byrd has done that.
I picked up a signed copy of his book “Losing America” about Bush at an estate sale last year. I haven’t read it yet…bought it to pass on to my son who is a political history buff.
There were different motivations for the actions of members of the Democratic Party in this past election; power, pressure from fellow Democrats, the candidate’s bi-racial genetic heritage. Some may have even believed they (through him) could change things in a good way. We have to be intuitive enough to know the difference and not blame everyone equally because the next election depends on our ability to judge the person and not the party. I love your name, Patience. It has an aura of the eighteenth century.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912&ei=tnSQSfncNZCq-wHg_vX8CQ&q=zeitgeist&hl=en
Zeitgeist Addendum
This video is worth watching, especially the Federal Reserve Bank and how it controls our debt for profit. Unless we the people stop living on credit we will not be financially solvent. This video is a 2 hour video, but educational.
Thank you for the link introducing us to this video. I’m only 25 minutes into it, but can say that it’s very well made (in 2008) and seems to be going in the right direction. The explanation of how the Federal Reserve/central banking system works is probably the clearest one will find.
You might find the following of interest–especially the last chapter, “Central Banking”
And,
http://wlym.com/articles/ingraham-anglo-dutch.pdf
PDF – 311Kb – 48 pages
About 55 minutes in, it switches to a man by the name of Jacque Fresco and his Venus Project, and in my view isn’t so great thereafter. Before that has clips from an interview with John Perkins who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man which are very good for those who might be unfamiliar with the subject. Slick, though.
It remains a fact that Byrd is only reason that the Constitution is taught in K-12 at all. Even the two sad days.
Our children will not know what it says never mind what it means.
Thanks for the post Rev. Amy. Even a clock is correct twice a day in spite of itself. Byrd on point here.
And you thought Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to consider impeachment was for the sake of unity?
I appreciate your great article, Amy, but I cannot be happy about anything Sen. Byrd complains about now — he had his chance to endorse Hillary and he also came out for the fraud during the campaign (betraying her and their great workign relationship over the years) — surely he has been around long enough to know what he was buying — and selling.
His complaint now rings hollow — he cannot have been blind to Pr. Obama’s arrogance, even during the campaign.
We have not enough knowledge of the pressures and threats put on our elected representatives–threats to their persons, their families and the welfare and livelihoods of their constituents.
We might ask ourselves, “Has Hillary Clinton forgiven Robert Byrd?” Or to borrow the term used wisely in a comment above, “How frequently do we witness Hillary Clinton being churlish?”
I can’t believe people are complaining that Senator Byrd is doing his best to rein in a horrible attempt to upsurp the constitution…again. His past hardly matters when it comes to bringing this to light.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that a southern politician might have been racist back in the 40’s. We were brought up with it. However, many of us were also brought up with Christian values as well and as adults saw the disparity between racism and Christianity leading us to stand and fight for civil rights. I didn’t vote for Obama and it hadn’t anything to do with being black but because he’s a liar and a cheat. Certainly not what anyone should have wanted as an example of the first black president.
He has to be stopped from using this dirty tactic…or as Byrd so accurately said, “power grab” to nullify the oversight of Congress. That is certainly bigger than Senator Byrd’s past. Rather than trying to erase his past by voting for Obama, considering his age, he may want to re-pay us by protecting the constitution.
My response to one of your earlier posts warrants repeating here.
“Agreed. I am for anyone who can accurately point out (and back-up) any Constitutional discrepancies
(or violations) perpertrated, or endorsed, by anyone in power.
In this instance, Byrd did just that. My admiration for him (or lack of) as a whole, has no bearing on his pointing out the truth, and defending the Contitution.
Again, I am grateful to anyone who steps forth to do such, at any time.
Yes indeed. We all need to practice putting our priorities in order!
Even Russia has a Constitution..
The question is..Under what Circumstances and On What Authority Can the articles of The United States Constitution be Over ridden..and how much Power can the President Ultimately Have ..??
i/e Martial Law and Executive Orders..
Actually, the Constitution deliberately gives each state sovereignty over it’s laws, except for SPECIFIC powers granted to the Executive Branch. Executive Orders are not included, nor are many federal laws imposed upon the states. There are 25 states who have passed, or are in the process of passing, resolutions re-asserting state sovereignty. The purpose is not to secede from the US, although that is an option, rather, to remind DC that it’s power is derived from the consent of the governed. The right of sovereignty was written into the Constitution at the demand of the colonies before they would join the Union.
If 34 states pass such resolutions, most of the bureaucracy can be dissolved. In other words, we can throw all of the bums out.
“and how much Power can the President Ultimately Have ..??”
As much as we the people through the congress are willing to allow. Given the military power of the US, that is a very scary prospect. No checks and no balance is the opposite of what the founders intended. The political parties are the problem.
Checking in this morning, have to say, what an interesting, thoughtful, spirited, respectful discussion this was. Thank you all so much for your comments.
And Ani – I hear you – I was very upset when Byrd threw his support to Obama. I could scarcely believe my ears.
BUT – I am glad that SOMEONE is standing up to Obama in his quest to be all powerful. As I said, it may be too little too late, but it needs to be said.
And Elise makes a great point, too – Obama can only grab as much power as we allow him to grab. I have to believe that so many of these people who blindly follow him, who are not aware of his more unsavory actions (thanks to the shoddy work of the MSM), will have their eyes opened. Sooner rather than later, I hope…
Byrd can bite me. Politicians like him are the reason we have Obama today.
I believe that most of the sheeple who follow Obama will never have their eyes opened. They aren’t capable of it. The only hope is that many of them will be too bored to vote for hope and change twice.
Amy, this is very well written, and I agree with you about Senator Byrd’s oratory.
Truly, I thought he might be the last, best hope for the Democratic Party, and his powers of persuasion might cause the Super Delegates to reflect on what they were doing.
BUT, then he goes into the BO camp! The most liberal member of the Senate!
Yes, too late now Honorable Senator Byrd!
this man who was “selected” to the most powerful job in the land has done absolutely nothing to earn or deserve it other than being lucky enough to inherit his fathers pigment instead of his mothers.
I wrote on this same subject at Alegre’s Corner and cross-posted at Partizane (around the same time you posted your take; only just read your take) earlier this evening, Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy. And I agree with you.
No question this is too little, too late. But I’m glad he did it anyway, even as it makes my teeth grind. We PUMAs and Clinton Dems have understood this about Pres. Obama for months. Why did it take Constitutional scholar and statesman Sen. Robert Byrd this long to figure it out?