Can Article Four Save Wisconsin?
Well, yeah, if we had a president who actually took his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously. Article Four speaks to the federal government's duties to the states:
Article Four, Clause 1:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, . . .
Article Four, Clause 2:
[...] and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Well, certainly Wisconsin had a "republic" form of government; they held open, free, and fair elections in November of 2010 and elected a Republican governor and legislature.
What followed was a band of renegade legislators going into hiding to prevent the state government from functioning, while the rioters whom they supported occupied government chambers in order to disrupt legislative business.
Since these events unfolded, the legislature of the state of Wisconsin has been unable to perform its duties to the people whom elected them. Has there ever been a clearer example of the U.S. federal government needing to fulfill its constitutional obligations to one of the Union's member states than this? (Wikipedia references the 1967 Detroit riots as an example where it was apparently discussed but not invoked).
So Barack Obama could end the madness in Wisconsin (and in Indiana)by simply remembering he is president of the entire United States of America, not just the ever-shrinking segments that support him, and by preforming the duties he swore an oath to.
That oath again?
"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."
Allowing the Constitution to be flaunted as it is by the unions and the Democrats in the Midwest is in no way defending it; refusing to use the powers it offers to fulfill the role it demands is neither preserving it or protecting it.
But we gave sacred trust of the Constitution to a man-child, a radical activist, a community organizer who will use it only to serve his ends when necessary, and shred it when what it demands runs counter to what he wants, oaths be damned.
A lesson for future generations, I suppose, on the safe entrustment of liberties...
Article Four, Clause 1:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, . . .
Article Four, Clause 2:
[...] and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Well, certainly Wisconsin had a "republic" form of government; they held open, free, and fair elections in November of 2010 and elected a Republican governor and legislature.
What followed was a band of renegade legislators going into hiding to prevent the state government from functioning, while the rioters whom they supported occupied government chambers in order to disrupt legislative business.
Since these events unfolded, the legislature of the state of Wisconsin has been unable to perform its duties to the people whom elected them. Has there ever been a clearer example of the U.S. federal government needing to fulfill its constitutional obligations to one of the Union's member states than this? (Wikipedia references the 1967 Detroit riots as an example where it was apparently discussed but not invoked).
So Barack Obama could end the madness in Wisconsin (and in Indiana)by simply remembering he is president of the entire United States of America, not just the ever-shrinking segments that support him, and by preforming the duties he swore an oath to.
That oath again?
"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."
Allowing the Constitution to be flaunted as it is by the unions and the Democrats in the Midwest is in no way defending it; refusing to use the powers it offers to fulfill the role it demands is neither preserving it or protecting it.
But we gave sacred trust of the Constitution to a man-child, a radical activist, a community organizer who will use it only to serve his ends when necessary, and shred it when what it demands runs counter to what he wants, oaths be damned.
A lesson for future generations, I suppose, on the safe entrustment of liberties...
