January 28, 2021
The State of Washington DC
With the trial balloons floating around
(again) about making Washington DC a state with
two senators, let's pause and think about the
legality of that for a minute or two.
Don't forget that thanks to a constitutional
amendment of 1961, citizens living within that
district may already vote in federal elections,
with 3 representatives to the electoral college.
Two amendments would be required to change that,
adding the two senators that the Democrats are so
anxious to find.
I'll grant you that with the current diktator
writing laws like he was a legislator, rather than
an executor, and Supreme Court justices who are
unwilling to offer an opinion on State vs State
matters, that you may question whether the Constitution
is anything beyond a Con at this point,
designed to keep law abiding citizens quiet for a
little while longer
But all that aside, here's an article from June of
2020 published by Microsoft News about where the
Constitution stands on this matter. Click
here to read
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/the-constitution-says-no-to-dc-statehood/ar-BB15MkiW
U.S. government jumps in to protect church
rights amid coronavirus
'There is no pandemic exception to the
fundamental liberties the Constitution
safeguards'
World Net Daily By WND staff
April 14, 2020
Joining a lawsuit by a Baptist church, the U.S.
Justice Department is warning officials in
Greenville, Mississippi, they must recognize
"there is no pandemic exception to the
fundamental liberties the Constitution
safeguards" in their response to the
coronavirus.
"Individual rights secured by the Constitution
do not disappear during a public health crisis,"
the DOJ said in a brief filed in a case brought
by Temple Baptist Church against the city.
"These individual rights, including the
protections in the Bill of Rights made
applicable to the states through the 14th
Amendment, are always in force and restrain
government action."
The church sued after the city fined people
for sitting in their cars in the church parking
lot to listen to a sermon by the pastor
broadcast through a radio signal.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing
Temple Baptist.
"In Greenville, you can be in your car with the
windows rolled down at a drive-in restaurant,
but you can’t be in your car with the windows
rolled up at a drive-in church service," said
ADF spokesman Ryan Tucker.
"To target churches that way is both nonsensical
and unconstitutional," he said. "This is why we
have asked the court for a temporary restraining
order to immediately halt enforcement of the
city’s order while our lawsuit moves forward,
and it’s also why the U.S. government has filed
a statement of interest that urges the court to
rule in the church’s favor."
First Liberty Institute is representing King
James Bible Baptist in Greenville and On Fire
Christian Church in Louisville in similar cases.
"We welcome Attorney General Barr's defense of
religious liberty during this critical time,"
said spokesman Kelly Shackelford. "In too many
instances, as religious Americans have sought to
abide by important public health guidelines
during this pandemic they have been singled out
for restrictions that go beyond what the CDC
requires. We are grateful to the attorney
general and the Department of Justice for
assisting in the defense of religious liberty
for all Americans."
What follows are links to two
starkly different views of the U.S.
Constitution. One view of that fundamental
document recognizes the original intent and
how indispensable is placing limits on a
potentially large governing power to protect
the people from tyranny.
The other view either does not
recognize or understand the vital importance
of that document, that is a vital protection
to us individually in a court of law.
One view recognizes that
prosperity and peace rests upon a
fundamental constant rule of law that
applies to all Americans, ensuring that
their property, the fruits of their labor
cannot be arbitrarily confiscated at the
whim of each new administration.
That
fundamental constant written rule that
protects the people from encroaching
government is the U.S. Constitution. The
rule is based upon inalienable basic human
rights.
What about that
Justice Gorsuch upholding the Constitution
that our leaders and defenders pledge to
protect and defend?
The liberal NPR (National Propaganda Reporting)
and other traditional unschooled libs, chide a
Supreme Court justice for basing his judgements
upon the U.S. Constitution. Hail to that
unprecedented document that recognized some
self-evident unchangeable values of individual
liberty, and the importance to rein in a national
government that (like gravity) tends to encroach
individual freedoms.
".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" except at great peril to the people...
At Least Two People Shot Dead During
Baltimore ‘Ceasefire Weekend’ Proves Gun Bans
Don’t Work
by Geoffrey Grider
August 7, 2017
The #BaltimoreCeasefire weekend was spearheaded
by Erricka Bridgeford, who took to Facebook
following the killings to assure everyone that
the ceasefire was not over. Baltimore is
experiencing death and violence at record
levels, and it all comes just four years after
adoption of stringent gun controls via the
Firearm Safety Act (2013). That Act banned “high
capacity” magazines, “assault weapons,” and
established a registration/fingerprint
requirement for would-be handgun purchasers.
These were all pushed in the name of making
people safer, yet the two deadliest years in
Baltimore’s history were 2015 and 2016.
....
Moreover, on March 27, 2017, Breitbart News
reported that the criminal use of “high
capacity” magazines in Baltimore had risen since
a ban on the devices was put in place. The
Trace, a gun control journalism outlet, shows
that the criminal use of such magazines jumped
in 2013 and continued to climb in 2014, 2015,
and 2016.
The lessons are clear: gun control weakens the
position of law-abiding citizens while
strengthening the position of criminals.
Will There Be Justice For Family Whose Home
Was Raided Because Cops Couldn't Tell Tea From
Pot?
August 1, 2017
Forbes.com
George Leef, contributor
A case just decided by the Tenth Circuit shows
how utterly absurd the “war on drugs” has
become, how petty and power-mad the police can
be, and how blindly deferential some of our
federal judges are.
The case, Harte v. Johnson County Board of
Commissioners, arose out of an idiotic,
military-style raid by Kansas police on the home
of Robert and Adlynn Harte in 2012. They were
not in any way involved with drugs (particularly
marijuana), but a few officers came to the
conclusion that they might be.
Ron Bischof July 6, 2017 The Signal of Santa Clarita Valley
Our republic is again embroiled in a
contentious debate over the federal government’s
role in “health care.” I use “scare quotes” here
because the issue currently under debate is
fundamentally about funding of medical services
and who pays for them.
My fellow columnists have written thoughtful and
concerning columns that have addressed their
challenges with PPACA (Obamacare), health
insurance carriers and prospective legislative
solutions to address the defects in our
health-care delivery and financing system.
This column will offer a perspective that’s been
largely overlooked in our community discussion,
namely: What is the federal government’s
authority to regulate health-care services and
its financing for more than 320 million U.S.
citizen residents in their respective states and
territories?
Bear with me a moment as I review the federal
government’s defined role in our constitutional
republic.
File Under U S
Constitution or Religious Freedom??
School: You may not recite prayer in the name
of Jesus Christ
By Todd Starnes
Published June 13, 2017
Fox News
"Moriah Bridges wanted to thank God for His
immeasurable blessings on Beaver High School’s
graduating class. But she could not, because it
was against the law.
The Pennsylvania teenager wanted to offer
thanksgiving to the Almighty for parents and
coaches and teachers. But again, she could not,
because it was against the law.
“Make us selfless. Make us just. Make us
successful people, but more than that, make us
good people,” Moriah wanted to pray. But that too,
was determined to be unlawful."
A 300 page report issued by the United States
Council on Civil Rights (USCCR) on 7 September
of 2016, has caused a righteous outcry from many
religious and other liberty loving institutions.
You may rightly question the authority of a
commission that blindly ignores the
fundamental liberty of individuals alluded to in
the first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the
U.S. Constitution. The commission, headed by
chairman Martin R Castro, appointed by President
Obama in 2011, suffers a serious blind spot of
vision.
The USCCR recommends particular protections for
people who fall within a variety of groups
designated by particular labels adopted over the
years, offering these groups special privileges
beyond that of "regular" Americans, those
generic citizens, whose basic liberties were
noted and codified in the founding documents of
our country to be protected from the
encroachment of the rules and restrictions and
regulations of an ever-growing totalitarian
government which has usurped some
non-existent power to brand my conscience and
beliefs as "intolerant" or discriminatory.
There is a blind spot on the part of the
commission that does not recognize the freedom
of faith-abiding people of conscience to live by
the tenets of their respective religions, that
do not infringe upon health and welfare of
others.
In a bit of unusual news, the Utah Senate voted
20-6 to ask Congress to repeal the 17th
Amendment of the Constitution. The 17th
Amendment allows for the direct election of
senators. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson
(R-Highland) argued that the 17th Amendment was
not what the founders of the country had
intended and changed the meaning of the role of
the senators.
Its sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson,
R-Highland, says electing senators by the state
Senate is needed because no branch of the
federal government now represents the needs of
state governments. A change would force senators
to do that.
"Today, senators are more
beholden to special interest groups than to
their states" because those interests give them
money for reelection, Jackson said.
He added, "It's time for our
senators to come home every weekend and take
direction from this body and from the House and
the governor on how they should vote in the
upcoming week."
Would senators representing state rights as the
founders intended help to rein in the federal
government? (The people would still of course
vote for their representatives in the U.S. House
of Representatives.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia
Feb. 18, 2016
It is hard to imagine a
greater loss to Liberty in America than has
occurred in the passing of Justice Antonin
Scalia. His understanding of the Constitution
as a pact between free people and government,
and our protection from oppressive government,
was unparalleled.
The fact that 30% of Americans do not know who
he was, speaks volumes about the state of our
Union and our education system.
My words and thoughts are totally inadequate
but you can easily find more about the great
man's life and legacy. Click
here for a link to wikipedia. Or click
here to read the thoughts of the other
Justices on the Supreme Court about him.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia.
Another State Is
Heard From.......
Senate resolution calls
for a US constitutional convention
Posted: February 3, 2016
at 10:37 am
KFQD Radio Anchorage, Alaska
JUNEAU, Alaska
(AP) – An Alaska Senate committee is set to
consider a resolution calling for a convention
of the states to propose a countermand, or
veto, amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The measure calls on
legislators in the other 49 states to apply
for a convention as well.
In his sponsor
statement, Chugiak Republican Senator Bill
Stoltze says the resolution is meant to
restore the balance of power between the
states and the federal government.
The resolution calls for
a convention of states to amend the U.S.
Constitution and provide states with the power
to vote on nullifying federal laws.
Click
here to realize that Alaska is not the
only state that has called for a
Constitutional Convention.
Hands up, just shoot!
Posted By Jeff Knox On 01/27/2016
World Net Daily
The occupation of a remote wildlife refuge
turned violent yesterday when federal agents
stopped two vehicles carrying protesters to a town
hall meeting in John Day, Oregon. Victoria Sharp,
a passenger in one of those vehicles, has reported
that federal agents opened fire on the group
without provocation after conflicting and
confusing demands for the protesters to surrender.
Sharp reported that shots were first fired at Ryan
Payne as he complied with orders to show his hands
out of the window of the vehicle in which she was
riding, but that the shots missed. Payne was
calling for police to not shoot, as there were
women in the vehicle, and exited the vehicle,
asking that the women be allowed out.
At this point, LaVoy Finicum, one of the spokesmen
for the occupiers, who was driving the vehicle in
which Ms. Sharp was riding, yelled out the window
that they were going to go talk to the sheriff (at
the meeting in John Day), or that agents could
just shoot him. He told the passengers to get
down, and drove forward, precipitating heavy
gunfire from the agents, and crashing the vehicle
into a snowbank.
Sharp said that Finicum then exited the vehicle,
hands in the air, yelling, “Just shoot me then!” A
volley of shots rang out, and Finicum fell to his
back, hands still over his head, and was shot
several more times on the ground, Sharp said.
According to Sharp, agents continued shooting at
the car, striking Ryan Bundy in the shoulder as he
shielded her on the floorboard, and deploying tear
gas before finally taking the rest of the group
into custody. She also claims that none of the
protesters fired a shot or even touched a gun
during the encounter.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
Alabama chief justice tells judges to halt
same-sex 'marriages'
Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/06/2016
World Net Daily
Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme
Court on Wednesday ordered the state’s probate
judges, the only ones in the state who are allowed
to
issue marriage licenses, to follow the state’s
Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and its Marriage
Protection Act until the full state Supreme Court
rules on the issue.
Please click here to read the article in its
entirety
Virginia to Drop Long Held Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Agreements With Two Dozen States
Townhall.com
Katie Pavlich
Dec 22, 2015
According to a report in the Washington Post this
morning, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a
Democrat, will unilaterally end the state's long
held concealed carry reciprocity agreements with
25 states. The move comes shortly before anti-gun
zealot and Michael Bloomberg backed Governor Terry
McAuliffe leaves office. The agreements are
reportedly being severed with states deemed to
have "weaker" concealed carry requirements as
compared to Virginia. Specific details about what
provisions in other states qualify as weaker have
not been provided.
It should be noted that stripping the concealed
carry reciprocity agreements between Virginia and
25 other states in the name of "safety" will
actually do nothing at all to keep citizens safer.
Criminals regularly carry guns across state lines
without permits. Virginia itself is a very
transient place with many military families and
government workers from all over the country
living short term in northern Virginia while
working in Washington D.C. This move will not make
anyone safer, instead, it places a larger burden
on the law abiding. Please
click here to read the article in its entirety.
from Reason.com
Cutting Constitutional Corners Won't Save Us
From Terrorists
No-gun zones like the one in effect where the
San Bernardino shooting took place are not only
unconstitutional but also an invitation to
disaster.
Andrew Napolitano | December 10, 2015
If you were looking for a needle in a haystack,
simple logic would tell you that the smaller the
haystack the likelier you are to find the
needle. Except for the government.
Since Edward Snowden revealed the federal
government's unlawful and unconstitutional use
of federal statutes to justify spying on all in
America all the time, including the members of
Congress who unwittingly wrote and passed the
statutes, I have been arguing that the Fourth
Amendment prohibits all domestic spying, except
that which has been authorized by a search
warrant issued by a judge. The same amendment
also requires that warrants be issued only based
on a serious level of individualized suspicion
backed up by evidence—called probable cause—and
the warrants must specifically identify the
place and person to be spied upon.
Colorado Christian Baker Ordered by
Court to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple
'Would Rather Shut Down' Business
By Leah Marianne Klett (news@gospelherald.com)
On Friday, Colorado's Civil Rights Commission
ordered Christian baker Jack Phillips to make
wedding cakes for same-sex couples, saying his
religious objections did not trump the state's
anti-discrimination statutes.
The unanimous ruling from the seven-member
commission upheld an administrative law judge's
decision in December that stated Phillips, who
owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado
had violated the state's civil rights law by
refusing to make a wedding cake for a
homosexual couple 2012.
Now, Phillips is fighting back.
Phillip's lawyer Nicole Martin recently called the
ruling "offensive and un-American," saying they
will combat the decision.
In the Washington Post, Paul Kane reports that
recent experiences with ultra-conservative Senate
candidates have made Republican leaders fearful of
candidates like Rep. Paul Broun in Georgia. There
may be reasons for party leaders or voters to have
doubts about Broun, but I hope they aren’t
actually concerned about the purported problem
that Kane identifies:
Broun is prone to fiery speeches invoking the
Founding Fathers and applying those 1789
principles to issues 225 years later.
Seriously? He thinks the Constitution is still the
law of the land? And that the framework it
established for individual rights and limited
government is still relevant today? Do Republican
leaders really think that’s a bad message? Or does
the Washington Post?
From The Canada Free Press
By Jim Yardley
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Checking to make sure that there was an easily
understandable definition of the word, the
dictionary defines Constitution as “the
fundamental political principles on which a
nation-state is governed, especially when
considered as embodying the rights of the subjects
of that nation-state and the statute embodying
such principles.”
One would think that the President of the first
nation to create that very thing, a legal statute
that embodied the fundamental political
principles, and who also was a college level
lecturer on the topic of the Constitution, would
have absolutely no problem in dealing with the
concept.
Unfortunately for us, and for several other
nations, Mr. Obama seems to view constitution to
be infinitely malleable, and are subject to change
upon a change in his whims of the day.
“The
powers not delegated to the United
States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.”
NEW STATE
LAW BANS CALIFORNIA
FROM COOPERATING WITH FEDS ON INDEFINITE
DETENTION
Sweeping
measure also applies to other laws that
violate Constitution or state law
By Miriam
Raftery
October 7, 2013
(Sacramento)
– In a rare show of bipartisanship,
Governor Brown has signed into a law
that passed the Legislature almost
unanimously. The measure makes California
the third state to nullify provisions of
the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) allowing indefinite detention of
citizens.
However California’s
law goes farther, banning state
cooperation with federal authorities on
enforcement of any federal law that
violates the U.S. Constitution, the
California Constitution or California
law. The bill also prohibits use of
state funds for such purposes.
“The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.”
The Feds vs the Fourth Amendment
By Tenth
Amendment on August 5, 2013 in Featured, Founding
Principles
by Jacob Hornberger,
Future of Freedom Foundation
Keep in mind that
this amendment is directed to federal
officials, specifically those in the executive
and congressional branches. Our American
ancestors knew that the federal government
would inevitably attract the types of people
who would do the things proscribed by the
amendment. Thus, to deal with that threat our
ancestors made it clear that whoever was
elected or appointed to federal office would
be prohibited from engaging in the type of
conduct prohibited by the amendment.
What does the
Fourth Amendment do? It prohibits federal
officials from searching people’s homes,
businesses, and personal effects
indiscriminately. If a crime has been committed,
the feds cannot simply go out and search every
house and business in the neighborhood to seek
out evidence of the crime. And they cannot
search everyone’s things with the aim of
preventing a crime.
Instead, the
Fourth Amendment requires that to conduct a
search of a person’s home or business, they have
to first go to a member of the third branch of
the government— the federal judiciary — and seek
out a search warrant from a judge or magistrate.
In order to get such a warrant, law-enforcement
officers have to swear out an affidavit
specifying the exact nature of the evidence that
is being searched for. Moreover, they have to
provide sworn evidence that rises to the level
of “probable cause” for the judge to consider.
If they fail to do those two things, the judge’s
responsibility is to deny the application for
the search warrant.
Like it or not,
that’s the system that our American ancestors
put into place with the Fourth Amendment....
U.S.
officials say that such a massive surveillance
scheme on everyone is necessary to keep
Americans “safe.”
4 Ways the
Fourth Amendment's Already Being Pummeled in a
Non-Top
Secret Way
The
government will always insist it's acting
within the law.
Ed Krayewski
reason.com
June 11, 2013
Last week The
Guardian and The Washington Post
reported that the National Security Agency
collects information on the phone and Internet
habits of millions of Americans. Since then
we've seen President Barack Obama
argue against the strawman of combining
“100 percent privacy and 100 percent security.”
We've seen the Director of National Intelligence
and apologists point to federal
statutes that allegedly permit the behavior.
And, on the brighter side, we've seen Sen. Rand
Paul introduce the Fourth Amendment
Restoration Act.
Our View: Illinois,
meet U.S.
Constitution
Journal Star
article
Posted May 20, 2013
Last update May 21, 2013
So Chicago doesn’t want
concealed carry of handguns to be the law in the
Land
of Lincoln.
Obviously.
Nonetheless,
last time we checked, Chicago is a city in the
United States of America, which has a Second
Amendment that permits the citizens of this
country — even those living in Chicago — the
right to gun ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court
specifically told Chicago so in 2010 in
striking down its ban on guns (McDonald v.
City of Chicago). Then late last
year, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals informed the state of Illinois, in
which Chicago sits, that its prohibition on
guns carried outside the home also was
unconstitutional.
New U.N. arms treaty faces rough road in U.S.
Senate
By
Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON
| Wed Apr 3, 2013
(Reuters) - The new global arms trade treaty
was overwhelmingly approved by the United Nations,
with U.S.
backing, but it was clear on Wednesday it faces
a tough fight for ratification by U.S.
senators who contend it could affect Americans'
gun rights.
The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly approved
the pact by a vote of 154-3 on Tuesday, with 23
abstentions, many by major weapons exporters.
Washington was
one of the 'yes' votes, but to go into effect
for the United States
it must win at least 67 votes - a two-thirds
majority - in the 100-member Senate. Last month,
the Senate supported a measure calling for the
treaty's rejection even before U.N. negotiations
on its text were completed.
Florida
bill would require anger management courses
for bullet buyers
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published March 5,2013
Fox News
A Florida legislator wants anyone trying to buy
ammunition to complete an anger management
program first, in what critics say is the latest
example of local lawmakers reaching for
constitutionally-dubious solutions to the
problem of gun violence.
The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey
Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a
three-day waiting period for the sale of any
firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone who
has not completed anger management courses. The
proposal would require ammo buyers to take the
anger management courses every 10 years. Click
here to read more.
Constitution 201: Founders vs. Progressives
December 3, 2012
The Hawaian Reporter
By Stephen Zierak
This lesson is taught by Dr. Thomas West,
the Paul & Dawn Porter Professor of
Politics at HillsdaleCollege.
Dr. West teaches courses in American politics,
focusing on the U.S. Constitution, civil
rights, foreign policy, and the political
thought of the American Founding. He
also teaches the political philosophy of
Aquinas, Hobbes, and Locke. Dr. West is
a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute,
and he has previously taught at the University
of Dallas.
He received his BA from Cornell, and his PhD
from ClaremontGraduateUniversity.
Those interested in seeing and hearing this
lecture, or any of the others in the series,
may register at
constitution.hillsdale.edu. There is no
fee.
The Founders believed that the purpose of
government was to secure the unalienable rights
of American citizens to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness by protecting against
violations by foreign or domestic enemies.
The Progressives believe that the purpose of
government is to give you the benefit of
government programs, while changing you into a
more socially responsible individual.
As we watch the Founder’s vision slip away with
the advent of big government and the welfare
state, we might wonder what went wrong.
Some American conservatives blame the language
of the Founding. They believe that the
equality and rights talk has led to Obama, that
Progressivism was derived from expressions in
our revolutionary documents. Actually,
nothing could be farther from the truth.
Progressivism was a radical departure from the
Founding, as can be seen in comparisons around
six points of contrast: (1) What is
freedom? (2) Purpose of
government? (3) Domestic
policy? (4) Foreign policy?
(5) Consent of the governed? (6)
Government limited or unlimited?
Sixty Percent of
US Muslims Reject Freedom of Expression
RIGHT
SIDE NEWS.com
Thursday, 01 November 2012
Dr.
Andrew Bostom
After
violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish
“Innocence of Muslims” video, which simply
depicted a few of the less salutary aspects of
Muhammad’s biography, international and domestic
Islamic agendas have openly converged with
vehement calls for universal application of
Islamic blasphemy law. ...
Now the results of polling data collected by
Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012,
from 600 US Muslims, indicate widespread support
among rank and file American votaries of Islam
for this fundamental rejection of freedom
expression, as guaranteed under the US
Constitution. The first amendment states,
plainly,
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press;
When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of
Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the
Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58%
replied “no,”...
Please click here to read more
NAPOLITANO:
Restraining Arizona, unleashing
Obama
High court allows president discretion in
upholding law or not
The
Washington Times
By Andrew P Napolitano
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
When the Obama administration decided it
had no interest in preventing the movement of
undocumented aliens from Mexico into the
southwestern United
States, Arizona
decided to take matters into its own hands.
Based on a novel theory of constitutional law -
namely, that if a state is unhappy with the
manner in which federal law is being enforced or
not being enforced, it can step into the shoes
of the feds and enforce federal law as it wishes
the feds would - Arizona
enacted legislation to accomplish that.
The legislation created two conflicts that
rose to the national stage. The first is whether
any government may morally and legally interfere
with freedom of association based on the
birthplace of the person with whom one chooses
to associate. The second is whether the states
can enforce federal law in a manner different
from that of the feds.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were
admirably clear, or so they and we thought, when
they wrote in the Fifth Amendment that no person
shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law ..."
Note that the framers didn't specify that the
person had to be a U.S.
citizen. And by "due process" they meant the
right to be formally charged, to challenge those
charges before a judge and to have defense
counsel present.
So important was this right to due process that
the 14th Amendment reiterated that its
protections also applied to the states.
Jacksonville’s Moral Constitutional Patriots
Speak
A
Response By Dr. Gene A. Youngblood
Presentedat
City Council Meeting of 5/22/2012
WHEREASOur City council has
introduced ordinance 2012-296.This bill is cloaked
under the disguise of equal
opportunity and
non-discrimination in the
marketplace.Please
Click Here To Read More
DFLers want U.S.
constitutional amendment declaring that
corporations aren't people, after all
By Joe Kimball
MinnPost.com
04/23/12
It's not only Republicans looking for
constitutional amendments these days.
DFLers (Democratic Farmer Labor Party members)
in the Minnesota House and Senate have
introduced bills asking Congress to call a
constitutional convention to propose an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would
clarify that corporations are not people.
There's been much consternation on this point,
particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in a corporate political spending case that
corporations have a First Amendment right to
free speech.
Is the Health Care
Law Constitutional? No, Strike It Down
DAVID J. PORTER, VISION FOR CENTER & VALUES
Note: A version of this article first
appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. Neither Porter nor his firm are
involved in the ACA litigation.
This summer, the Supreme Court will decide
whether Congress violated the Constitution when
it enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, which contains an “individual mandate”
requiring virtually every American to purchase
health insurance. Based on the Constitution’s
text and structure, and judicial interpretations
of the relevant provisions, the mandate should
be struck down.
Pennsylvania
is one of 26 states to have attacked the ACA’s
constitutionality. They seek to uphold the
Constitution’s basic division of power between
the national government and state governments.
The framers and those who ratified the
Constitution withheld from Congress a plenary
police power to enact any law that it deems
desirable. Instead, the powers granted to
Congress in Article I of the Constitution are
limited and enumerated. The 10th Amendment
emphasizes this structure by affirming that all
powers not given to Congress “are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”
Given that background, the states’ argument
against ACA is simple: Even under the broadest
interpretation, Congress’ enumerated powers do
not authorize a federal law that forces
individuals to purchase health insurance.
President Obama
yesterday played a violent game of kickball with
the US Constitution, making a number of
high-level “recess” appointments — even though
the Senate isn’t actually in recess.
Presidents have
the right to make temporary appointments when
Congress is away from Washington,
of course, and both parties have used that
power.
But Obama is the
first president to declare that he, and he
alone, can decide whether the Senate — which
must confirm his appointments — is actually
meeting.
Don’t Wait for
the Supreme Court; Freeze ObamaCare Now
by Dr.
Susan
Berry
October 9, 2011
Many are focused on the Supreme Court’s take-up
of the question of the constitutionality of the
individual mandate clause in Obamacare as the
means to stop President Obama’s signature
legislation. However, some of the law has
already been funded and put into place, and,
until the High Court rules- and if it rules that
the individual mandate is unconstitutional-
there are already clear plans to change
healthcare in this country as we know it.
Bill McCollum, former Attorney General of
Florida, who led the multi-state lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare,
wrote an editorial in Politico, in
which he urges Congress to pass a bill, brought
forward by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), which
would essentially “freeze” the implementation of
the law in its tracks, a critical move since
Obamacare’s costs, including economic, quality
of care, and personal privacy aspects, are
catastrophic to the nation. Knowing that, even
if Congress passed a “freeze,” the president
would not sign it, Attorney General McCollum
recommends that the new Joint Select Committee
on Deficit Reduction, or “supercommittee,” take
it up as a realistic, and relatively expedient,
way to cut the deficit.
In light of the fact that there will still be
some time before the Supreme Court will hear the
case against Obamacare, the joint committee must
consider the multitude of evidence that now
exists about the costs of this program.
According to Attorney General McCollum, in just
2012-2013 alone, for example, Obamacare owns $50
billion in tax increases, including $20 billion
in payroll tax hikes on small businesses. The
law institutes 159 new federal programs, costing
$19 billion, and the controversial Independent
Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will have
never-before-seen power- no Congress needed- to
make cuts to Medicare.
The fact is the Obama administration, under the
direction of Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
is rolling out Obamacare in spades now in order
to make it much more difficult to scale it back.
We can just hear the Obama administration now: You
want to stop it…now? You mean you want to waste
all the money and time we’ve already spent to
insure millions of people?
As seems to be often the case, the Obama
administration says one thing and does another.
Secretary Sebelius is apparently out there,
attempting to calm conservatives that this is
not a government takeover of healthcare, and
that she will invite more time for the American
people to “speak.” Yet, as she herself speaks,
AP is reporting that work on the benefits
package is already well under way within DHHS,
and a major lobbying campaign to shape the final
package is about to be initiated.
In order to ensure no one is “costing” too much
in healthcare dollars, the federal government
will need information about all of us. That’s
where those laptops our doctors are carrying
around will come in handy. Just one click, and
all our private health information is off to the
feds, so they can do their job of “overseeing”
our healthcare.
The implications for this takeover of private
health information are mind-boggling. What if
you or a family member seek mental health care?
Does the federal government need to know that
you have had an addiction to drugs or alcohol?
Does it need to know you had an affair? Does it
need to know that your teen made a suicide
attempt? If you are involved in any forensic
matter, will the courts be more easily able to
obtain your personal health information, for a
case against you, now that the federal
government already owns it, and it is no longer
your private information? Is the federal
government capable of keeping anything private?
There are already many instances which reflect
that it is not.
Attorney General McCollum is right on the
money. Our nation cannot wait to hear the
Supreme Court’s decision. We cannot even be sure
of the nature of that decision. According to the
Constitution, Congress is the body of elected
representatives of the American people.
Obamacare needs to be stopped by our elected
representatives- dead in its tracks.
SINCE 1789
The U.S. Constitution
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to
the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not
cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years,
may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution,
for if the American Constitution should fail,
there will be anarchy throughout the world."
Daniel Webster James
Madison has been called the
Father of the Constitution. James Madison "got
it" in constructing a general (federal)
government that consisted of only enumerated
powers, that other powers belonged to the people
and to the states. Further, he constructed that
federal government to have a number of checks
and balances to further keep it from becoming
too powerful.
Here are just a few of his quotes to ponder and
absorb:
"I believe there are more instances
of the abridgement of freedom of the people by
gradual and silent encroachments by those in
power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"If
Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it
will be in the guise of fighting a foreign
enemy."
"If
men were angels, no government would be
necessary."
"Americans
have
the right and advantage of being armed - unlike
the citizens of other countries whose
governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."
"It
will be of little avail to the people that the
laws are made by men of their own choice if the
laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read,
or so incoherent that they cannot be
understood."
How can anyone read these quotes
and believe that the Constitution was not
written to protect free people in all times and
ages? ........... Click here to read
more
The
COMPLETE TEXT
Of
the US Constitution
From
Cornell Law University:
Those who wrote our constitution created a
document that was understood and agreed upon by
all. If new laws passed with the same unanimous
support that the constitution received, there
would be FAR FEWER law books on the shelves of
legal libraries today.
Our founders realized that knowledge and
understanding ie. EDUCATION was required for
people to understand and sign onto to that
document that has been the model for so many
republics since then. To that educational end,
our founders wrote the Federalist Papers, to
elaborate upon the ideas and explain the
reasoning and value of the contract.
There's
little that's intelligent or informed about
Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article
"One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011).
It contains many grossly ignorant statements
about our Constitution. If I believed in
conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is
part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect
for the founding values of our nation.
An organization that represents the 75 percent
of American citizens who want more control over
illegal immigration is calling for the
impeachment of Barack Obama over his involvement
in the transfer of weapons to Mexican drug lords
and his efforts to provide amnesty to illegal
aliens.
President Obama’s health care law received a
chilly reception Wednesday from a federal
appeals court that seemed wary of approving a
major expansion of government coercion over the
economic activity of millions of Americans.
Acknowledging they are breaking new ground in
considering this case, the three-judge panel of
the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sitting
in Atlanta questioned whether there is any
precedent in more than two centuries in which
the Supreme Court has upheld a law that forces
individuals to buy a private good or service -
in this instance, the individual mandate that
every American obtain health insurance.
“If we uphold the individual mandate in this
case, are there any limits on Congress‘ power
left?” said Chief Judge Joel Dubina, appointed
by President George H.W. Bush, who seemed most
hostile to the Obama administration’s defense.
The other two judges, both appointed by
President Clinton, peppered each side with
questions, but signaled their own concerns about
the lack of specific precedent for upholding
this type of mandate.
“I want to know, going back to the first
principles, is there anything out there that
actually suggests that Congress can compel a
private party to buy a private product on the
open market if they’re not disposed to do so,”
Judge Stanley Marcus said.
Wednesday’s nearly 2 1/2-hour hearing is the
third time an appeals court has heard a case on
the issue, which all sides believe will
eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court.
"Keep sign up!"
"Very good"
"We are behind you." -Local
"Great!"
"We agree"
"Christians need to do what you are doing."
"Continue your sign."
"Thank God for you" - Local
"It is great... what you are
doing."
"We have some good info for you." - Local, Lived in Saudi Arabia
"Saw your article in New York..
Ground Zero.."
"In full support of you and what you are
doing." - New York
This website provides links to
other information websites. Truthsthatfree.com
is
not responsible for the content of the websites
that it does not operate.
