The following essay is a guest post from Island Dweller. We remind our readers that you are welcome to submit your thoughts either as an email or as a complete essay.
|The more you study his diagram, the less sensible it is. This does not stop some people from making shrewd guesses.|
With trembling heart I kneel to kiss the rock on your imperial knuckle, feeling the sharp edge of Your Majesty’s halberd on my neck, to state regarding my last post:
Now, nowdon’t be too hard on those frisky Kennedy boys. Those exploding cigars they sent Fidel were a frat house prank, and those pesky “Cuba Libre” types sent to Cuba by JFK/RFK to switch the road signs around were merely indulging in horseplay. Fidel just took it personally, that’s allhe couldn’t appreciate a Kennedy inside joke.
But seriously, folks –
I am not attempting to resurrect the birth certificate issue and presidential citizenship eligibility issues with this post. Dear Leader’s performance with the ACA does call into question his core competencies for the position of POTUS, which in turn begs for serious journalistic inquiry. There is a major journalistic prize just beckoning to an aspiring member of the Fourth Estate who wishes to expend the necessary shoe leather, time and effort in following this trail. There are no guarantees definite answers will come their wayin fact, the inquiry will undoubtedly unearth more enigmas and unanswered questions than were supposed to be originally answered, and lead to no definite conclusions in any one area. The whole, however, will certainly be greater than the sum of its parts, and cause a lot of embarassing questions to be thought of, but never asked by the mediaalthough John and Jane Q. Public will certainly be asking each other. Like most other people, journalists like their names to be recognized for their efforts. This story has been just begging to be investigated for years, and no one has taken up the challenge.
How does one go about determining even a portion of the core competencies for the job of POTUS?
If we were a visiting college lecturer (a position with no tenure rights and which, as your august majesty once stated, basically gives the lecturer the same status as a freshman’s visiting dad), we would still have had to be invited to speak at the institution by someone who thought our opinions had some meritafter all, they would be associated with the school at which we would be speaking. Someone had to invite him, and furthermore, notify the school they were doing soand setting apart part of the class’s curriculum and schedule for him to do so. This had to generate records. Reviewing those records relating to the invitation, and the administration and conduct of those courses might give some idea of DL’s long-held attitudes toward presidential powers viz the Constitution. Basic criminal investigative techniques can be applied and I believe will yield fruit. In my former trade, we almost always had to wait until a crime occurred before we could begin to investigate it (the occasional “bait” operation could short-circuit this usual sequence). Understand I’m not calling DL’s tenure as president a “crime”although history may have a different opinion. You start with an eventin this case, DL’s current attitude toward imperialexcuse me, presidential powers, and his prerogatives vis-a-vis EOs, and his handling of the ACA messand work back from there. It would be interesting for an investigative journalist to go back to the University of Chicago where DL was a visiting lecturer on constitutional law, and do some basic research. Given his attitudes toward the Constitution, it is logical to believe someone else there shared themotherwise how would they have come into contact with him, and invited him? If they opposed him, I would think they would exclude him instead.
This just goes to show the truth of the old adage that opinionsespoused by lecturersare like bellybuttons, or another portion of the anatomyeveryone’s got one, and it’s important to remember that opinion is just thatan opinionand not the gospel truth. Find that out for yourself after research and due diligence.
If you’re the journalist in question, find those who assisted DL in the preparation and presentation of his lecturesif he had assistance. Interview them. If not, the content of his lectures had to be known in advance to school authorities. Didn’t someone review this material and question DL’s basic understanding of the limitations the Constitution imposes on the Chief Executive? What specifically did he say in them regarding the powers of the presidency as compared to the legislative or judicial branch? Did he make known in them at that time his views about Executive Orders? What else did he have to say about presidential prerogatives? Did he have to submit his bona fides to the university to prove his fitness to lecture there? UC as far as I know is a public school and records relating to the running of the university should be available for public scrutiny. Where are copies of his lectures, or any comments on Constitutional Law? What documents does the university have to hand that show why DL was considered and accepted to lecture there? What reviews were written by faculty members or trustees, or others who championed having him there as a lecturer, that will show why he was so eminently qualified to lecture on Constitutional Law? What students can be found who attended his lectures? What do they recall him saying about EOs vice the powers of Congressor the Supreme Court? About the Chief Executive’s extralegal authorities? How about the balance of power among the three branches, and Executive Privilege?
From here the trail will lead back to the schools that matriculated him, where similar inquiries can be made. I could go into what could be asked, but your majesty and the reader should be able to figure this out by now. Everything here has to do with core competencies now, not just the possible issuance of a doctored birth certificate.
Why am I saying this? It’s got to do with the long-term, very well-known (in certain circles) facts about this individual’s ideas regarding the powers of the Presidency, the limits imposed on the President by the Constitution, and the overwhelming power of the Federal government, for good or bad.
All this nonsensical stuff he’s currently doing had to be spoken about, even just as an opinion, years ago and the alarm bells should have been ringing then. This journalistic investigative effort would disclose that, and identify the players involved. What could this potentially say about DL, his champions in academia and the press, and in the Democrat party? The implications are stupifying.
In the past, if you listen to the MSM, these inquiries have been the domain of crackpot far-right journalists, members of the “show me the real birth certificate” crowd. As time goes on, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the MSM to hold to DL’s defense. Even Jay Carney gets increasingly testy with them during the one o’clock follies at the WH press room. Practically none of them will publicly admit it, but I’d wager a lot of do-re-mi that among themselves there is a fair amount of bitching going on about how they as a group were flim-flammed by this guy and his cronies into supporting him with the stridency they did. Pride won’t let them publicly admit it, but on the other hand they don’t want themselves to be seen as journalistic versions of Nancy Pelosi either (see Your Majesty’s very recent post about his concerns for her). If these questions begin to be asked as an expose by one of the MSMand I’m guessing here it will be one that passes as a “centerist” with an “open mind”it will be a sign the liberal MSM may be seriously turning on DL vice just repeating someone’s else concerns. Bob Woodward, no fan of Republicans, and his attitude toward DL and his cronies comes to mind here. This would be serious questioning on their ownnot repeating Ted Cruz’s questions, for example. They’ll be talking about a lecturer on Constitutional law who clearly does not know the Constitution, or has a seriously warped idea of it.