Question: Does the Constitution impose any limits on the federal government?
In 2009, the Progressives' answer to this question was, and I quote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Are you serious?" But, beginning approximately January 20, 2017, we began learning of a seemingly endless list of limitations on the federal government. And specifically, limitations on one branch of the federal government. And even more specifically, limitations on one person at the head of one branch of government. That person, of course, is the President. The President, we are now told – at least any President who was sworn into office on January 20, 2017 – must be totally transparent about how he and his family earned their personal wealth. The President also, we are now told, must not repeal the Executive Orders of any past President named Obama. The President, further, if his skin is not the correct hue, must not nominate a candidate to fill an empty Supreme Court seat in an election year. Further examples abound.
Perhaps you will notice that none of these limitations on the presidency derive from the Constitution. No, our progressives still are not much interested in constitutional limits. The problem with constitutional limits, or any kind of legal limits, really, is that they have to be written down somewhere. In public. Where people might read them, and bother our rulers about them. Limits can be a useful thing. But, once the progressives restore themselves to the ruling saddle, they become so many stinging flies.
When you Normans invaded England,
you seized our Saxon land,
burned our Saxon homes,
raped our Saxon sisters.
Naturally, you hate Saxons.
How he slings barbarous fur round
his shoulders, sporting harnesses,
quivers, and arrows--the kind that
make an inhuman screech? Clothes make
the man, but this man's make a beast.