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:
https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-north-carolina-legislature-50f99679939b5d69d321858066a94639
January 28, 2021
The State
of Washington DC
With the trial balloons floating around
(again) about making Washington DC a state with
two senators, let's pause and think about the
legality of that for a minute or
two. Don't forget that thanks to a
constitutional amendment of 1961, citizens
living within that district may already vote in
federal elections, with 3 representatives to the
electoral college. Two amendments would be
required to change that, adding the two senators
that the Democrats are so anxious to find.
I'll grant you that with the current diktator
writing laws like he was a legislator, rather
than an executor, and Supreme Court justices who
are unwilling to offer an opinion on State vs
State matters, that you may question whether the
Constitution is anything beyond a Con
at this point, designed to keep law abiding
citizens quiet for a little while longer
But all that aside, here's an article from June
of 2020 published by Microsoft News about where
the Constitution stands on this matter. Click
here to read
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/the-constitution-says-no-to-dc-statehood/ar-BB15MkiW
U.S. government jumps in
to protect church rights amid coronavirus
'There is no pandemic
exception to the fundamental liberties the
Constitution safeguards'
World Net Daily By WND staff
April 14, 2020
Joining a lawsuit by a
Baptist church, the U.S. Justice Department is
warning officials in Greenville, Mississippi,
they must recognize "there is no pandemic
exception to the fundamental liberties the
Constitution safeguards" in their response to
the coronavirus.
"Individual rights
secured by the Constitution do not disappear
during a public health crisis," the DOJ said
in a brief filed in a case brought by Temple
Baptist Church against the city.
"These individual rights, including the
protections in the Bill of Rights made
applicable to the states through the 14th
Amendment, are always in force and restrain
government action."
The church sued after
the city fined people for sitting in their
cars in the church parking lot to listen to a
sermon by the pastor broadcast through a radio
signal.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing
Temple Baptist.
"In Greenville, you can be in your car with
the windows rolled down at a drive-in
restaurant, but you can’t be in your car with
the windows rolled up at a drive-in church
service," said ADF spokesman Ryan Tucker.
"To target churches that way is both
nonsensical and unconstitutional," he said.
"This is why we have asked the court for a
temporary restraining order to immediately
halt enforcement of the city’s order while our
lawsuit moves forward, and it’s also why the
U.S. government has filed a statement of
interest that urges the court to rule in the
church’s favor."
First Liberty Institute is representing King
James Bible Baptist in Greenville and On Fire
Christian Church in Louisville in similar
cases.
"We welcome Attorney General Barr's defense of
religious liberty during this critical time,"
said spokesman Kelly Shackelford. "In too many
instances, as religious Americans have sought
to abide by important public health guidelines
during this pandemic they have been singled
out for restrictions that go beyond what the
CDC requires. We are grateful to the attorney
general and the Department of Justice for
assisting in the defense of religious liberty
for all Americans."
What follows are links to two
starkly different views of the U.S.
Constitution. One view of that fundamental
document recognizes the original intent and
how indispensable is placing limits on a
potentially large governing power to protect
the people from tyranny.
The other view either does not
recognize or understand the vital importance
of that document, that is a vital protection
to us individually in a court of law.
One view recognizes that
prosperity and peace rests upon a
fundamental constant rule of law that
applies to all Americans, ensuring that
their property, the fruits of their labor
cannot be arbitrarily confiscated at the
whim of each new administration.
That fundamental constant
written rule that protects the people from
encroaching government is the U.S.
Constitution. The rule is based upon
inalienable basic human rights.
What about that
Justice Gorsuch upholding the Constitution
that our leaders and defenders pledge to
protect and defend?
The liberal NPR (National
Propaganda Reporting) and other traditional
unschooled libs, chide a Supreme Court justice
for basing his judgements upon the U.S.
Constitution. Hail to that unprecedented
document that recognized some self-evident
unchangeable values of individual liberty, and
the importance to rein in a national government
that (like gravity) tends to encroach individual
freedoms.
".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" except at great peril to the people...
At Least Two
People Shot Dead During Baltimore ‘Ceasefire
Weekend’ Proves Gun Bans Don’t Work
by Geoffrey Grider
August 7, 2017
The #BaltimoreCeasefire
weekend was spearheaded by Erricka Bridgeford,
who took to Facebook following the killings to
assure everyone that the ceasefire was not
over. Baltimore is experiencing death and
violence at record levels, and it all comes
just four years after adoption of stringent
gun controls via the Firearm Safety Act
(2013). That Act banned “high capacity”
magazines, “assault weapons,” and established
a registration/fingerprint requirement for
would-be handgun purchasers. These were all
pushed in the name of making people safer, yet
the two deadliest years in Baltimore’s history
were 2015 and 2016.
....
Moreover, on March 27, 2017, Breitbart News
reported that the criminal use of “high
capacity” magazines in Baltimore had risen
since a ban on the devices was put in place.
The Trace, a gun control journalism outlet,
shows that the criminal use of such magazines
jumped in 2013 and continued to climb in 2014,
2015, and 2016.
The lessons are clear: gun control weakens the
position of law-abiding citizens while
strengthening the position of criminals.
Will There Be Justice
For Family Whose Home Was Raided Because Cops
Couldn't Tell Tea From Pot?
August 1, 2017
Forbes.com
George Leef, contributor
A case just decided by
the Tenth Circuit shows how utterly absurd the
“war on drugs” has become, how petty and
power-mad the police can be, and how blindly
deferential some of our federal judges are.
The case, Harte v. Johnson County Board of
Commissioners, arose out of an idiotic,
military-style raid by Kansas police on the
home of Robert and Adlynn Harte in 2012. They
were not in any way involved with drugs
(particularly marijuana), but a few officers
came to the conclusion that they might be.
Ron Bischof July 6, 2017 The Signal of Santa Clarita Valley
Our republic is again
embroiled in a contentious debate over the
federal government’s role in “health care.” I
use “scare quotes” here because the issue
currently under debate is fundamentally about
funding of medical services and who pays for
them.
My fellow columnists have written thoughtful
and concerning columns that have addressed
their challenges with PPACA (Obamacare),
health insurance carriers and prospective
legislative solutions to address the defects
in our health-care delivery and financing
system.
This column will offer a perspective that’s
been largely overlooked in our community
discussion, namely: What is the federal
government’s authority to regulate health-care
services and its financing for more than 320
million U.S. citizen residents in their
respective states and territories?
Bear with me a moment as I review the federal
government’s defined role in our
constitutional republic.
File Under U S
Constitution or Religious Freedom??
School: You may not
recite prayer in the name of Jesus Christ
By Todd Starnes
Published June 13, 2017
Fox News
"Moriah Bridges wanted to thank God for His
immeasurable blessings on Beaver High School’s
graduating class. But she could not, because it
was against the law.
The Pennsylvania teenager wanted to offer
thanksgiving to the Almighty for parents and
coaches and teachers. But again, she could not,
because it was against the law.
“Make us selfless. Make us just. Make us
successful people, but more than that, make us
good people,” Moriah wanted to pray. But that
too, was determined to be unlawful."
A 300 page report issued by the United States
Council on Civil Rights (USCCR) on 7 September
of 2016, has caused a righteous outcry from many
religious and other liberty loving institutions.
You may rightly question the authority of a
commission that blindly ignores the
fundamental liberty of individuals alluded to in
the first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the
U.S. Constitution. The commission, headed by
chairman Martin R Castro, appointed by President
Obama in 2011, suffers a serious blind spot of
vision.
The USCCR recommends particular protections for
people who fall within a variety of groups
designated by particular labels adopted over the
years, offering these groups special privileges
beyond that of "regular" Americans, those
generic citizens, whose basic liberties were
noted and codified in the founding documents of
our country to be protected from the
encroachment of the rules and restrictions and
regulations of an ever-growing totalitarian
government which has usurped some
non-existent power to brand my conscience and
beliefs as "intolerant" or discriminatory.
There is a blind spot on the part of the
commission that does not recognize the freedom
of faith-abiding people of conscience to live by
the tenets of their respective religions, that
do not infringe upon health and welfare of
others.
In a bit of unusual news, the Utah Senate voted
20-6 to ask Congress to repeal the 17th
Amendment of the Constitution. The 17th
Amendment allows for the direct election of
senators. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson
(R-Highland) argued that the 17th Amendment was
not what the founders of the country had
intended and changed the meaning of the role of
the senators.
Its sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson,
R-Highland, says electing senators by the state
Senate is needed because no branch of the
federal government now represents the needs of
state governments. A change would force senators
to do that.
"Today, senators are more
beholden to special interest groups than to
their states" because those interests give them
money for reelection, Jackson said.
He added, "It's time for our
senators to come home every weekend and take
direction from this body and from the House and
the governor on how they should vote in the
upcoming week."
Would senators representing state rights as the
founders intended help to rein in the federal
government? (The people would still of course
vote for their representatives in the U.S. House
of Representatives.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia
Feb. 18, 2016
It is hard to imagine a
greater loss to Liberty in America than has
occurred in the passing of Justice Antonin
Scalia. His understanding of the Constitution
as a pact between free people and government,
and our protection from oppressive government,
was unparalleled.
The fact that 30% of Americans do not know who
he was, speaks volumes about the state of our
Union and our education system.
My words and thoughts are totally inadequate
but you can easily find more about the great
man's life and legacy. Click
here for a link to wikipedia. Or click
here to read the thoughts of the other
Justices on the Supreme Court about him.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia.
Another State Is
Heard From.......
Senate resolution calls
for a US constitutional convention
Posted: February 3, 2016
at 10:37 am
KFQD Radio Anchorage, Alaska
JUNEAU, Alaska
(AP) – An Alaska Senate committee is set to
consider a resolution calling for a convention
of the states to propose a countermand, or
veto, amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The measure calls on
legislators in the other 49 states to apply
for a convention as well.
In his sponsor
statement, Chugiak Republican Senator Bill
Stoltze says the resolution is meant to
restore the balance of power between the
states and the federal government.
The resolution calls for
a convention of states to amend the U.S.
Constitution and provide states with the power
to vote on nullifying federal laws.
Click
here to realize that Alaska is not the
only state that has called for a
Constitutional Convention.
Hands up, just shoot!
Posted By Jeff Knox
On 01/27/2016
World Net Daily
The occupation of a remote wildlife
refuge turned violent yesterday when federal
agents stopped two vehicles carrying protesters
to a town hall meeting in John Day, Oregon.
Victoria Sharp, a passenger in one of those
vehicles, has reported that federal agents
opened fire on the group without provocation
after conflicting and confusing demands for the
protesters to surrender. Sharp reported that
shots were first fired at Ryan Payne as he
complied with orders to show his hands out of
the window of the vehicle in which she was
riding, but that the shots missed. Payne was
calling for police to not shoot, as there were
women in the vehicle, and exited the vehicle,
asking that the women be allowed out.
At this point, LaVoy Finicum, one of the
spokesmen for the occupiers, who was driving the
vehicle in which Ms. Sharp was riding, yelled
out the window that they were going to go talk
to the sheriff (at the meeting in John Day), or
that agents could just shoot him. He told the
passengers to get down, and drove forward,
precipitating heavy gunfire from the agents, and
crashing the vehicle into a snowbank.
Sharp said that Finicum then exited the vehicle,
hands in the air, yelling, “Just shoot me then!”
A volley of shots rang out, and Finicum fell to
his back, hands still over his head, and was
shot several more times on the ground, Sharp
said.
According to Sharp, agents continued shooting at
the car, striking Ryan Bundy in the shoulder as
he shielded her on the floorboard, and deploying
tear gas before finally taking the rest of the
group into custody. She also claims that none of
the protesters fired a shot or even touched a
gun during the encounter.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
Alabama chief justice
tells judges to halt same-sex 'marriages'
Posted By Bob Unruh On
01/06/2016
World Net Daily
Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme
Court on Wednesday ordered the state’s probate
judges, the only ones in the state who are
allowed to
issue marriage licenses, to follow the state’s
Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and its Marriage
Protection Act until the full state Supreme
Court rules on the issue.
Please click here to read the article in its
entirety
Virginia to Drop Long
Held Concealed Carry Reciprocity Agreements
With Two Dozen States
Townhall.com
Katie Pavlich
Dec 22, 2015
According to a report in the Washington Post
this morning, Virginia Attorney General Mark
Herring, a Democrat, will unilaterally end the
state's long held concealed carry reciprocity
agreements with 25 states. The move comes
shortly before anti-gun zealot and Michael
Bloomberg backed Governor Terry McAuliffe leaves
office. The agreements are reportedly being
severed with states deemed to have "weaker"
concealed carry requirements as compared to
Virginia. Specific details about what provisions
in other states qualify as weaker have not been
provided.
It should be noted that stripping the concealed
carry reciprocity agreements between Virginia
and 25 other states in the name of "safety" will
actually do nothing at all to keep citizens
safer. Criminals regularly carry guns across
state lines without permits. Virginia itself is
a very transient place with many military
families and government workers from all over
the country living short term in northern
Virginia while working in Washington D.C. This
move will not make anyone safer, instead, it
places a larger burden on the law abiding. Please
click here to read the article in its
entirety.
from Reason.com
Cutting Constitutional
Corners Won't Save Us From Terrorists
No-gun zones like the
one in effect where the San Bernardino
shooting took place are not only
unconstitutional but also an invitation to
disaster.
Andrew Napolitano |
December 10, 2015
If you were looking for a
needle in a haystack, simple logic would tell
you that the smaller the haystack the likelier
you are to find the needle. Except for the
government.
Since Edward Snowden
revealed the federal government's unlawful and
unconstitutional use of federal statutes to
justify spying on all in America all the time,
including the members of Congress who
unwittingly wrote and passed the statutes, I
have been arguing that the Fourth Amendment
prohibits all domestic spying, except that
which has been authorized by a search warrant
issued by a judge. The same amendment also
requires that warrants be issued only based on
a serious level of individualized suspicion
backed up by evidence—called probable
cause—and the warrants must specifically
identify the place and person to be spied
upon.
Colorado
Christian Baker Ordered by Court to Make
Wedding Cake for Gay Couple 'Would Rather
Shut Down' Business
By Leah Marianne Klett (news@gospelherald.com)
On Friday, Colorado's Civil Rights Commission
ordered Christian baker Jack Phillips to make
wedding cakes for same-sex couples, saying his
religious objections did not trump the state's
anti-discrimination statutes.
The unanimous ruling from the seven-member
commission upheld an administrative law judge's
decision in December that stated Phillips, who
owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado
had violated the state's civil rights law by
refusing to make a wedding cake for a
homosexual couple 2012.
Now, Phillips is fighting back.
Phillip's lawyer Nicole Martin recently called
the ruling "offensive and un-American," saying
they will combat the decision.
In the Washington Post, Paul Kane reports that
recent experiences with ultra-conservative
Senate candidates have made Republican leaders
fearful of candidates like Rep. Paul Broun in
Georgia. There may be reasons for party leaders
or voters to have doubts about Broun, but I hope
they aren’t actually concerned about the
purported problem that Kane identifies:
Broun is prone to fiery speeches invoking the
Founding Fathers and applying those 1789
principles to issues 225 years later.
Seriously? He thinks the Constitution is still
the law of the land? And that the framework it
established for individual rights and limited
government is still relevant today? Do
Republican leaders really think that’s a bad
message? Or does the Washington Post?
From The Canada Free Press
By Jim Yardley
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Checking to make sure that there was an easily
understandable definition of the word, the
dictionary defines Constitution as “the
fundamental political principles on which a
nation-state is governed, especially when
considered as embodying the rights of the
subjects of that nation-state and the statute
embodying such principles.”
One would think that the President of the first
nation to create that very thing, a legal
statute that embodied the fundamental political
principles, and who also was a college level
lecturer on the topic of the Constitution, would
have absolutely no problem in dealing with the
concept.
Unfortunately for us, and for several other
nations, Mr. Obama seems to view constitution to
be infinitely malleable, and are subject to
change upon a change in his whims of the day.
“The
powers not delegated to the United
States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.”
NEW STATE LAW BANS CALIFORNIA
FROM COOPERATING WITH FEDS ON INDEFINITE
DETENTION
Sweeping measure also applies to
other laws that violate Constitution or
state law
By Miriam Raftery
October 7, 2013
(Sacramento)
– In a rare show of bipartisanship,
Governor Brown has signed into a law that
passed the Legislature almost
unanimously. The measure makes California
the third state to nullify provisions of
the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) allowing indefinite detention of
citizens.
However California’s
law goes farther, banning state
cooperation with federal authorities on
enforcement of any federal law that
violates the U.S. Constitution, the
California Constitution or California
law. The bill also prohibits use of
state funds for such purposes.
“The right of the
people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.”
The Feds vs the Fourth
Amendment
By Tenth Amendment on August
5, 2013 in Featured,
Founding Principles
by
Jacob Hornberger, Future of Freedom
Foundation
Keep in mind
that this amendment is directed to federal
officials, specifically those in the
executive and congressional branches. Our
American ancestors knew that the federal
government would inevitably attract the
types of people who would do the things
proscribed by the amendment. Thus, to deal
with that threat our ancestors made it clear
that whoever was elected or appointed to
federal office would be prohibited from
engaging in the type of conduct prohibited
by the amendment.
What does the Fourth Amendment
do? It prohibits federal officials from
searching people’s homes, businesses, and
personal effects indiscriminately. If a crime
has been committed, the feds cannot simply go
out and search every house and business in the
neighborhood to seek out evidence of the
crime. And they cannot search everyone’s
things with the aim of preventing a crime.
Instead, the Fourth Amendment
requires that to conduct a search of a
person’s home or business, they have to first
go to a member of the third branch of the
government— the federal judiciary — and seek
out a search warrant from a judge or
magistrate. In order to get such a warrant,
law-enforcement officers have to swear out an
affidavit specifying the exact nature of the
evidence that is being searched for. Moreover,
they have to provide sworn evidence that rises
to the level of “probable cause” for the judge
to consider. If they fail to do those two
things, the judge’s responsibility is to deny
the application for the search warrant.
Like it or not, that’s the
system that our American ancestors put into
place with the Fourth Amendment....
U.S.
officials say that such a massive surveillance
scheme on everyone is necessary to keep
Americans “safe.”
4 Ways the Fourth
Amendment's Already Being Pummeled in a Non-Top
Secret Way
The
government will always insist it's acting
within the law.
Ed
Krayewski
reason.com
June 11, 2013
Last week
The Guardian and The Washington
Post reported that the National
Security Agency collects information on the
phone and Internet habits of millions of
Americans. Since then we've seen President
Barack Obama argue against the strawman
of combining “100 percent privacy and 100
percent security.” We've seen the Director of
National Intelligence and
apologists point to federal statutes
that allegedly permit the behavior. And, on
the brighter side, we've seen Sen. Rand Paul
introduce the Fourth Amendment
Restoration Act.
Our View: Illinois, meet U.S.
Constitution
Journal
Star article
Posted May 20, 2013
Last
update May 21, 2013
So Chicago
doesn’t want concealed carry of handguns to be
the law in the Land of Lincoln.
Obviously.
Nonetheless, last time we checked,
Chicago is a city in the United States of
America, which has a Second Amendment that
permits the citizens of this country — even
those living in Chicago — the right to gun
ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court
specifically told Chicago so in 2010 in
striking down its ban on guns (McDonald v.
City of Chicago). Then late
last year, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals informed the state of Illinois, in
which Chicago sits, that its prohibition on
guns carried outside the home also was
unconstitutional.
New U.N. arms treaty
faces rough road in U.S.
Senate
By Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON
| Wed Apr 3, 2013
(Reuters) - The new
global arms trade treaty was overwhelmingly
approved by the United Nations,
with U.S.
backing, but it was clear on Wednesday it
faces a tough fight for ratification by U.S.
senators who contend it could affect
Americans' gun rights.
The 193-nation U.N.
General Assembly approved the pact by a vote
of 154-3 on Tuesday, with 23 abstentions, many
by major weapons exporters.
Washington
was one of the 'yes' votes, but to go into
effect for the United States
it must win at least 67 votes - a two-thirds
majority - in the 100-member Senate. Last
month, the Senate supported a measure calling
for the treaty's rejection even before U.N.
negotiations on its text were completed.
Florida
bill would require anger management courses
for bullet buyers
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published March 5,2013
Fox News
A Florida legislator
wants anyone trying to buy ammunition to
complete an anger management program first, in
what critics say is the latest example of
local lawmakers reaching for
constitutionally-dubious solutions to the
problem of gun violence.
The bill filed Saturday
by state Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville,
would require a three-day waiting period for
the sale of any firearm and the sale of
ammunition to anyone who has not completed
anger management courses. The proposal would
require ammo buyers to take the anger
management courses every 10 years. Click
here to read more.
Constitution 201:
Founders vs. Progressives
December 3, 2012
The Hawaian Reporter
By Stephen Zierak
This lesson is taught
by Dr. Thomas West, the Paul & Dawn
Porter Professor of Politics at HillsdaleCollege.
Dr. West teaches courses in American
politics, focusing on the U.S. Constitution,
civil rights, foreign policy, and the
political thought of the American
Founding. He also teaches the
political philosophy of Aquinas, Hobbes, and
Locke. Dr. West is a Senior Fellow of
the Claremont Institute, and he has
previously taught at the University
of Dallas.
He received his BA from Cornell, and his PhD
from ClaremontGraduateUniversity.
Those interested in seeing and hearing this
lecture, or any of the others in the series,
may register at
constitution.hillsdale.edu. There is
no fee.
The Founders believed
that the purpose of government was to secure
the unalienable rights of American citizens to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by
protecting against violations by foreign or
domestic enemies. The Progressives
believe that the purpose of government is to
give you the benefit of government programs,
while changing you into a more socially
responsible individual.
As we watch the Founder’s
vision slip away with the advent of big
government and the welfare state, we might
wonder what went wrong. Some American
conservatives blame the language of the
Founding. They believe that the equality
and rights talk has led to Obama, that
Progressivism was derived from expressions in
our revolutionary documents. Actually,
nothing could be farther from the truth.
Progressivism was a radical departure from the
Founding, as can be seen in comparisons around
six points of contrast: (1) What
is freedom? (2) Purpose of
government? (3) Domestic
policy? (4) Foreign policy?
(5) Consent of the governed? (6)
Government limited or unlimited?
Sixty Percent
of US Muslims Reject Freedom of Expression
RIGHT
SIDE NEWS.com
Thursday, 01 November 2012
Dr.
Andrew Bostom
After
violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish
“Innocence of Muslims” video, which simply
depicted a few of the less salutary aspects of
Muhammad’s biography, international and
domestic Islamic agendas have openly converged
with vehement calls for universal application
of Islamic blasphemy law. ...
Now the results of
polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies
during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US
Muslims, indicate widespread support among
rank and file American votaries of Islam for
this fundamental rejection of freedom
expression, as guaranteed under the US
Constitution. The first amendment states,
plainly,
Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
When asked, “Do you believe
that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be
permitted under the Constitution’s First
Amendment?, 58% replied “no,”...
Please click here to read more
NAPOLITANO:
Restraining Arizona,
unleashing Obama
High court allows president
discretion in upholding law or not
The Washington Times
By
Andrew P Napolitano
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
When
the Obama administration decided it had no
interest in preventing the movement of
undocumented aliens from Mexico into
the southwestern United States,
Arizona
decided to take matters into its own hands.
Based on a novel theory of constitutional law
- namely, that if a state is unhappy with the
manner in which federal law is being enforced
or not being enforced, it can step into the
shoes of the feds and enforce federal law as
it wishes the feds would - Arizona
enacted legislation to accomplish that.
The
legislation created two conflicts that rose to
the national stage. The first is whether any
government may morally and legally interfere
with freedom of association based on the
birthplace of the person with whom one chooses
to associate. The second is whether the states
can enforce federal law in a manner different
from that of the feds.
The framers of the U.S.
Constitution were admirably clear, or so they
and we thought, when they wrote in the Fifth
Amendment that no person shall "be deprived of
life, liberty or property, without due process
of law ..."
Note that the framers
didn't specify that the person had to be a U.S.
citizen. And by "due process" they meant the
right to be formally charged, to challenge
those charges before a judge and to have
defense counsel present.
So important was this
right to due process that the 14th Amendment
reiterated that its protections also applied
to the states.
Jacksonville’s Moral Constitutional Patriots
Speak
A
Response By Dr. Gene A. Youngblood
Presentedat
City Council Meeting of 5/22/2012
WHEREASOur City council has
introduced ordinance 2012-296.This bill is cloaked
under the disguise of
equal opportunity and
non-discrimination in
the marketplace.Please
Click Here To Read More
DFLers want U.S.
constitutional amendment declaring that
corporations aren't people, after all
By Joe
Kimball
MinnPost.com
04/23/12
It's not only Republicans
looking for constitutional amendments these
days.
DFLers (Democratic Farmer
Labor Party members) in the Minnesota House
and Senate have introduced bills asking
Congress to call a constitutional convention
to propose an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution that would clarify that
corporations are not people.
There's been much
consternation on this point, particularly
after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a
corporate political spending case that
corporations have a First Amendment right to
free speech.
Is
the Health Care Law Constitutional? No, Strike
It Down
DAVID J. PORTER, VISION
FOR CENTER & VALUES
Note: A version of
this article first appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. Neither Porter nor his firm
are involved in the ACA litigation.
This summer, the Supreme
Court will decide whether Congress violated
the Constitution when it enacted the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, which
contains an “individual mandate” requiring
virtually every American to purchase health
insurance. Based on the Constitution’s text
and structure, and judicial interpretations of
the relevant provisions, the mandate should be
struck down.
Pennsylvania
is one of 26 states to have attacked the ACA’s
constitutionality. They seek to uphold the
Constitution’s basic division of power between
the national government and state governments.
The framers and those who
ratified the Constitution withheld from
Congress a plenary police power to enact any
law that it deems desirable. Instead, the
powers granted to Congress in Article I of the
Constitution are limited and enumerated. The
10th Amendment emphasizes this structure by
affirming that all powers not given to
Congress “are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
Given that background,
the states’ argument against ACA is simple:
Even under the broadest interpretation,
Congress’ enumerated powers do not authorize a
federal law that forces individuals to
purchase health insurance.
President Obama yesterday
played a violent game of kickball with the US
Constitution, making a number of high-level
“recess” appointments — even though the Senate
isn’t actually in recess.
Presidents have the right to
make temporary appointments when Congress is
away from Washington,
of course, and both parties have used that
power.
But Obama is the first
president to declare that he, and he alone,
can decide whether the Senate — which must
confirm his appointments — is actually
meeting.
Don’t Wait for the
Supreme Court; Freeze ObamaCare Now
by Dr.
Susan Berry
October 9, 2011
Many are focused on the
Supreme Court’s take-up of the question of the
constitutionality of the individual mandate
clause in Obamacare as the means to stop
President Obama’s signature legislation.
However, some of the law has already been
funded and put into place, and, until the High
Court rules- and if it rules that the
individual mandate is unconstitutional- there
are already clear plans to change healthcare
in this country as we know it.
Bill McCollum, former
Attorney General of Florida, who led the
multi-state lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of Obamacare, wrote an
editorial in Politico, in which he
urges Congress to pass a bill, brought forward
by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), which would
essentially “freeze” the implementation of the
law in its tracks, a critical move since
Obamacare’s costs, including economic, quality
of care, and personal privacy aspects, are
catastrophic to the nation. Knowing that, even
if Congress passed a “freeze,” the president
would not sign it, Attorney General McCollum
recommends that the new Joint Select Committee
on Deficit Reduction, or “supercommittee,”
take it up as a realistic, and relatively
expedient, way to cut the deficit.
In light of the fact that
there will still be some time before the
Supreme Court will hear the case against
Obamacare, the joint committee must consider
the multitude of evidence that now exists
about the costs of this program. According to
Attorney General McCollum, in just 2012-2013
alone, for example, Obamacare owns $50 billion
in tax increases, including $20 billion in
payroll tax hikes on small businesses. The law
institutes 159 new federal programs, costing
$19 billion, and the controversial Independent
Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will have
never-before-seen power- no Congress needed-
to make cuts to Medicare.
The fact is the Obama
administration, under the direction of
Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), is rolling
out Obamacare in spades now in order to make
it much more difficult to scale it back. We
can just hear the Obama administration now: You
want to stop it…now? You mean you want to waste
all the money and time we’ve already spent
to insure millions of people?
As seems to be often the
case, the Obama administration says one thing
and does another. Secretary Sebelius is
apparently out there, attempting to calm
conservatives that this is not a government
takeover of healthcare, and that she will
invite more time for the American people to
“speak.” Yet, as she herself speaks, AP is
reporting that work on the benefits package is
already well under way within DHHS, and a
major lobbying campaign to shape the final
package is about to be initiated.
In order to ensure no one
is “costing” too much in healthcare dollars,
the federal government will need information
about all of us. That’s where those laptops
our doctors are carrying around will come in
handy. Just one click, and all our private
health information is off to the feds, so they
can do their job of “overseeing” our
healthcare.
The implications for this
takeover of private health information are
mind-boggling. What if you or a family member
seek mental health care? Does the federal
government need to know that you have had an
addiction to drugs or alcohol? Does it need to
know you had an affair? Does it need to know
that your teen made a suicide attempt? If you
are involved in any forensic matter, will the
courts be more easily able to obtain your
personal health information, for a case
against you, now that the federal government
already owns it, and it is no longer your
private information? Is the federal government
capable of keeping anything private? There are
already many instances which reflect that it
is not.
Attorney General McCollum
is right on the money. Our nation cannot wait
to hear the Supreme Court’s decision. We
cannot even be sure of the nature of that
decision. According to the Constitution,
Congress is the body of elected
representatives of the American people.
Obamacare needs to be stopped by our elected
representatives- dead in its tracks.
SINCE 1789
The U.S. Constitution
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to
the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do
not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000
years, may not happen again. Hold on to the
Constitution, for if the American Constitution
should fail, there will be anarchy throughout
the world."
Daniel Webster James
Madison has been called the
Father of the Constitution. James Madison "got
it" in constructing a general (federal)
government that consisted of only enumerated
powers, that other powers belonged to the
people and to the states. Further, he
constructed that federal government to have a
number of checks and balances to further keep
it from becoming too powerful.
Here are just a few of his quotes to ponder
and absorb:
"I believe there are more
instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by
those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations."
"If
Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it
will be in the guise of fighting a foreign
enemy."
"If
men were angels, no government would be
necessary."
"Americans
have
the right and advantage of being armed -
unlike the citizens of other countries whose
governments are afraid to trust the people
with arms."
"It
will be of little avail to the people that the
laws are made by men of their own choice if
the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be
read, or so incoherent that they cannot be
understood."
How can anyone read these quotes
and believe that the Constitution was not
written to protect free people in all times
and ages? ........... Click here to
read more
The COMPLETE
TEXT
Of the US Constitution
From Cornell Law University:
Those who wrote our
constitution created a document that was
understood and agreed upon by all. If new laws
passed with the same unanimous support that
the constitution received, there would be FAR
FEWER law books on the shelves of legal
libraries today.
Our founders realized
that knowledge and understanding ie. EDUCATION
was required for people to understand and sign
onto to that document that has been the model
for so many republics since then. To that
educational end, our founders wrote the
Federalist Papers, to elaborate upon the ideas
and explain the reasoning and value of the
contract.
There's little that's intelligent or
informed about Time magazine editor Richard
Stengel's article "One Document, Under
Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many
grossly ignorant statements about our
Constitution. If I believed in conspiracies,
I'd say Stengel's article is part of a
leftist agenda to undermine respect for the
founding values of our nation.
An organization that
represents the 75 percent of American citizens
who want more control over illegal immigration
is calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama
over his involvement in the transfer of
weapons to Mexican drug lords and his efforts
to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.
President Obama’s health
care law received a chilly reception Wednesday
from a federal appeals court that seemed wary
of approving a major expansion of government
coercion over the economic activity of
millions of Americans.
Acknowledging they are
breaking new ground in considering this case,
the three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals sitting in Atlanta questioned
whether there is any precedent in more than
two centuries in which the Supreme Court has
upheld a law that forces individuals to buy a
private good or service - in this instance,
the individual mandate that every American
obtain health insurance.
“If we uphold the
individual mandate in this case, are there any
limits on Congress‘ power left?” said Chief
Judge Joel Dubina, appointed by President
George H.W. Bush, who seemed most hostile to
the Obama administration’s defense.
The other two judges,
both appointed by President Clinton, peppered
each side with questions, but signaled their
own concerns about the lack of specific
precedent for upholding this type of mandate.
“I want to know, going
back to the first principles, is there
anything out there that actually suggests that
Congress can compel a private party to buy a
private product on the open market if they’re
not disposed to do so,” Judge Stanley Marcus
said.
Wednesday’s nearly 2
1/2-hour hearing is the third time an appeals
court has heard a case on the issue, which all
sides believe will eventually end up in front
of the Supreme Court.
"Keep sign up!"
"Very good"
"We are behind you." -Local
"Great!"
"We agree"
"Christians need to do what you are doing."
"Continue your sign."
"Thank God for you" - Local
"It is great... what you are
doing."
"We have some good info for you." - Local, Lived in Saudi Arabia
"Saw your article in New York..
Ground Zero.."
"In full support of you and what you are
doing." - New York
This website provides links to
other information websites. Truthsthatfree.com
is
not responsible for the content of the websites
that it does not operate.
