Elections DON'T have Consequences!

What is it in the COTUS that leads some to the conclusion that “elections have consequences”?


When I read the COTUS I conclude that the federal government is elected to fulfill specifically delineated responsibilities within the purview of specifically limited authorities; and to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”: only this and nothing more.

Article II does grant the president authority to “appoint” Justices to the SCOTUS with the advice and consent of the Senate. Since both the president and the senators are solemnly sworn to defend the COTUS it stands to reason that the appointment should be a no-brainer: someone who can be counted on to defend the COTUS. However, this president has an abominable record of appointing to high office those who not only do not defend the COTUS but are avowed enemies of the COTUS. Therefore the rightful role of the Senate is to assure that the appointee to the SCOTUS can be relied on to defend the COTUS in the event the president fails to do so in his appointee.

There is no provision in the COTUS for appointing a ‘liberal’ Justice or a ‘conservative’ Justice, and there is no authority for either political party to do so. Whoever is appointed must be approved based solely on their demonstrated proclivity to defend the COTUS in all cases.

I also believe that the Senate is shirking their responsibility to hold this president accountable for his many failures to honor his oath of office: including but not limited to; his extortion of the bond holders for GM and Chrysler; his suborning of the bankruptcy laws of the US; his failure to ‘take care that the laws of the US are faithfully executed’; and his failure to appoint to high office those dedicated to defending the COTUS.

There is no basis in the Constitution for the statement “elections have consequences”. In fact the COTUS stands firmly opposed to that concept.