The Coalition of the Swilling

« Green Grid | Main | Blame Canada! »

February 13, 2009

Gregg Wakes Up

Good for him

Sen. Judd Gregg abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, telling Politico that he “couldn’t be Judd Gregg” and serve in Barack Obama’s Cabinet.

The White House — where some aides were caught off guard by the withdrawal — initially responded harshly to Gregg’s announcement, portraying the New Hampshire Republican as someone who sought the job and then had a “change of heart.”

Mee-owww. Getting a little testy, aren't we?

“Once it became clear after his nomination that Sen. Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Sen. Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways,” Gibbs said.

Maybe because his policies......suck? I'm just tossing that out, mind you.

And maybe he is objecting the the unconstitutional power grab by Rahm and Obama, as they seek to impose Chicago-Style machine politics on the US: the President has no business trying to grab control of the Census. The Census is clearly and unequivocally a function of the Legislative, not the Executive, Branch. Article 1, Section 2:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

Of course, this should be no surprise since our President is a "constitutional scholar" of the type who believes

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

Which is a gobsmacking inversion of the entire spirit and intent of the Constitution, which is to limit the naturally tyrannic impulses of every government. But I guess one can not expect this noted scholar to have read and understood the 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

When he clearly has never even made it to the Second.

Posted by Mr. Bingley at February 13, 2009 06:49 AM

Comments

Posted by: Skyler at February 13, 2009 10:28 AM