Should Congress do everything it can to deny President Obama the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice? Absolutely. Isn’t this an obstruction of Congress’ duty, under the Constitution? No. Because President Obama is against the Constitution, in a more overt and reckless way than just about any other president in American history. It’s up to the other two branches of the government to save us from Obama’s total disregard for the Constitution, if they can.

Example. Obama pushed an unconstitutional health care law through Congress. The Supreme Court, tragically, upheld the law in 2012. Nevertheless, Obama unilaterally turned the law on and off, to suit his purposes, even after the law was upheld. You can’t do that, under the Constitution. Yet he did so, and got away with it.

Another example. Obama became angry that Congress would not pass the new immigration legislation he wanted. So he issued an executive order which, in effect, altered the law, at least for the purposes of certain illegal immigrants whose status he wishes to protect. The motive is clearly political; Obama feels these illegal immigrants will support his policies, which is probably true. It’s a whole new batch of voters, but—far worse than that—it’s a single-handed, unilateral takeover of the legislative and judicial branches of government, in this case. In fact, the constitutionality of Obama’s executive action on immigration is pending in a case before the Supreme Court right now.

Another example. Obama is using executive authority to alter gun laws, nationally. So far, he has only taken tepid steps, so as not to spark too much controversy. But once the principle is established, and accepted, that a president may take small steps (without legislation) towards outlawing the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment, then the stage is set (in principle) to gun bans outright. Obama knows this, and he thinks this is a good thing. In an Obama-packed Supreme Court, the right to bear arms will be toast.

Obama deserves to be impeached for these offenses, and others. He’s fortunate that the Republicans who control Congress do not have the will or the stomach to launch an impeachment. Obama’s offenses against the Constitution are far more worthy of impeachment than were Bill Clinton’s which, while serious, involved perjury in a sexual harassment case. Nevertheless, Bill Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached, while Obama will never face such accountability.

Obstruct Obama’s ability to pick another Supreme Court justice? It’s the least Congress can do to uphold the concept of Constitutionalism and individual rights Obama has repeatedly, arrogantly and routinely violated throughout his time in office.

Will Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have the strength to stand up against Obama’s determination to nominate a Supreme Court justice anyway? One-hundred percent of history suggests he will not. McConnell and Republicans will most certainly wobble, and they most definitely will fall down. Maybe this time will be different, but if so, it will be a first.

Am I saying that a leftist-appointed justice will be wrong about everything, while a conservative-appointed justice (assuming we get a conservative president) will be right about everything? No. Conservatives tend to uphold the right of the individual in economic matters, and matters related to gun ownership. Conservatives are not consistent advocates of individual rights. They tend to uphold the right of the state over the federal government, but that’s not the same as upholding the sovereignty of the individual.

Scalia was, in my view, right more often than wrong. I disagreed with him on the right to gay marriage and the right to be left alone, with respect to sexual relations between consenting adults, as well as birth control and abortion. These are serious matters. At the same time, if we let leftists completely take over the court, the few remaining rights they permit will matter very little. I pine for at least one Supreme Court justice who respects individual rights both in property and economic matters, as well as personal matters. I know we won’t get one with a conservative president, and I’m even more certain we won’t get one from Obama.

If we uphold the ability of the president to allow unilateral executive action to replace legislation, as well as to censor political speech, as in the case of campaign finance laws, as well as outlaw gun ownership for self-protection, then we are, for all practical purposes, finished as a free society. A flawed conservative-leaning court beats the alternative of what’s to come if we have a hard-core, consistent majority in favor of the socialism and fascism Obama so ruthlessly and consistently upholds.

When one branch of government acts outrageously and repeatedly in contempt of the Constitution, as Obama has done, it’s up to the other two branches of government to stop it. Congress, for once: Do your job.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Dr. Hurd is now a Newsmax Insider! Check out his new column here.