Photo Credit: teaparty.orgIt is not a president’s job to decide the merits of the Constitution but rather to enforce it as it is, or convene enough states to call for a constitutional convention and change it. It is not in his purvey or power to decide whether to enforce and defend it, it is in his oath of office and when he in any way refuses to abide by every sentence in the document, he violates his oath.
When an Attorney General decides he will ignore the Constitution and selectively enforce the duly legislated laws of the land, it is the job of the president to fire him, but when the president himself goes along with this unlawful violation, in my opinion, America has a constitutional crisis.
How does an Attorney General have more right to choose the laws he’ll enforce than private citizens have the right to decide which ones they’ll obey. What’s the difference?
When a president changes a piece of duly passed legislation that has become law, supposedly using the latitude afforded him by executive privilege, is he not circumventing the Congress and Senate and violating the process set forth in the Constitution?
The Constitution guarantees private citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There are those who will claim that this provision speaks to maintaining a militia, but keeping and bearing arms and maintaining a militia are two separate sections and never meant to be construed as one being dependent on the other.
Read more from this story HERE.