By Rand Paul
Obama acts as though we no longer have a Constitution
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
Is America in decline? An honest review of the state of the union would show spiraling budget deficits, uncontrolled growth in government spending and persistently high unemployment levels. The impression of a once-great nation in eclipse is all too plain.
Each of them takes an oath to defend the Constitution, but many House lawmakers either don't understand the founding document or don't take its precepts seriously, according to an analysis by The Washington Times that studied the constitutional backing that representatives submitted for each of the more than 3,000 bills they introduced in 2011.
The Washington Times hosted a symposium on Tuesday where experts discussed the importance of family, religion and moral integrity to the nation's future as part of a celebration of the paper's 30th anniversary.
It's been two years since President Obama signed the Wall Street-reform bill that has come to be known as Dodd-Frank. Has it succeeded in creating "safer and more modern rules of the road for the financial industry," as Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner claims?
Conservatives, beware: You can have reams of information, piles of studies and folders of charts at your fingertips. And you can still lose the debate.
As the House prepares for Wednesday's vote to repeal the Democrats' health care law, Republicans say it marks more than a shot at a controversial Obama policy — they argue it is the first step toward making Congress relevant in debates over the Constitution.
More than 200 years after the first part was written, the Constitution produced standing ovations and strident but respectful debate as lawmakers from both parties read the government's founding document on the House floor in its entirety — or nearly so.
Ever wonder why "provide for the common defence" appears right in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, signed 222 years ago Thursday?
"Nothing about today's conditions is inevitable or irreversible," writes Heritage scholar Matthew Spalding. "We can reduce the size and scope of government and let the private sector restore economic productivity and opportunity. We can reform the core programs of government and provide assistance to those who need it because they have fallen on hard times."
"A lot of people were wanting it to be a mechanism for actually forcing something to happen. And that didn't happen. And I think it didn't happen because, by its very nature, it's not the right mechanism for doing it," said Matthew Spalding, vice president of American studies at the Heritage Foundation.