Obama's "27th" line in the sand

What does this (my article's title) mean: "Obama's '27th' line in the sand?"

First of all, I'm referring to the 27th Amendment to the US Constitution: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

Second: I urge President Obama to draw a line in the sand by seizing the Bully Pulpit to beat up the GOP House because of its blatant attempt to violate the 27th by means of text inserted into the so-called "No Budget, No Pay" bill passed by the House on Jan. 23, 2013. That text reads:

“In order to ensure that this section is carried out in a manner that shall not vary the compensation of Senators or Representatives in violation of the [27th amendment], the payroll administrator of a House of Congress shall release for payments to Members of that House of Congress any amounts remaining in any escrow account under this section on the last day of the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.”

Even though the bill's text says it "shall not vary the compensation," it does exactly that. Since a Senator gets paid twice per month and a Representative once per month, the bill is clearly unconstitutional since its worst case scenario would delay payment for up to 8 months. I maintain that this "delay" constitutes a "varying of compensation" clearly prohibited by the 27th. Nothing could be clearer.


Barack Obama's Oath and the Bully Pulpit

Earlier this week - a scant 3 days ago - in front of tens of millions of people watching on TV, Barack Obama swore this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

President Obama should immediately go on national television and throw down the gauntlet by saying this:

"I swore an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,' so I say this to House Speaker John Boehner: I will sign the debt ceiling bill into law but only if the part that blatantly and obviously violates the 27th amendment is removed from that bill's text. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle know the vital importance this bill will play in avoiding a default in the payment of the United States' debt obligations. Be that as it may, I find it unconscionable that the House saw fit to include an provision irrelevant to that goal which violates the 27th amendment.

"I remind Speaker Boehner and other members of the House: You swore an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution' - an oath which includes this final sentence 'So help me God.'  Not even my oath mandated 'So help me God.' The House, by intentionally including language which violates the Constitution, makes a mockery of the oath you took invoking God. For House members who are not men of faith, I suppose that is a moot point. For those of you who profess such faith, however, I remind you that this is a matter of grave concern.

"This is the oath you took:

"'I...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'

"I hereby charge any member of Congress who refuses to remove this unconstitutional language from this bill to be, in the language of the oath you took, a domestic enemy of the Constitution. And that would make you a traitor.

"For those who might claim the 27th amendment isn't clear enough or that it isn't 'valid' since the Supreme Court has never interpreted it, I point out the obvious:  Any reasonably literate adult, upon reading the text of the 27th amendment, would easily understand its clear and concise language. Furthermore, they would also understand how the language of the bill seeks to violate that clear and concise language.

"To the GOP members of the House, I additionally call into question your loyalty to the concept of constitutional strict construction. To the members of the House from my own party, I remind you that expediency can never be a good reason to violate the Constitution.

"Again, I will refuse to sign this bill into law unless its language attacking the 27th amendment is removed."


Unfortunately...

Barack Obama has already signaled that he will sign this "No Budget, No Pay" bill. Which is too bad. For he could have taken a stand in favor of the Constitution. A stand so strong that Boehner and company would have immediately removed the offending language from the bill. There can be no doubt of this, since Boehner's GOP cohorts, should they balk, would suffer from the whithering blasts of a continuous presidential assault which calls them, in no uncertain words, traitors.

In addition, Obama would have gained by permanently damaging the GOP's reputation for being greater "strict constructionists" [in terms of Constitutional interpretation] than Democrats are reputed to be.


An additional comment on strict construction

Just so you know how strongly I feel about the letter of the law, I hereby explain why Barack Obama did not successfully take the oath of office on January 21, 2013. In front of millions, he said, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." However, by including his name in the text of the oath, Obama did not recite the prescribed oath which follows - and which, in the Constitution, is emphasized by quotation marks:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's the oath.

Now some might accuse me of being too picky here. To which I respond: If the Constitution is supposed to border on the sacred, if we can't do as it specifically says, then why bother having any kind of constitution in the first place?

Chief Justice Roberts could have addressed the teeming thousands present in the freezing cold by facing them and saying:

"President-elect Barack Hussein Obama will now take the oath of office, which I will now administer."

Then, turning toward Obama, he could have said, "Raise your right hand and repeat after me: 'I do solemnly swear..."

There! That would have been more like it - more Constitutional. I refuse to believe that our leaders lack the intelligence to have come up with this option or one similar to it. I'm left wondering, though, why they don't exercise that intelligence far more often. And if you think I'm being too picky, I counter with: They're not being picky enough - and it shows in the way they conduct the nation's business.


End note:

I hope you find this link useful in terms of understanding what this so-called "No budget, No pay" bill offers:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/23/news/economy/debt-ceiling-house-republicans/


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for the US presidency (2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"Unless we can embrace a commonsense interpretation of our laws - and write laws that can be so interpreted - we will continue our slide down that slippery slope leading to our destruction."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com