As the political parties and their agendas are the means to an end, a justified means as Democrat begets Liberal who begets Communist, and as Conservative begets Republican which begets Progressive Lite, the People are stuck with a society without the objectivity required for any semblance of governance, self or otherwise. “Objectivity,” politically, has become a game of wordplay where the object is to keep the subject something other than the entirely one-sided view that government knows best.

Case in point: Obamacare.

We've heard them say it over and over again, “Obamacare is the Law of the Land.” Anyone else get the memo that Obamacare is Constitutional Amendment 28? Yeah, I didn't think that happened either, those Amendment things are pretty obvious as they require quite a bit to be done:

“Article. V.

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

Yeah it's a high hurdle, one that one party having super majorities in both houses of Congress can't accomplish either, you know those first 2 years of Obama's Presidency when they passed Obamacare but didn't increase minimum wage (the big divisive White House whine of 2014), or address immigration reform, nor balance the budget and create a downward government expense trajectory by efficiency, transparency, and all the other empty promises of Barack Obama.... But they did pass Obamacare, a mere Legislative enactment subject to likely repeal as The Affordable Care Act was entirely a partisan enactment without one single opposing party vote. I'm sure glad Al Qaeda is on the run or Obama'd be a total failure, well, save that he'll be “flexible” with Putin after the 2012 elections.... Anyone else wondering if that was about the Ukraine and Crimea? At least we're not leading from behind and Putin knows not to violate the border of a Sovereign state that was once the possession of the Communist Soviet Union and take part of the country. No, I am not trying to emphasize anything nor set forth one “smidgen” of sarcasm, that's just not something I know how to do (some things are just irresistible, though obviously saving the lives of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods wasn't one of them for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and/or David Petraeus. But hey, if that's what it takes to get a Christian arrested for exercising their Free Speech by making a youtube video trailer who are we to question the government, right?)

Luckily, I didn't digress or this article would be a complete waste of time. You see, all of these things brought up go to the same Democratic Party/Barack Obama issues: partisan agenda and politics of power.

For Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, their sole party's most government power expanding effort has been to have government be the source of and creator of a right, and Obamacare is the enactment of the U.S. Government granting healthcare as a right by mandating purchase of insurance coverage (that's the scheme of the thing).

However, and this is the point of all of this, there was this person Iran chose to send to the United States as their U.N. Ambassador, Hamid Aboutalebi, who it appears had some involvement with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis that occurred under the former worst President of the United States Jimmy Carter, and this led to something very rare indeed: A unanimous, absolutely bi-partisan and fast-tracked piece of legislation that is summarized as banning access to the United States by barring issuance of a visa “to any nominee to the United Nations deemed to have engaged in terrorist activity.” I repeat and emphasize this act unanimously passed both houses of Congress! (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/)

Now, if it isn't clear yet, Constitutional Amendments need a larger than majority vote to be amendments to the Constitution, both by Congress, 2/3, and when Amended by the States alone or in approving an Amendment proposed by the national Government, 3/4 (38 would be needed today to Amend the Constitution).

Obamacare was passed solely by a partyline vote, and though there were Democrat supermajorities in both Houses at the time, these were not passed according to the threshold to Amend the Constitution (or I am sure we would have had “The Obamacare Rights of Fairness Amendment” instead).

So now, in reviewing the vote count for this legislation to ban Hamid Aboutalebi, it was passed by a greater threshold than a Constitutional Amendment requires, a unanimous passage with 0 against threshold by both the House and Senate, the entire Congress, yet, Barack Obama doesn't for an instant see this obvious criteria to what makes the Constitution alone the Law of the Land, the Article V threshold being achieved and surpassed as a showing that the object of the Amendment's purpose is something well beyond party politics and ideological difference.

How, other than political gamesmanship, does Barack Obama miss the absolute clarity to a piece of legislation having nothing to do with the government borrowing, spending, taxing, and/or expanding, having received unanimous approval by the entire Congress, a certainty that the threshold of being “Law of the Land” has been surpassed, and though not an Amendment, the unanimity assures none would argue with the mandatory and non-discretionary enforcement of this law by the public servant in the Executive Branch, the President of the United States? By Barack Obama, the Progressive Community Organizer from Chicago, making sure that Barack Obama has the final say, even if the entirety of both parties agree to something:

“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our nation,” Mr. Obama said.

“But he said presidents also have a duty to defend their constitutional turf — in this case, the right to decide who is accepted as an ambassador.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/18/.

United as is possible is what a unanimous vote states, a certain assurance to the office holder of the Executive Branch who is to enforce the law that the legislation is, as written, self-executing and intended to be enforced as an unequivocal statement of the Will of the People, of America, to be regarded with no less power than the Constitution itself, easily affectionately it could be referred to as the “Law of the Land” as neither the political parties nor the people are in dispute over the law.... Which begs the question: We cannot say the same for Obamcare now, can we? No, but the label... oh yes, they'll put the label “Law of the Land” on Obamacare. And the President, well there's no advisory to Obamacare, by a signing Statement. Instead he unilaterally just changes the regulations to accommodate the latest regulatory scheme to replace whatever legislative (and likely constitutional) scheme they can't make work according to the express terms of the law as passed by the Democratic Party alone. You see the lack of any sense to government, by tautology and holding partisan agendas in higher esteem than the unanimity of the political parties, as though a disdain of even this most rare occasion of the members of Congress carrying out their Constitutional Role as a united voice of the People as a whole?

Maybe this will better illustrate this, using the whole idea of “Progressive logic” we'll apply the same method used for the IRS “Progressive Income Tax.” Okay, so if there is any measure by which Obamacare can be called the Law of the Land, the Article V Standard of the Constitution (3/4 of the States' approval required) would be an exponential increase in import, the “tax” of a Constitutional Amendment as the Law of the Land, which, thus applied again to an act of Congress specific to the Constitutional Requirement of National Defense, Foreign Commerce, and the concise meaning of “general Welfare” that barring issuance of a Visa to those who are and remain a threat to the United States is, we are witnessing another exponential increase of import to the supreme power in weight of authority of the Ted Cruz law barring Visas due solely to the lack of any opposition amongst those who do the legislating, and to which there is no margin for question, rebuke, or discretion whatsoever by those charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (the whole point of an “Executive Branch” is not as a second guessing, over-mind conscience as to whether the representatives of the people, who it takes quite a bit to get to agree unanimously on anything, really mean what they passed without any objection amongst themselves as a body. There is no greater authority than the People whose voice is their representatives when the volume of their voice is as one voice – unanimous. There is no power in the Executive Branch to pick and choose what is done by the representatives of the People and providing that their Will is to be ignored or “advisory,” particularly when unanimous, unless, of course, we're saying the most wealthy can legitimately decide only to pay the taxes they want to pay (in staying with the IRS Progressive Income Tax illustration).

You see, though the President has certain powers regarding objects within the sphere of the Executive Branch according to the Constitution (the United Nations didn't exist in 1789), if you look closely at the news articles, Hamid Aboutalebi is being nominated to be Iran's Ambassador to the U.N., not the United States of America. The need for a Visa is a technicality so this Ambassador can travel to New York when required for United Nations Business. Don't get me wrong, I am glad Ted Cruz sponsored a bill in the Senate to effectively ban issuance of a visa to nominees of rogue nations with questionable history and intention who have intimately associated with our enemies – terrorists – a bill that was expeditiously taken up by the House and on President Barack Obama's desk in record breaking time. But to what discretion – loss of power paranoia – is Barack Obama acting up with a tantrum as though being denied any powers regarding receiving Ambassadors? I mean, is Barack Obama also President of the U.N. or is this the overactive political meddlesome imagination of a narcissistic Community Organizer who tried to hide that from us by naming his dog “B.O.?”

I bet you're glad I didn't digress again, phew, it was a close one!

Thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman