The left invents a ‘right’ for Obama

The left is notorious for taking away rights guaranteed by the Constitution and creating rights that do not exist under it.

Now leftists are giving President Obama a new right.  As reported by Huffington Post, “[f]ormer Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fiercely defended President Barack Obama's constitutional right to appoint a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

PoliticusUSA says, “Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders slammed Republicans for their absurd denial of President Obama's basic constitutional right to replace the deceased Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.”

The intended impact of the language is clear: denying Obama on his nomination to replace Justice Scalia is violating his “constitutional right.”  The GOP is therefore against constitutional rights.  That certainly markets the issue to the left and low-information voters better than the Senate’s having the constitutional check on Obama’s power.

Federalist Paper No. 76 addresses presidential appointments.  It mentions no such “right,” but instead “the power of appointment.”  It even calls appointments a “duty,” but combined with the “approbation” of the Senate, which the Constitution refers to as “consent.”  Writes Federalist 76 author Alexander Hamilton, “The possibility of rejection [of the nominee] would be a strong motive to care in proposing.”

The governing “rights” of kings were deemed “divine.”  That notion was rejected in the creation of the American constitutional republic.  Through the Constitution, the people granted power to government.

Government has power.  The people have rights.  The Constitution created checks on government power to protect the rights of people.  That’s the American formula.  That concept is lost on Obama, Hillary, Bernie, and their cohorts in the liberal press.

The fight over the replacement for the late Justice Scalia is indeed about protecting rights, but those of the people, not those concocted by the left for more unhinged government power.

It is also a fight about protecting the rule of law over government.  Obama has consistently demonstrated his contempt for that, and it is likely that an Obama nominee would fail in the judicial duty to properly adjudicate the law governing government, the Constitution.

The left is notorious for taking away rights guaranteed by the Constitution and creating rights that do not exist under it.

Now leftists are giving President Obama a new right.  As reported by Huffington Post, “[f]ormer Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fiercely defended President Barack Obama's constitutional right to appoint a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

PoliticusUSA says, “Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders slammed Republicans for their absurd denial of President Obama's basic constitutional right to replace the deceased Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.”

The intended impact of the language is clear: denying Obama on his nomination to replace Justice Scalia is violating his “constitutional right.”  The GOP is therefore against constitutional rights.  That certainly markets the issue to the left and low-information voters better than the Senate’s having the constitutional check on Obama’s power.

Federalist Paper No. 76 addresses presidential appointments.  It mentions no such “right,” but instead “the power of appointment.”  It even calls appointments a “duty,” but combined with the “approbation” of the Senate, which the Constitution refers to as “consent.”  Writes Federalist 76 author Alexander Hamilton, “The possibility of rejection [of the nominee] would be a strong motive to care in proposing.”

The governing “rights” of kings were deemed “divine.”  That notion was rejected in the creation of the American constitutional republic.  Through the Constitution, the people granted power to government.

Government has power.  The people have rights.  The Constitution created checks on government power to protect the rights of people.  That’s the American formula.  That concept is lost on Obama, Hillary, Bernie, and their cohorts in the liberal press.

The fight over the replacement for the late Justice Scalia is indeed about protecting rights, but those of the people, not those concocted by the left for more unhinged government power.

It is also a fight about protecting the rule of law over government.  Obama has consistently demonstrated his contempt for that, and it is likely that an Obama nominee would fail in the judicial duty to properly adjudicate the law governing government, the Constitution.