Truths That Free

State legislators determine voting rules for  each state. What is the role of the judical system in voting?

Supreme Court weighs ‘most important case’ on democracy

Published: December 4, 2022
Mark Sherman
AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is about to confront a new elections case, a Republican-led challenge asking the justices for a novel ruling that could significantly increase the power of state lawmakers over elections for Congress and the presidency.

The court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case from North Carolina, where Republican efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court because the GOP map violated the state constitution.

A court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last month’s midterm elections in highly competitive North Carolina.

The question for the justices is whether the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections cuts state courts out of the process.

 Please click here to read the article in its entirety:


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

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
il 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."

Please click here to read the article in its entirety:

Two Views

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.



Remember 911

Press Release

US Constitution

Freedom of Speech

Islamic Threat

Israel & The Land


Religious Liberty


Christian or Cult?
Submit a Link


Resource Links

Links relating to
the US Constitution, its history, its roots, & more:

-History of the Constitution

- on Wikipedia

- Constitution and Natural Rights

- Constitution and Freedom

- Faith of our Forefathers

Links to human rights websites:


SUPPORT! our foundation efforts!

To sponsor this website

  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.

Click here to
The Daily Signal
November 12, 2017
by Elizabeth Slattery

".... 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.

 Click here to read this article in its entirety at

Will There Be Justice For Family Whose Home Was Raided Because Cops Couldn't Tell Tea From Pot?

August 1, 2017
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.
Click here to read the article in its entirety:

Court: Residents Can’t Mention “Islam” or “Muslim” At Public Hearing on Mosque Construction;

Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit

August 1, 2017

Thomas More Law Center

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a settlement agreement, which reads more like an instrument of surrender, Bernards Township (“Township”), New Jersey officials agreed that, in addition to a $3.5 million payment to Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”), residents and citizens of the Township are prohibited from commenting on “Islam” or “Muslims.” at the upcoming public hearing to approve the settlement.  Astonishingly, a federal judge approved the prohibition as a fully enforceable Order of the Court.

Click here to read more of this astonishing order from an American court:

Government ‘health care’ and the US Constitution

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.

Click here to read more of this thoughtful article at

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."

Click here to read the article in full at

September 22, 2016

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.

There are a number of links to explore, starting with a link to the report itself; please click here to view them.

Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment

Christine Rousselle
Feb 25, 2016

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."

Click here to visit where this was found.
Click here to read 17th Amendment.
Click here to read what the senate might look like if repealed.
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 read at the KFQD Radio Page.

 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.

  Please click here to read entire article at World Net Daily.

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
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.


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.

Please click here to read Judge Napolitano's article at in its entirety.

Jun 03, 2014

Colorado Christian Baker Ordered by Court to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple 'Would Rather Shut Down' Business

By Leah Marianne Klett (

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.

 Please click here to read more of article

May 8, 2014 2:19PM

Is the Constitution Relevant Today?

By David Boaz
At The Cato Institute

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?

Click here to read more

What Do The Neighbors Think?

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.

 Click here to read more of the article

Tenth 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.


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.

Read article by Miriam Raftery is found at

Fourth Amendment

“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.”

Please click here to read more of this article.

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.

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.

 Please click here to read the rest of the article

New U.N. arms treaty faces rough road in U.S. Senate

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.

Please click here to read more.

They Walk Among Us:

 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 Hillsdale College.  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 Claremont Graduate University.  Those interested in seeing and hearing this lecture, or any of the others in the series, may register at  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?

Click here to view and read this lesson in its entirety at the Hawaiian Reporter.

Sixty Percent of US Muslims Reject Freedom of Expression

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.

Please click here to read more

Commentary: Making the Fifth Amendment optional

The Detroit News

By Dale McFeatters

May 23, 2012  

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.

Clear enough? Perhaps not.

Please Click Here To Read More



Jacksonville’s Moral Constitutional Patriots Speak

A Response By Dr. Gene A. Youngblood

Presented  at City Council Meeting of 5/22/2012

WHEREAS  Our 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


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.

Click here to read more of the article

Is the Health Care Law Constitutional? No, Strike It Down


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.

Click here to read more of the article

King Barack’s power grab

New York Post

Posted: January 05, 2012

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.

Read article in its entirety here

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.

Click here to read this article in its entirety.

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."

w 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

Of the US Constitution
From Cornell Law University:

Click Here to Read The United States Constitution

The Federalist Papers

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.

Read the Federalist Papers here


Gross Media Ignorance

From Jewish World Review
By Walter Williams

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.

Click here to read more of this article

More Obama 'defiance' of Constitution

'Why elections if the executive branch rules by decree?'

Posted: June 30, 2011
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

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.

Click here to read more of this article...


Judges seem receptive to health care challenge

See lack of precedent for individual mandate

The Washington Times

June 8, 2011

By Stephen Dinan

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.

To read more of this Washington Times article…

For more information on this topic

Online Bookstore

Our Supporters

"Keep sign up!"
"Very good"
"We are behind you."

"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

Copyright Truths That Free © 2006

This website provides links to other information websites. is
not responsible for the content of the websites that it does not operate.