Part I : We are looking at the first Rogue President of the United States.

Understand that Obama has, rhetorically speaking, stepped over the line.  One is not an "American" simply because he/she is born in this country.  No.  Rather, an American is one who proudly supports the grand principles of our nation's foundation and works within the framework of Constitutional law.

It is clear to me,  that Obama does not share in this commitment.  Certainly,  he will work "within the law" as long as his dreams and hopes for this nation can be established "within the law."  But he has proven himself capable of moving beyond the law when it comes into contrast to his legislative agenda.  Beginning with early 2011, he began working against the need for "Congress" and its oversight of his office.     To this day, he increasingly works to avoid congressional restraints,  and, even,  specific congressional limitations to his executive branch.  Now, with his comments of yesterday (see "Part II"),  he has made the first move in working against and outside the determinate advise of the High Court.

The editorial comment in the next post ("Part II" on the scroll-down)  expresses a confirming opinion.  I included portions of that editorial to make this point, "I am not the only one who sees the problem."  Judicial activism has been with us since the nation's beginnings; members of the court(s) at different levels working to advance their personal agendas.  Sadly,  that is part of the system; it "comes with the territory."  And what can be done about this?  Well, historically,  certainly the answer has not been to work to destroy that system.  Where judges are elected,  they can be voted out of office.  Where judges are appointed by elected officials,  they (the elected officials) can be voted out of office. That's it.

In the case of the Supreme Court,  it is the president who makes the appointment and the Senate which confirms.  Obama has appointed two justices to the High Court.  It is clear that their litmus test included their feelings about health care,  that and the fact that the opposition in the Senate, did not have enough numbers to stop these appointments. As a result,  we have two liberal additions to the court,  replacing two retiring liberal justices.  One of these two (Elena Kagan) was Obama's Solicitor General, working with Obama to prepare a defense for ObamaCare,  should that law come before the High Court. Of course,  we all know that this law is before the High Court.  And we know that, incredibly, Kagan did not recuse herself from the present review of ObamaCare.

What can be done about this circumstance?  Nothing in the short term,  unless,  of course,  you are the president of the United States and,  especially, if you are Barack Hussein Obama. While most are willing to play by the rules and accept what comes their way,    Hussein is not.

While civil American function works within the system,  Obama has proven himself willing to trash Constitutional protocol as he works to destroy a Congressional influence that appears to stand  against his effort to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America.  He is perfectly willing to use the process of established law to silence all opposition,  both in terms of free speech  and the secret ballot (with such laws as "Card Check" and the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" ).  He has made it clear that the government,  his government,  has the power to order religious institutions to change their very beliefs,  bringing them in line with the orders of the State  -  in direct violation of the First Amendment (Obama v the Catholic Church).  He has used his EPA to violate the principle of private ownership (Sackett v the EPA),  He has made it clear that he will act out his personal agenda (as if a dictator) with regard to international relations in an incidence caught on a live mic,  one that found him patting the Russian President on the arm and assuring him,  "I will have more flexibility after my election" (or words to that effect).  He intends to use the very process of "ObamaCare" to create an expanding commerce in order to regulate that commerce. "Health care" will not be the only federal requirement bound upon "the people,"  should this law survive in its present form.   And now,  we all wonder what he will do if that law is stricken.  Does he plan to use or misuse "executive order" to force the establishment of that law?  We don't know.  In fact,  we don't know that he will step down from the presidency should he lose this coming election  --  that is the scary part.