Qualifications for Federal Elected Office

Friends, anyone that runs for federal elected office should have to demonstrate that they have a COMMAND understanding of the United States Constitution. That is their job manual if they get elected. Don't let them simply tell you that they are a Constitutional Conservative, make them PROVE IT to you! Ask them questions about the Constitution and specifically if they know what their limits are, and ask them to explain to you if they know how to use this manual. Its a popular thing for pseudo conservatives today to also try to use their "faith" to shore up the "Christian" voter population. Don't fall for spiritual talk, if they don't know the Constitution, they simply cannot perform their function of handling the controls of a nation ordained by God. The Church has fallen for way too much of this in recent years. Simply because someone talks like a Christian, or actually is a Christian, does not equip them to be be elected to Federal office no more than it would equip them to pilot an aircraft.

All this talk about the "fiscal cliff". Its pathetic that we have so few people that call themselves Conservatives understand how to take on the left. The left has coined this term in order to freak out the public to soften us up for the President and his ilk to raise taxes. Folks, if you look at the balance sheet for our nation right now...we have already gone off a cliff. There is pain coming...that's a simple fact because of what we have done. Raising more revenue for a behemoth government that has an insatiable appetite for spending will do nothing.

We simply MUST stop selecting and voting for people that give us lip service that they are Conservative and hold to the Rule of Law, then as soon as they are elected they begin coalescing with those that are already entrenched in power and the lust for more. Dont fall for the trap that "they all do that", there are honorable men that can hold to their word as long as they understand that they need accountability and to be held accountable. Elect NO one, vote for NO one that does not prove this to you. Make anyone that wants your vote for federal elected office demonstrate that they have a command understanding of the United States Constitution. That is their job manual if they get elected. Dont let them simply tell you that they are a Constitutional Conservative, make them PROVE IT!

How Important Is It For a Federal Congressional Office Holder To Have Command of The Operating Manual?

While speaking on the RadioFree Rocky D show a couple weeks ago, the radio show host Rocky D who is a staunch conservative himself...kind of asserted to me that its not important for a Congressional candidate to really have a great understanding of the Constitution because as he said, they can "look it up". I'm glad he went ahead and voiced that...sort of makes my point...or at least gives me the chance to drive it home.

Friends, I disagree completely. I agree that folks dont have to have it memorized....but my point is that the people we elect ought to have what I call a "command understanding" of the document...it is enough for you or me or joe citizen to be able to pick up a copy of it and look something up. But for people we are going to elect to this high office and pay them a very large salary by the way...., I think the standard ought to be higher, much higher as a matter of fact. The individuals that we elect, we are entrusting a tremendous amount of responsibility to be faithful to the intent of the Framers of our Government. These individuals need to be able to have a complete understanding of the Constitution and the intent of the Framers...or how to discern the intent of the Framers. That is a "command understanding" of the document. If they are scrambling to look something up like a third grader everytime the libs are raping the document...they are going to be severely behind the power curve. Why would we elect people like that? Our standard for these offices ought to be much higher, as a matter of fact the absolutel baseline ought to be a firm grip on this "government manual".

This kind of thinking that we just say ..."oh yea...I know about the Constitution, thats that little booklet some citizen gave me a copy of while I was running for office" and then they summarily dismiss it like its some old piece of history. That has to STOP! If we are serious about getting our government back inside its "fence"...we can no longer give this lip service.

Laws vs Regulations

Permit me to provide just a little heads up and training this morning. The President, is now going to try to ram gun control legislation through the Congress. I doubt he can get it through the House, but the majority of the GOP over there continues to not be who they say they are...so you never know. If he cannot get gun control legislation through the Congress, I expect him to attempt to use Executive Orders to enact regulatory schemes through Executive Branch agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).

So, here is a relevant piece of information about our Constitution that many of our elected officials either do not know, or choose to ignore. Like I have said before, it has to be one of those two things; ignorance, or gross dereliction of their oath. All of these agencies that now fall under the Executive Branch are not mentioned in the Constitution. All of these agencies are authorized by statutory law enacted by the United States Congress, the Legislative Branch of our government. The framers of this brilliant document we call the Constitution vested ALL legislative power in the Congress. This is found in the very first sentence in the Constitution, Article I, Section 1. All of my former students young and old, know this as “the first principle of American Government”. Article I, Section 1 is made up of one sentence: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Therefore, per the Federal Constitution, and the brilliance of the framers, we have only one branch of government that can constitutionally make law. I point out “constitutionally” because many times people tell me: “well that’s not the way it is now”, to which I answer, “precisely my point, thanks for making it”. The reason that’s “not the way it is now” is due to our collective ignorance, silence, and inaction.

But on to my point, whenever one of these Executive Branch agencies makes a regulation, it is made behind closed doors by bureaucrats that are unelected, and therefore unanswerable to the people. The reason Article I, Section 1 says what it says is because the framers intended for laws to only come from people that had to answer to you and me at the ballot box. They intended for federal laws to be enacted by a deliberative body that would openly debate the merits of each law considered. Ok, so back to these things called “regulations”. Regulations enacted by Executive Branch agencies like BATF will carry the force of law with monetary or incarceration type penalties for violating them in exactly the same way a law passed by the Legislative branch would. Therefore, even though they are referred to as “regulations”, they are in effect laws. Good case in point, the Healthcare law that was passed (I call it ZeroCare) contained almost 3000 pages of statutory law enacted by people we voted for. To implement that behemoth law (the largest single law in our nation’s history), unelected bureaucrats have written almost 10,000 pages of regulatory dogma to date. Those regulations will be the undoing of most of our current healthcare system and many of our businesses.

What I am describing to you is just one way that our government has grown way beyond the Constitutional fence that the framers designed to keep the branches of our government separated and “in check”.

So why do I take the time to write all this out for you. Glad you asked. If the Presidnet and his cohort the Vice President are not able to get their wishes by enacting more firearms laws through the congress, they will probably turn to some other Executive type regulatory scheme with the BATF. When this happens, our lawmakers (Senate and House) are going to tell us that they did their job and refused to pass the legislation, and therefore we ought to thank them and pat them on the back and that its all the President's fault. I want to encourage you to be prepared to hold their feet to the fire and ask them why they permit the Executive branch to run roughshod over them by passing regulations that they (the Congress) have not passed into law. Here’s where knowledge of the workings of the Constitution comes in. Article I, Section 7 states that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. In other words the House of Representatives has first and final say on anything to do with spending. This is a very powerful “check” that virtually goes unused today. If an agency of the Executive Branch does something that violates the Constitution, like making law where they have no authority to make law, then the Congress can hit back (check) by defunding that agency. It actually is that plain and simple. So you might ask, Bob, why don’t they ever do that? We can only surmise why they never utilize this “check”, more than likely its fear of being accused of shutting down an important agency, or keeping federal workers in that agency from getting their paychecks, myriads of things not to which the least of them would be the leftist media excoriating them.

But folks, this is where we are today, for years of dereliction of duty, of Congress looking the other way while these agencies torment the citizenry with more and more regulations. The Congress enacted these agencies and turned them over to the Executive Branch, and now refuses to keep them in check.

Be informed and hold our elected officials accountable for their oath to the Rule of Law, the United States Constitution.

Most Important Qualification for SCOTUS Nominee

In an effort to provide a little training in what does and doesnt make a good nominee for a Supreme Court position...or any federal judge for that matter, I want to offer up the following information. This is CRUCIAL at the SCOTUS level.

When Justice Sotomayor was nominated by the President a few years ago...she stated that as a Latina woman she would make a better justice than a man because she could provide "empathy". That was a very telling moment friends because that is precisely what should have DISQUALIFIED her for that seat on the SCOTUS in the eyes and ears of an astute United States Senator that understands how the U.S. Constitution works. Something Senator Graham from SC either does not have, or chooses to ignore. You might ask: "Bob, why on earth should her having "empathy" disqualify her?" I'm glad you asked that question. You see "empathy is a good thing, a very good thing....for a local family court judge to have, maybe a local magistrate, etc. But my friends, "empathy" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the job of a SCOTUS Justice. As a matter of fact to do that job....it takes a VERY special individual.

It takes someone that can divorce their own feelings from all decision making and simply hold the issue in question/before the court up to the text of the federal Constitution and determine Constitutionality in light of the framers intent in 1787. Period! Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less. Their "empathy" will lead them to disregard the intent of the framers in most instances because of the limited nature of the federal government that was clearly intended in this document that bestows so very few powers upon the federal government. I have been teaching this long enough to know what you may be thinking at this point...yep...your thinking..."thats a dream world Bob, no one can do that". Let me introduce you to one of the very best justices...who can do it. No, Im not saying Justice Scalia is perfect, he is not. He is human...but let me show you how this is supposed to work. Watch it several times if you have to in order to understand what is being said. Its worth your time to get this down...and get it down good.

Justice Scalia on the "Confrontation Clause"