Archive for the ‘War on U.S. Constitution’ Category
President Obama’s executive action effectively legalizing up to 5,000,0000 illegal aliens in America is actually a bit of a nothing-burger policy-wize.
Most common-sense conservatives and Republicans don’t have a substanative problem with:
1) Allowing illegal aliens who have lived here for at least five years and who have children here who are U.S. citizens getting themselves right with the law and applying for a green card.
2) Allowing people who arrived here as children five or more years ago to do the same.
It’s really not that big a deal substanatively from a policy standpoint.
If Ronald Reagan were recommending this and went through the proper legislative channels, most of us would not have a big problem with this.
Actually, Reagan did do something like this, with Congress’s approval.
The title of the legislation was the Simpson-Mizzoli Act.
Under this legislation,, it was envisioned that about 4,000,000 illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.
In other words, about what Obama’s executive order is envisioning.
So the policy substance of what Obama is doing is not a huge deal.
What is a huge deal is HOW Obama is doing it.
He told us he had grown impatient with Congress’s inaction. So he decided to go it alone.
That’s not how our republic works.
In our system, Congress makes the laws. It’s the President’s job to “faithfully execute” the laws of the land.
He’s the executive, not a lawmaker.
Congress is the lawmaking body.
This is how “separation of powers” works — the foundational principle of the American structure of government.
So President Obama went rogue, decided he did not like the law as written. So went ahead and decreed his own law. This is what emperors and dictators do. This is what happens in a banana republic.
The trouble is there is no remedy to stop Obama from doing what he’s doing short of Impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate and a vote of expulsion by the Senate.
This has never happened in the history of our Republic.
It would have happened to Richard Nixon. But he resigned.
Obama knows he’s safe. It would take a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate (67 votes) to expel him from office. That’s an impossible bar.
So Obama is free to do just about anything he wants short of killing a little girl with his bare hands in front of cameras on the White House lawn.
The problem is our system is ill-equipped to deal with a President who acts in bad faith.
For example, the Constitution gives the President the power to pardon criminals.
If President Obama wants, he can pardon every criminal now in prison (including every murderer, gang member, and rapist) and they would be free to go back out on the street to commit their mayhem.
Short of impeachment and expulsion by the Senate, there’s nothing we could do.
Even the case for impeachment in this case would be difficult because technically Obama would not be breaking any laws if he just released every criminal in America’s prison through his Constitutional power to pardon whomever he chooses.
Theoretically, Congress can impeach and expel a President from office if they just view him as grossly neglecting his duties as President, or as grossly acting against the nation’s interest. But technically, he would not be violating any law by pardoning every criminal in America.
President Obama might well decide to pardon every illegal alien living in America.
That’s certainly not out of the realm of possibility, given what he just did.
Now clearly, the Constitution does not envision any President pardoning every criminal in America . . . because that would be just nuts.
But the Constitution doesn’t say he can’t. So technically he can.
So there’s really nothing we can do to prevent Barack Obama from destroying the country — if he wants to.
He can fire every General, Admiral, Colonel, and Major in the military if he wants to. He can move all our military forces and troops to the South Pole as a joke.
And there’s absolutely nothing we could do about it short of Impeachment and a vote of expulsion by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds super-majority vote.
He can also use the IRS and Department of Justice (which he controls) to harass, prosecute, and destroy his political opponents — which he’s been doing. There’s nothing much we can do about that either.
He can also pack the courts with radical leftist ideologues who will rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. He’s basically done that.
So this is a serious question America’s Constitution does not handle well.
What happens when America elects a President who really doesn’t like America very much, who says he’s out to “fundamentally transform” America — who says he’s out to “remake America” . . . and apparently will use any means to do so, whether legal or not?
We’ve never before had a President of the United States who just did not much like America.
We’ve had incompetent Presidents — such as Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan.
Incompetent Presidents can also do a lot of damage to the country. But at least they aren’t purposefully trying to destroy the country.
What happens when we have a President who sees it as his mission in life to knock America down a few pegs, to punish America for being so successful, or even destroy America completely?
President Obama knows that if he can find a way to simply allow Mexico and Latin America to move to America, that’s the end of the Republican Party. He can turn America into a one-party state, like Venezuela or any number of other Latin American countries.
Our system does not have an adequate remedy for a President who decides to go rogue.
Is America’s “War on Terror” Worth the Cost We are Paying in Terms of Lost Freedom, Lost Lives, and Lost Treasure?
What is relevant is what he’s told us about the information and data the NSA’s PRISIM program is collecting on every American citizen.
Snowden informs us that the NSA is . . .
- collecting all our cell phone records
- recording and storing all our cell phone conversations
- collecting all our credit card transactions and bank records
- collecting all our emails and social media posts
- tracking all our online searches via Google the search engines
Snowden also tells us, chillingly, that the NSA has the ability to track what we are thinking in real time as we are typing on our computer keyboards.
In his great book 1984, George Orwell wrote this:
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”
This is the society in which we now live.
We are no longer a free people. Yes, we can live a comfortable life. We can go to work everyday and collect our paychecks. We can watch our TV shows at night and attend sporting events.
The government will even allow a certain amount of criticism of the government.
But information is power. Information is the most powerful weapon on the planet. If you knew for certain what the stock market was going to do over the next hour, you could become an instant millionaire or billionaire.
Now the government knows everything about you.
Now the government has all the information it needs at its fingertips to destroy you — erase you — at the slightest provocation. All it has to do is decide you’re a threat. Then it just has to sift through all the data its collected on you (including all your phone conversations) to find a crime, any crime, any violation of law — and you’re finished.
This is exactly what the Constitution’s FOURTH AMENDMENT was designed to prevent. It states:
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 courts have long interpreted this to mean that the government cannot record or listen to your phone conversations, cannot search through your car, cannot search your house, cannot read your mail, without a search warrant. And the government cannot get a warrant without probable cause.
The big purpose of the FOURTH AMENDMENT was to stop so-called “writs of assistance.”
A “writ of assistance” is a general warrant, allowed under English law.
A “writ of assistance” allows the government to conduct a general search without specifying who it’s searching, what it’s searching for, or even why it’s searching.
The FOURTH AMENDMENT requires “probable cause” to conduct a search. The courts have interpreted this to mean that the government, to get a warrant, must specify what it’s searching for and why. The government must also explain why they need to search through the belongings of this particular person — “probable cause.”
This NSA PRISM program clearly goes way beyond that by collecting and storing every cell phone call (the full conversation, not just the meta tags), email, etc on every American. That’s a general warrant (a “write of assistance”) — exactly the kind of warrant the FOURTH AMENDMENT outlaws.
The NSA’s PRISM program is also a violation of the Patriot Act — even the stronger, updated one that President Obama requested and signed into law.
The Patriot Act permits the NSA to monitor foreign communications (phone conversations, emails, etc) because foreigners are not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The Patriot Act permits the inadvertent collection of data on Americans, but only if by accident, only if the American is part of the foreign phone or email traffic.
So if you are an American citizen who is taking phone calls from Yemen or Afghanistan, you would likely pop-up on the NSA’s radar screen. That’s how the Patriot Act was supposed to work.
The NSA PRISM program clearly goes light years beyond that.
So the NSA PRISM program violates both the FOURTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution and the the Patriot Act.
Is Edward Snowden a traitor or a hero?
Well, Paul Revere was no doubt a traitor in the eyes of the British authorities.
We don’t know all there is to know about Edward Snowden. But I’m very happy he let us know what’s really going on.
The Obama Administration will argue that this data collection by the NSA was approved by the so-called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), a special court set up to make sure innocent Americans are not being targeted by foreign surveillance operations, including the Patriot Act.
The fact that the FISA court was derelict in its duty and approved the NSA’s tapping of, recording, and storing the phone conversations of every American citizen does not make it legal. It makes the FISA court a party to the criminal conduct.
Even the name of this special FISA court (“Foreign”) tells us what NSA was supposed to be doing — and that’s monitoring the phone and email traffic of foreigners — potential foreign terrorist threats to America.
NSA claims the PRISM program has prevented 50 terrorist attacks on America so far.
Impressive (sort of), but how are they counting?
Are they counting the same way the Obama Administration is counting how many jobs have been created and/or saved by the “stimulus”?
Are they counting the same way Obama under-estimated the cost of ObamaCare by triple (as of this date)?
No way to know, of course.
All this brings me to the question raised by this article: “Is the cost of the war on terror worth it?”
We have clearly lost our freedom. There is no such thing anymore as “privacy.”
The government knows everything about us — or can retrieve all the info if needed, including actual recordings of every phone conversation we’ve made on our cell phones and all our email correspondence.
This means the government (if it chooses to) can convict anyone of a crime because it’s impossible to live life anymore without violating a law or regulation of some kind, even if inadvertently.
This means the government can very easily target its enemies — i.e. those who want smaller government.
Well, now we also learn that the IRS has been targeting the Tea Party, conservative-leaning organizations, churches, pro-life organizations, and organizations deemed opposed to the Obama agenda. We have learned that . . .
- The IRS audited the ministries of the Reverend Billy Graham and his son Reverend Franklin Graham’s ministries in 2012 soon after Billy Graham endorsed Mitt Romney. The Graham ministries had never before been audited.
- The IRS audited and targeted more than 500 Tea Party, conservative, Christian, and pro-Israel organizations.
- Journalist Wayne Allyn Root reports that he was audited by the IRS soon after his book The ObamaCare Survival Guide was published and became a national bestseller. Mr. Root also reports that he has personally spoken with 15 donors to the Mitt Romney campaign who were audited within 90 days of making their donations.
- The IRS demanded to read the prayers of conservative churches.
- The IRS demanded copies of church membership lists.
- The IRS audited reporters and news anchors who said critical things about Obama.
- The IRS targeted Christian and conservative college interns.
- Sarah Hall Ingram, the head of the IRS division that was conducting these audits of conservatives and conservative organizations has been promoted to run the IRS office that charged with enforcing the ObamaCare mandates.
- The Obama campaign accused Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes (even though Obama and Romney paid about the same percentage of their incomes to the IRS)
- The Obama campaign accused Romney’s donors of not paying their taxes and accused them of engaging in shady activities — an obvious effort by Team Obama to intimidate Romney’s donors into not donating to Romney.
- The Obama Justice Department secretly obtained phone records and emails of more than 100 reporters, journalists, and editors — with a special focus on destroying FOX News. The purpose of this, of course, was to chill media criticism of Obama during 2012.
- The Obama Justice Department claimed FOX News reporter James Rosen was engaging in criminal activity by asking Obama Administration officials about the North Korean missile threat. Rosen is FOX News’ chief Washington, DC correspondent. The Obama Justice Department secretly seized Rosen’s phone records, emails, and tracked his movements 24/7.
This is how Communist regimes behave. This is not how the United States government is supposed to behave.
We have a government in Washington, DC, that is completely out of control.
The Obama Administration has told us that we should trust it with all of our information — that it’s just trying to keep us safe.
But look at the price we are paying for all of this safety.
Granted, the War on Terror was launched in earnest under the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a vigorous defender of the NSA PRISM program, which apparently was launched in 2007. Obama just continued, expanded, and enhanced it.
Fine. That doesn’t make it right.
George W. Bush was arguably one of the worst Presidents in American history.
He actually launched a war by mistake — against Iraq — a war that served no purpose whatsoever, a war that cost us $2-3 TRILLION, depending on whose accounting you use.
Turns out Saddam Hussein had no credible nuclear bomb program, or weapons of mass destruction of any significant nature that could threaten the United States. Turns out he was actually a bulwark against terrorism, hated al Qaeda, and was a key check against the much more dangerous Iran — a fact Ronald Reagan understood very well (which is why he supported Iraq in its war with Iran).
But let’s look further at all this War on Terror has cost us. And then let’s ask the question: Is it worth it?
3,000 Americans died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.
This launched America’s War on Terror.
So the cost of the September 11th attack was 3,000 American lives. It also cost $3.8 billion to rebuild the World Trade Center.
So the cost was huge. The loss of 3,000 American lives was tragic.
But what has it cost to right this wrong?
What has it cost to “keep us safe”?
And has this wrong been righted? Are we any safer today than we were the day before September 11, 2001?
Perhaps we’re a bit safer from the terrorists. But what about safer from our own government?
Well, the cost of rebuilding World Trade Center: $3.8 Billion.
6,648 Americans died in the Iraq War — more than double who died in the September 11 attack.
Another 2,238 Americans have died in Afghanistan.
The official number of Americans wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan now stands at more than 50,000.
But brain injuries from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are not counted in the official tally of wounded.
PTSD brain injuries are crippling and require lifelong treatment.
If we include PTSD injuries in the cost of these wars, the number of wounded soars to over 100,000.
Many of America’s wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan would have died in earlier wars. But our modern medical care is so good, that we’ve been able to keep many “basket cases” alive.
The combined dollar-cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars was $3 TRILLION TO $5 TRILLION, depending on whose accounting you use.
The cost is really much higher than this because we’ll have to care for these 100,000-plus wounded (including PSTD) for the rest of their lives, along with their families.
Given what we know now, was (is) all this worth it?
I certainly believe we had to do all we could to hunt down Osama bin Laden and his associates, and kill them.
But we could have done this for less than $3-5 TRILLION, plus all the loss of liberty and privacy we are suffering now.
Instead of a $25 million reward for bin Laden, why not offer $1 Billion or $10 Billion — plus $1 BILLION or $10 BILLION for each of his associates.
Surely, this would have gotten the job done.
This is how we caught criminals in the wild west days. We offered rewards. This created an industry of bounty hunters. The criminals were usually caught.
If you make the bounty (reward) big enough, we could have had the entire world looking for bin Laden and his associates.
Doesn’t a system like this make a whole lot more sense than what we are doing now?
Wouldn’t this concept make a lot more sense than setting up a massive National Surveillance State to monitor every activity and every communication of every law-abiding American citizen?
There’s no reason to sacrifice our liberty for this gargantuan Surveillance State.
America’s founding fathers had it right. The Constitution makes even more sense today than it did back then.
We have 12 aircraft carriers. China and Russia each have one.
Right now, 43 percent of the entire world’s military spending is, well, us. We are spending six times more on our military than #2 China. We are spending 14 times more than Russia.
President Eisenhower (no liberal) warned America about the “military industrial complex” and the threat it presents to our liberty and wallets and freedoms. Wow! Are we seeing this truth play out today.
It’s time to scale back this national security state we find ourselves in. It’s time we scale it way back — perhaps to one-third of what it is now.
Robespierre, you might remember, also had a Committee for Public Safety — enforced by the guillotine — in the aftermath of the French Revolution.
All tyrannies become tyrannies under the rubric of protecting the people. Every government always says what we need is more safety. That’s how governments amass more and more power — to supposedly protect us . . . from ourselves, from our enemies, from whoever and whatever.
We have a government today that mocks the Constitution, laughs at the rule of law. Everything and anything is justified under the rubric of keeping us safe. Republicans are just as much to blame for this as Democrats.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner calls Edward Snowden a traitor for telling the American people what’s really going on.
Never mind that the Constitution has an actual definition of what constitutes treason. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason thusly:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Snowden was not “levying war” against the United States. He was not conspiring with any enemy. He’s not selling this information for profit. He seems genuinely alarmed with the NSA’s clearly illegal unconstitutional assault on the privacy of law-abiding America.
We’re supposed to be governed with the “consent of the governed.”
How can there be consent if we don’t know what our government is doing, even in general terms?
Snowden wasn’t revealing the identities of CIA agents. He wasn’t jeopardizing America’s national security in any substantial way.
He was just telling us about an unconstitutional and illegal program that Americans (voters) had no idea exists.
He’s a whistleblower, not engaging in espionage. Big difference.
He’s just saying, “Hey, look here. Did you know your government is doing this to you?”
This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic where citizens are supposed to know, at least generally, what’s going on.
Switzerland doesn’t seem to have a terrorist problem. Could it be that the way we are conducting ourselves around the world (like a bull in a china shop) might have something to do with with this hatred in the Muslim world toward America?
It appears that the United States of America is now the most hated country in the world.
Perhaps that’s because we’re the world’s most annoying busybody. We’re like Michael Bloomberg, trying to tell everyone how much soda they can drink.
If we scale back the war on terror, will more Americans die?
If the U.S. government wasn’t cataloguing and recording every cell phone conversation in America and capturing every email and social media post, will more Americans die?
But a lot more Americans have been dying as a result of the War on Terror.
We know statistically that 32,000 Americans will die in car crashes this year.
But we have made a decision that the freedom to drive outweighs the 32,000 lives that would be saved by banning driving.
America needs to conduct a similar cost-benefit analysis on whether this War on Terror is worth the price we’re now paying in terms of lost liberty, lost treasure, and lost lives.
Short of seceding from the union, the states can take strong action to counter an abusive federal government
The Red States should issue a “Declaration of Non-Compliance” with all unconstitutional Federal laws and regulations
For example, suppose a big state, such as Texas, declared itself a tax sanctuary — that no Texan will be required to pay an income tax of, say, more than 15 percent to the federal government.
It would cite the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for legal justification.
The Fifth Amendment states that “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
This is known as the “Takings Clause.”
The Fourteenth Amendment states that the government must not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“
This is known as the “Equal Protection of the Laws” clause.
The progressive income taxes violates both these Amendments.
If some Americans are taxed at a higher rate than others, they are being denied equal treatment under the law — a fundamental principal of common law and justice.
I should not pay a bigger fine for running a red light if I’m richer.
If the government is taking my money to give to someone else, clearly my property is being taken without just compensation . . . and not even for public use. So this is a violation of the “Takings Clause.”
So there is plenty of legal justification for Texas to simply declare (by passing a state law) that no Texan will be required to pay an income tax of more than 15 percent to the federal government.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution establishes the dual sovereignty doctrine. It states that,
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.”
According to the Tenth Amendment, most of what the federal government is doing today is unconstitutional.
If the federal government actually followed the Tenth Amendment, it would be about one-third the size it is now.
The Constitution set up a federal government to do certain very specific things –”establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Clearly, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to take money from one American to give to someone else.
The Sixteenth Amendment states that,
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
But the federal government does not have the authority to tax some people at a 30 percent rate and others at a 10 percent rate (for the purpose of wealth redistribution) because that violates both the Fifth Amendment’s “takings” clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” clause.
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld the “dual sovereignty” doctrine of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
Most recently, in the ObamaCare case, the court ruled that the states are under no obligation to comply with the ObamaCare law. That is, the states are under no obligation to use money from the state treasury to set up the ObamaCare “exchanges” or to expand “Medicaid.”
Thus, much of the financing mechanism for ObamaCare is gone if the states simply refuse to provide the funds and refuse to set up the exchanges.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both argued that the states have the right simply to refuse to go along with unconstitutional federal laws and decrees. After all, it was the states who created the federal government in the first place.
At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
In other words, the states would have the right to ignore any law Congress might pass that violates the Constitution.
So let’s say Texas declares that no Texan will pay more than a 15 percent rate on income to the federal government and that no Texan will be subject to arrest by federal authorities for refusing to pay more than this. What practically could the federal government do in response?
Well, the federal government could try to come into Texas to arrest the non-compliant Texan.
The state of Texas would then provide legal defense for the Texas taxpayer while the case worked its way through the courts, which could take years.
The state of Texas can just use the courts to tie up the federal government for years in litigation.
This would be taking a page from the ACLU’s playbook.
The ACLU has achieved a lot for the Left by threatening litigation and tying up the government in litigation.
Texas could take this approach with every abusive federal law, such as the Obama Administration’s plans to deny Americans their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, or all the unconstitutional regulations coming from the EPA.
In fact, the state of Texas could declare every federal regulation illegal that was not explicitly passed into law by Congress.
The federal agencies have issued hundreds of thousands of regulations that carry the force of law. You will pay fines and can go to jail for failing to comply with these regulations. But these regulations should carry no weight whatsoever because they were not actually passed into law by Congress.
Congress is the lawmaking body, not the Executive Branch.
And Congress has no Constitutional authority to transfer the lawmaking power to the Executive Branch.
So the state of Texas (or any state) could go through every federal regulation and declare it will no longer comply with these regulations.
What could the federal government do if Texas did that?
And what if this trend caught on in other solidly Red states? — such as Oklahoma, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Nebraska, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho.
That’s a pretty sizeable chunk of territory that we might call the “Free United States of America” — in contrast to the “Enslaved United States of America.”
What could the federal government really do if this happened?
We would not actually secede from the union. These states would just refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws and regulations. They would continue to comply with Constitutional laws. We would want, for example, to continue to pay for national defense because that’s authorized by the Constitution.
The states can go through the federal budget and determine what they will pay for (the Constitutional items) — and NOT pay for (the unconstitutional items).
We will be happy to pay for all Constitutional federal functions of government.
Another area for the states to put their foot down is to say “no more seizing of private and state lands by the federal government.”
The states are perfectly capable of identifying places of true scenic beauty to protect.
What’s been happening is that the federal government has abused its eminent domain power to simply seize as much American land as it can for itself.
The federal government now owns 84.5 percent of Nevada, 69.1 percent of Alaska, 57.4 percent of Utah, 53.1 percent of Oregon, 50.2 percent of Idaho, 48.1 percent of Arizona, 55.3 percent of California, etc. — in other words, most of the Western United States.
The Obama Administration has mapped out a plan to seize millions more acres of valuable Western lands, putting many ranchers out of business.
The Red States need to say not only no more lands will be seized the federal government, but should begin taking lands back from the federal government.
Who is the federal government to say what Texas or Alaska can and can’t do with their own land — including their oil?
Kick the federal government out of the state.
And it really doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court rules because most of these federal laws and regulations are unconstitutional, no matter what liberals on the Supreme Court say.
The Supreme Court is not the supreme authority of the land. The Constitution is. If the Supreme Court ruled that it’s okay to kill all red-headed children, that would not make it Constitutional to do so.
There’s no mention of the Supreme Court in the Constitution as the supreme authority in the land. That did not happen until 1958, when in Cooper v. Aaron the Court declared that its rulings have exactly the same weight as the text of the Constitution itself.
But that’s a self-evident absurdity.
The Constitution very clearly states that the courts operate under the laws established by Congress. And Congress operates under the Constitution.
It’s then clear from the ratification debates on the Constitution that the states are supposed to be the final arbiters on what is Constitutional, or not. In fact, that was the entire promise in the ratification debates, or the Constitution never would have been ratified. The states were assured over and over again, that they would be the judge of the Constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.
If the federal law is Constitutional, the states would and should be pleased to abide by the law. We all agree that sensible laws and rules are needed for the proper functioning of a civil society.
But under the American system, most of the governing is supposed to be handled by state and local governments.
Instead, the federal government that is the big usurper and primary lawbreaker America. It’s come more to resemble organized crime than a real government.
We have a rogue President, a rogue federal bureaucracy, and a largely rogue Supreme Court — a court that actually found an unalienable right to an abortion in the text of the Constitution — where no such right exists — thus nullifying abortion laws in all 50 states.
So if the Supreme Court can nullify laws in all 50 states, the states can counter by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws. We then have a stand-off — which is what happens when the government attempts to impose its will on an unwilling people. We’re supposed to be governed in America by the “consent of the governed.”
Since we do need courts, the “Free United States” can set up its own Supreme Court — a competing court made up of Constitutionalists.
Again, what could the federal government really do about this?
The feds could theoretically take military action.
But that’s not likely to happen unless the states actually secede from the union. But the states would not be doing that. We are not talking about attacking Fort Sumter here.
The states would just be enforcing their Constitutional rights — vigorously, on every front and in every way.
It would not be a Declaration of Independence, we would be issuing a Declaration of Non-Compliance – non-compliance with unconstitutional laws and regulations.
The Supreme Court has already given the states the roadmap for how to do this with its ObamaCare ruling — declaring that the states are under no obligation to comply with ObamaCare.
Its time for the Red States to reassert their Constitutional authority in every area — to take authority back from the federal government.
And it would good to formalize the Red State complaint against the federal government with a formal Declaration of Non-Compliance — following the same pattern of argument as America’s Declaration of Independence of 1776.
America’s Declaration of Independence made its case by cataloguing a long list of abusive behavior by the British government. It’s well worth reading this list, because so many of these complaints apply to our own federal government today:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world . . .
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance . . .
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation . . .
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever . . .
A strong case can be made that much of this is happening now — only more so. The federal government has vastly over-stepped its constitutional authority in many areas — “has erected a multitude of New Offices [not envisoned by the Constitution], and sent hither swarms of Officers [bureacrats] to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
Isn’t this happening today?
Let’s take ObamaCare as just one example.
ObamaCare sets up a Soviet-style health care bureaucracy that will destroy freedom in America and wreck our health care system if its allowed to take root and spread like a cancer into every area of American life. ObamaCare . . .
- Requires the hiring of 16,000 brand to IRS agents to enforce the 2,700-page law.
- Establishes 159 brand new government agencies to administer the program;
- Includes 21 new taxes and tax increases.
Barack Obama promised in his 2008 campaign for the Presidency that he would “fundamentally transform” the American system (his words) — including our Constitutional structure of government.
The engine that’s driving this fundamental transformation of our society is”ObamaCare.”
Communists and socialists have always known that the fastest and surest way to move a country to socialism is through socializing medicine — that is, by putting a country’s health care system under government control.
Vladimir Lenin, the founder and architect of the Soviet Communist state, said “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.”
Lenin and the Communists knew that once you control people’s access to health care and medical treatment, you control their lives. The Left here in America is well aware of this also.
When radio host Paul W. Smith asked liberal Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) why it will take the government until 2014 to fully set up the ObamaCare system, Dingell said this:
“It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
Source: News Talk WJR Radio with Paul W. Smith 3/23/2010
Does this sound like the America established by our nation’s Founding Fathers and described in the Constitution of the United States?
Is this really the purpose of our federal government — “to control the people“?
The Constitution says the primary purpose of government is to “secure the blessings of liberty” and to provide for the “common defense” – not to “control the people.“
Under our Constitution, people are supposed to be free to do whatever they want, so long as they are not harming someone else.
That’s called freedom.
America’s Declaration of Independence says the purpose of government is to secure our “unalienable rights” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
ObamaCare is about none of this. ObamaCare is about the opposite of what described by our nation’s founding documents.
No wonder Cuba’s Communist dictator Fidel Castro hailed the passage of ObamaCare as “a miracle.”
In other words, when Barack Obama told us in 2008 that he was out to “fundamentally transform” America, he meant it. And he’s doing it primarily through ObamaCare — but also via the EPA, Executive Orders, and his administrative control of the vast federal bureaucracy.
His bureaucrats and regulators are issuing an avalanche of regulations on their own every week that carry the force of law — complete with criminal penalties and sanctions. All this is unconstitutional.
It’s time for the Red States to Declare Independence from all this — or rather Declare their Non-Compliance with a long catalogue of federal abuses by the federal government, very similar to America’s original Declaration of Independence of 1776.
This is not a proposal to go to war or to secede. It’s a proposal simply to refuse to comply with all federal laws and regulations that are clearly unconstitutional.
What could Obama and the Left do if the Red States actually did that?
Rep Jesse Jackson Jr says Congress is in rebellion and that Obama should do what Lincoln did to rebels
Jr. says Obama should declare a national emergency, just like Lincoln did, and exercise dictatorial powers –presumably including suspending Habeas Corpus and declaring Martial Law.
Would this also mean slaughtering hundreds of thousands of citizens? Not clear.
Here the brilliant and learned Jesse Jackson Jr exlains why the U.S. Constitution should be changed to include right to have a laptop computer and an iPod
And to think: These are the people who are running America.
It will be real interesting to see how well he gets along with his fellow inmates.
NY DAILY NEWS: A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.
The bombshell testimony from Stephen Anderson is the first public account of the twisted culture behind the false arrests in the Brooklyn South and Queens narc squads, which led to the arrests of eight cops and a massive shakeup.
Anderson, testifying under a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, was busted for planting cocaine, a practice known as “flaking,” on four men in a Queens bar in 2008 to help out fellow cop Henry Tavarez, whose buy-and-bust activity had been low.
“Tavarez was … was worried about getting sent back [to patrol] and, you know, the supervisors getting on his case,” he recounted at the corruption trial of Brooklyn South narcotics Detective Jason Arbeeny.
“I had decided to give him [Tavarez] the drugs to help him out so that he could say he had a buy,” Anderson testified last week in Brooklyn Supreme Court.
END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM:
#1 A 55-year-old man in Arizona was recently ordered to turn in all his guns because of things that he wrote on his blog. Fortunately, after WorldNetDaily covered the story there was an outpouring of outrage and the order was overturned, but what would have happened if WorldNetDaily had not covered the story?
#2 According to Mike Adams of Natural News, the CDC is starting to call parents all over the nation to question them about the vaccination status of their children….
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has been comprehensively exposed as a vaccine propaganda organization promoting the interests of drug companies, is now engaged in a household surveillance program that involves calling U.S. households and intimidating parents into producing child immunization records. As part of what it deems a National Immunization Survey(NIS), the CDC is sending letters to U.S. households, alerting them that they will be called by “NORC at the University of Chicago” and that households should “have your child’s immunization records handy when answering our questions.”
You can see a copy of the letter that the CDC is sending out to selected parentsright here.
#3 According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate “in monthly anti-terrorism drills”. The following is an excerpt from a letter that he recently received from the school where his child attends….
Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.
So who in the world ever decided that it would be a good idea for 1st grade students to endure “lockdown” and “active shooter” drills?
To get an idea of what these kinds of drills are like, just check out this video.
#4 According to licensed private investigator Angela V. Woodhull, hospitals are increasingly using “guardianship” to strip elderly Americans of their liberty and to rapidly drain their bank accounts. The following is one story that Woodhull included in a recent article….
Ginger Franklin, Hendersonville, Tennessee, fell down the stairs in her condo and suffered a bump on her head. She was declared “temporarily mentally incapacitated” and a guardian was appointed through the courts. Within six weeks, the guardian had sold Franklin’s home, car, furniture, and drained her bank account. Today, Franklin has her freedom back, but she is having to start all over.
#5 In a sign of just how far individual liberty in the United States has declined, a judge in Wisconsin has actually ruled that citizens do not have a right to grow and eat whatever foods they want to. The following is a short excerpt from his recent decision….
1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
3) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;
5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice;
#6 The freedom to raise our pets as we want to is also being greatly curtailed in many areas of the country. For example, a new law in St. Louis would require nearly all dogs and cats to be sterilized and microchipped….
Board Bill 107 would require all pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs and cats and microchip them for identification. Those who don’t want to sterilize their pets would be assessed a fee of $200 per year.
Will the control freaks that run things want to start sterilizing and microchipping humans someday?
#7 Whenever any politician suggests that we should “suspend elections”, that should be a major red flag. North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue recently made national headlines when she made the following statement….
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover“
#8 As I wrote about recently, many NFL teams are now performing “enhanced pat-downs” of fans before they enter the stadiums. In Green Bay, the Packers are using hand-held metal detectors on fans before they are allowed to enter Lambeau field.
What is next? Will they soon insist that we all undergo full body cavity searches before we are permitted to attend the games?
It’s fun when these Dems tell us what they really want to do.
DAILY CALLER: Newly released audio contradicts claims of North Carolina’s Democrat Governor Bev Perdue’s press team that her call Tuesday for suspending Congressional election was a joke or hyperbole. In the recording, her tone is matter-of-fact and her comments are part of a serious speech.
“Listen to the Governor’s words: She wasn’t joking at all,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood told The Daily Caller. “The congressional Democrats are wildly unpopular in North Carolina, so she may have been trying to invent a solution to save their jobs from public accountability.”
“If it was a joke, what was the set-up?,” Lockwood adds. “What was the punch-line? Where was the pause for laughter? It took them three hours to say it was a ‘joke,’ but when that flopped it became ‘hyperbole.’ We’ll just call it an unconstitutionally bad idea.”
Listen for yourself . . .
THE BLAZE: A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.
City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.
He’s Bush++ . . . Bush on Steroids . . . even Bizarro Bush. The last thing we need is another Big Government Republican.
MICHELLE MALKIN: Beltway types are obsessing over GOP Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign trail comments about the Fed and Ben Bernanke.
I’m far less aggravated by Gov. Perry’s injudicious toss-off remarks than I am by his profoundly troubling, liberty-curtailing actions in office and his fresh batch of specious rationalizations for them. My syndicated column today dissects Perry’s recent, so-called “walk backs” of his odious Gardasil vaccine mandate for children. I’ve written and reported on vaccine bullies in the schools and on informed parental authority over vaccines previously. But as you’ll see from my column below, Perry defenders who dismiss critics as “single-issue” activists are willfully blind to the Gardasil disgrace’s multiple layers of rottenness. Related must-reads on Perry and Gardasil: Tom Bevan, Rhymes with Right, and BA Cyclone at RedState. (See also this flashback on Hillary, Merck money, and Gardasil.)
While Perry and his campaign staff have now paid lip service to making a “mistake” in shoving the executive order down families’ throats, they remain defiant in defending the decree and Perry’s zealous, big government overreaching. From the latest story on Perry’s “reversal” in the Washington Post: “Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner dismissed the criticism. Governor Perry has always stood on the side of protecting life, and that is what this issue was about…”
Oh, no it wasn’t. Please read this, get informed, pass it on, and make sure that you don’t fall for a purported cure to our political ills that’s worse than the power-grabbing disease in the current White House.
As for the ridiculous idea that scrutinizing Perry’s much-bragged-out gubernatorial record is tantamount to “smearing” him, toughen up, buttercups. This is just the beginning of 2012 campaign heat. Limited government activists already know Perry’s ready, willing, and able to dish it out against them. If Perry can’t take it from supposed allies and friends on his own side of the aisle, why should he be trusted as the GOP contender against our Democratic enemies?
Update: Document dump from Politico’s Ben Smith and Byron Tau on the internal e-mails in Perry’s office regarding the HPV decision. Their takeaway from the 700-page dump seems to be that Perry was largely absent from the internal discussions and that the e-mails do not leave a record of Merck meddling. I’ll go through the records and add anything significant here. But 1) Much of the schmoozing and lobbying on such matters takes place outside of the e-mail sphere and 2) Perry wouldn’t need to be involved in the implementation details once he made up his mind to move forward and attempt to ram the mandate down people’s throats.
Point 3) Smith writes: “Perry seems to have been vindicated on the question of whether he rushed into a policy other states would never embrace: The National Council of State Legislatures reports that 20 states now have some legislation regarding the vaccine.” I’m not sure who argued that “states would never embrace” the policy. The whole reason to be concerned about Perry taking the lead in the first place is because in so many key areas (e.g., adopting school textbooks, etc), as Texas goes, so goes the rest of the country.
INVESTORS: If “Operation Fast and Furious” was merely a botched attempt at law enforcement, why was a supervisor of the operation, David Voth, “jovial, if not, not giddy but just delighted about” marked guns showing up at crime scenes in Mexico, as career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent John Dodson told Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee?
Perhaps because all was going as planned until it was learned that two of the AK-47s recovered at the scene of the fatal shooting of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December were bought in ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious. That wasn’t supposed to happen.
“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals — this was the plan,” Dodson testified to the panel. “It was so mandated.”
ATF agent Olindo James Casa said that “on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”
Yet, as we’ve noted, gun-tracking operations stopped at the border.
That seems odd if the purpose was to catch gun traffickers and their drug-lord bosses. It makes sense, however, if the real purpose was to perpetuate, in the interests of pursuing the administration’s gun-control agenda, what Bob Owens of Pajamas Media calls the “90% lie.”