Former president, Jimmy Carter, surrendered a constitutional power of the presidency.... without having the constitutional power to do so....
Well, folks, it appears that the former president who could not handle Iran when they attacked the U.S. Embassy and took hundreds of U.S. citizens hostage and held them for over a year, voluntarily surrendered a vital presidential power and authority over the conduct of war to--- guess who? The United States Congress, that's who.
Historically, the Congress has tried to increase its own power by making inroads into the powers of the Executive Branch and its presidential powers---and into control of the federal Courts, by setting up controlling and obstructive procedures for themselves. Those equal powers infringements include the advise, consent and confirmation of presidential nominees to serve on the federal courts---including the U.S. Supreme Court---and the use of filibusters, "holds," and "earmarks"---none of which are provided for or even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
When "earmarks" are surrepticiously used in the lawmaking process, taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent on pork-barrel projects, without the approval of the American people or the votes of a majority of their Senators and Representatives. Which, of course, subverts the voice of "we the people" when we cast our ballots at the ballot box. "Earmarks" are not even a Senate or House written rule or procedure; they are secretly inserted into a bill passing through Congress; and they can even be inserted anonymously. This is an astoundingly chilling subversion of the rights of "we the people."
Sure, Congress can make its rules and procedures for the Senate and House. But they cannot make rules that are unconstitutional. Presidents have been loathe to get into public battles with Congress to challenge their intrusions---or too weak to---and have not sufficiently challenged the constitutionality of bills passed by Congress or the unlawful actions of a power-hungry Congress and renegade activist judges.
And the Courts have failed to sufficiently challenge the Congress' manipulation and subverting of the approval of nominated judges by the Senate and the constitutionality of bills passed by Congress. It is the Courts' job to interpret the constitutionality of a law. But if there has been no legal challenge to a new law or it takes years for a challenge to work its way up to the Supreme Court---where they may or may not agree to hear and rule on it---an unconstitutional law is allowed to stand.
As we all know, the federal courts---even the Supreme Court---has been peopled with an increasing number of judges who, themselves, have been influenced by partisan politics and secular humanist, globalist ideologies and political agendas around the world and have become activists in including such influences in their rulings. Even to the extent of incorporating foreign laws, practices and mores into our body of law---in total disregard for the U.S. Constitution, which is the only authority that is constitutional for them to follow.
Those activist judges and justices treat the Constitution as a living document subject to change and they are taking it upon themselves to change it---unlawfully. Yet, the Congress has not done its job and held the federal courts and Supreme Court accountable for their unconstitutional rulings or removed activist judges who are violating their Oaths of Office to uphold the Constitution.
The party now out of power, and who have only had two presidents over the last 30 years, are delighted to and aggressively promote activist judges, for that is the only way they can accomplish their agendas and shove them down the throats of all American citizens.
So, why don't we all do our part to hold their feet to the fire---or vote to replace them. If we don't, we will ultimately be unable to preserve our democratic republic and the Constitution on which it is based and is the linchpin that holds it together and gives it its strength.
You can read below and here on the question Senator Arlen Specter has raised about the constitutionality of the F.I.S.A. law and how Jimmy Carter willingly surrendered inherent presidential powers.
Oh, and read radioblogger's take on Arlen Specter's remarks re the President, F.I.S.A. and breaking the law. You'll be glad you did.
"Arlen Specter: FISA Law May be Unconstitutional"
Sen. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said Sunday that while President Bush's terrorist surveillance program is a "flat out violation" of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it may be entirely legal because of powers granted the president by the Constitution.
"There is an involved question here . . . as to whether the president's powers under Article 2, his inherent powers, supersede a statute." Specter told NBC's "Meet the Press."
The Pennsylvania Republican said that if the FISA statute "is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution governs and the constitutional powers predominate...."
The Pennsylvania Republican said that if the FISA statute "is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution governs and the constitutional powers predominate."
Specter, whose committee is set to commence hearings Monday into the surveillance program, said that when the FISA law was signed by President Carter, he voluntarily surrendered his power to conduct independent domestic surveillance without a warrant.
"But that’s not the end of the discussion," the top Republican cautioned, promising that his hearings would explore the issue of presidential prerogatives and the FISA Act's constitutionality - or lack thereof.
Specter said he may call Carter as a witness to explain his thinking on the FISA law.