Obama admits violating the Constitution

Obama has once again done an end-around on Congress by using his office to enact a portion of the DREAM Act that was not passed by that legislative body. Obama is in effect creating laws, the power given solely to Congress in the Constitution. The level of his aggressive use of the Executive Branch's power is unprecedented, but his supporters compare it to Bush's use of "signing statements" to do much the same thing.  Obama ran against that practice when campaigning for President the first time. In 2008 he said, "We've got a government designed by the founders so there would be checks and balances...Part of the theory of Bush is that he can make laws as he's going along. I disagree with that." 

Obama justifies his opinion by citing the fact that he taught the Constitution. If his supposed legal expertise has any credibility at all, then he is precedently admitting that his actions since taking office violate the Constitution.  

The Church, The State and Common Sense

Sometimes you have to go back a few years to get the right perspective on what's happening in America today.

" The First Amendment does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

"That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

"Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.

"Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.

"A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, expressing the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

The modern court's hostility to Christianity is a very recent (and un-Constitutional) invention.