This section is about general concerns about the violation of the U.S. Constitution. The
Constitution seems to be routinely ignored now, even by those at the uppermost levels of our
government who have sworn to uphold it.|
Recently, extremists on the political left have begun to engage in mocking
derision * of
the people who point out that most of the 21st Century activities of the federal government are unconstitutional,
i.e., they are illegal. The Constitution will become irrelevant if its violations are consistently
ignored. It may already be too late.
It is probably impossible to expect the return to strictly Constitutional government in our lifetimes,
because Americans by and large are comfortable with the status quo. But strictly speaking, there
is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes direct payments to individuals, or the exploration of
other planets, or the prosecution of any crime other than counterfeiting, piracy or treason. Anything
outside of the "enumerated powers" of the federal government is supposed to be left up to the states, or
to the people. In other words, if General Electric wants to waste money on a trip to Mars, that's
okay, because G.E. isn't taking money out of our paychecks.
Read the Constitution for yourself.
Many people who have not read it for themselves would be surprised to learn that "separation of church and
state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Nor is the word "immigration". Nor is there
anything about the federal funding for education. Nor is there any provision for emergency
management, for example, cleaning up after a hurricane. Nor is there anything that would
authorize our government to fix other countries' problems, for example, AIDS in
Africa.* All those activities, according to
the Constitution, are to be left to the states, private companies, churches, charities, and individual
Most recently, there is a massive push toward socialized medicine in the United States. There is
nothing at all in the Constitution that would authorize the federal government to take over the medical
industry, or to require us to buy health insurance. People might tend to think that such a move is
legal, since the government has just recently taken over General Motors and Chrysler, but those takeovers
were illegal, too.
With the newspapers in decline, there may be some temptation to accept "help" from the federal
government. But that is an obvious threat to the First Amendment (isn't it?) and that
topic is discussed here.
Related topics on nearby pages
The Nationalization of GM and Chrysler -- unprecedented and unconstitutional.
Obama's so-called czars -- blatantly unconstitutional.
The So-Called Stimulus Bill -- clearly unconstitutional.
The Wall Street Bailout of 2008 -- obviously unconstitutional.
So-called Campaign Finance Reform is unconstitutional.
So-called Affirmative Action is unconstitutional.
Socialized medicine is unconstitutional.
Gun control is unconstitutional.
Social Security is unconstitutional.
I have my doubts about the USA Patriot Act.
It's Time to Scrap NASA because nothing NASA does is authorized by the Constitution.
Poverty and Dependency in America -- Poverty is not the federal government's problem.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Prescription Drug Benefits
of college students believe hate speech should not be protected by the Constitution. Some 41 percent of
college students say hate speech shouldn't be protected under the First Amendment, according to a new survey. Just
58 percent said that hate speech should be protected under the amendment, which guarantees American's a right to freedom
of speech, according to the survey of 4,407 students by the Miami-based Knight Foundation.
effort launches to democratically elect the vice president in 2020. There's a national push for voters to elect
the U.S. vice presidentseparately from the president. Vice.run, is a campaign that seeks to create a separate and independent
ballot line for the vice president in 2020. The group is trying to collect — from all 50 states — voter
signatures and pledges in support of the separate vice president election. "An independently-elected vice president would
give American voters a new level of direct control over who serves in the White House," Vice.run says on its website.
The Editor says...
Fractionalized governments are unstable. Maybe that's the point.
warns AOC, Schumer, Pelosi aim to 'blow up' Constitution to get their way. Three weeks after a dejected
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ripped the Senate Republican leader for orchestrating the death of her "Green New Deal,"
Sen. Mitch McConnell has struck back, accusing the first term House member and top Democrats of waging an "economic
culture war" against red America. In a sweeping blow against growing Democratic efforts to squelch conservative voices
and force progressive policies and programs on a wary nation, McConnell warned that the Left is ready to "blow up" decades of
rules to get their way on issues like the environment and government-financed healthcare. "Progressives are openly acknowledging
they'll never get their agenda through the constitutional machinery as it's operated for centuries, so they've concluded it's the
constitutional machinery that has to go. Change the rules if you can't win otherwise," he said in a well-received speech at
Hillsdale College late Monday [4/15/2019].
isn't the biggest threat to the Constitution. Democrats are. Ever since Trump took office, Democrats have
been telling us he is an authoritarian who threatens our system of government. Well, today it is Democrats who are
declaring war on the Constitution. Leading Democrats are promising that, if elected in 2020, they will abolish the
Electoral College and might also pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices — allowing them to marginalize
Americans who do not support their increasingly radical agenda and impose it on an unwilling nation.
Law Great Again. In Federalist 45, Madison assured readers that "the states will retain under the
proposed Constitution a very extensive portion of active sovereignty." Madison described the government to be formed by
the proposed Constitution as dual sovereignty, constituting a "federal" rather than a "national" government. The
Constitution took effect, and the federal government began to operate on behalf of the participating states, upon the
ratification of the first nine states.
Folly. This is a variation on a theme I've heard countless times on the left — often in response to
arguments over originalism and (more recently) in response to anger at the very structure of our government itself. Why
shackle ourselves to the wisdom of the distant past? How could the Founders have foreseen the challenges of the
present? It's worth taking these questions seriously. After all, the Constitution isn't the Bible. It's not
the holy and inspired Word of God, and if its terms and structure are hurting our Republic, they can and should be
amended. But I'd submit that, when one examines the United States and considers the failings that render our politics
so dysfunctional, we in fact do have 18th-century answers to our 21st-century challenges and that many of our dysfunctions
are the result of abandoning the Constitution, not of embracing it. We've failed because we've refused to
be managed by the "principles that were set down 230-plus years ago."
O'Rourke Questions 'Principles' of Constitution: 'Does This Still Work?'. Former Congressman and potential 2020
Democratic nominee Beto O'Rourke questioned the "principles" of the U.S. Constitution on Wednesday, arguing that its
usefulness is the "question of the moment. In an interview with The Washington Post, O'Rourke was asked if he
believes the U.S. is capable of "dramatically [changing] its approach to a whole host of issues" or whether he holds a
"dismal suspicion that the country is now incapable of implementing sweeping change."
O'Rourke questions relevance of Constitution, principles 'set down 230-plus years ago'. Former Rep. Beto
O'Rourke recently questioned the modern-day relevance of the U.S. Constitution and whether the country should still be
governed by "the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago." [...] "Can an empire like ours with military
presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships ... and security agreements in every continent,
can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?" Mr. O'Rourke reportedly asked.
Dem Ted Lieu say he would 'love to regulate' speech, bemoans US Constitution that prohibits him. California
Democrat Ted Lieu bemoaned on Wednesday that though he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech," including
that on Fox News, he can't do it because of the U.S. Constitution. Lieu made the comments during an interview about the
testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, where he dismissed the allegations that the
tech giant amplifies negative stories about Republican lawmakers, saying "if you want positive search results, do positive
things." CNN host Brianna Keilar praised Lieu for his performance but asked whether other Democrats should have used
the committee to press Google on conspiracy theories that spread on their platforms.
"I Would Love To ... Regulate The Content Of Speech". You know, often we react to things emotionally and would
love to "regulate" others on things we disagree with, and the representatives of the people are human. Fortunately, our
forefathers put in plain English the First Amendment that specifically states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the
freedom of speech." Yet, they have done it on so many occasions in violation of their oaths of office and criminal acts
against the people. Now, California Democrat Congressman Ted Lieu says he would love to regulate speech too. "I
would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so..." Lieu told
CNN concerning the testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Dingell's plan for America? Let's abolish the U.S. Senate. Former Rep. John Dingell, who served in
Congress longer than anybody ever, has a plan for improving politics immediately: abolish the U.S. Senate. Writing
in a new biography, "The Dean: The Best Seat in the House," Dingell, 92, makes a case for changing the Constitution to
get rid of the upper chamber, criticizing the 18th Century idea that the smallest states have the same number of senators as
California. While it may have made sense in the late 1700s that "Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect
itself from being bullied by Massachusetts" at a time when there were only 13 states and 4 million Americans, Dingell
says, "today in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it's
American Treasures: A Very Personal and Subjective list. [#1] The Constitution/The Bill of Rights: The
words written on these documents are the basis of American exceptionalism. The core issues are the guaranteed rights of the
individual and keeping government at bay. We haven't always been successful at meeting these standards, but at least
they have provided an ideal to emulate and to strive for. Our Constitution is under increasing attack from the left that is
using identity politics, political fraud and the freedoms that that the Constitution guarantees to try and kill it. But as
long as we as a nation can remain faithful to these ideals, we have a chance to maintain our greatness and to be the beacon of
hope for the world.
vs. the Constitution. Having taken control of the House of Representatives, the Democrats face an enormous and
perhaps insurmountable political barrier to achieving their agenda. It's not the Republicans. It's the
Constitution. "Kill the Constitution" would not be a winning campaign slogan for the Democrats, and you will rarely
hear an American politician running against the Constitution as such. But it is the Constitution and the American
constitutional order — not Senator McConnell — that currently vexes them.
latest excuse: Blame the Constitution. Democrats suffered a stinging loss in the fight over Brett
Kavanaugh's confirmation, and have concluded that the constitutional system is to blame. You see, if only the Founders
hadn't forged the Great Compromise between large states and small states at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, giving
each state equal representation in the US Senate, they would have defeated Brett Kavanaugh handily. It's only because
smaller red states have two senators just like larger blue states that the judge got confirmed.
Ken Dilanian: North Dakota, New York Having Same Number of Senate Votes 'Has to Change'. Ken Dilanian, a
reporter for NBC News, tweeted on Monday [10/8/2018] that the idea of North Dakota and New York having the same amount of
senators "has to change" because of the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. "It may not
happen in our lifetimes, but the idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to
change," Dilanian tweeted, linking to a Washington Post article about the confirmation of Kavanaugh.
the Supreme Court is incredibly dangerous. What does it look like when the Supreme Court loses its
legitimacy? We don't want to find out. Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been appointed to the court after a long and
incredibly messy confirmation process, some have suggested this is the moment the institution loses its standing in the eyes
of the American public. [...] For more than 200 years, the Supreme Court has served as the final word, more or less, on the
hot constitutional issues of the day. But that power, known as "judicial supremacy," isn't written into the
Constitution — the court claimed it back in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Americans have mostly agreed
to go along with it ever since. But what if they didn't? There are already rumblings on the left that it's time
to stop letting the court have the last word.
Hostility to the Constitution Laid Bare. One of the more revealing moments in the Democrats' Judiciary Committee clown show was
when Kamala Harris sneeringly referred to the Constitution as "that book that you [Judge Kavanaugh] carry." Harris is her generation's
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ridiculously far-left, quite good-looking, and utterly ill-informed. [...] When liberals like Kamala Harris
refer to "the Constitution," they don't mean the actual written document — "that book that you carry" — they mean an
unrestricted charter that gives liberals the right to rule over the rest of us, via the judiciary. Which, of course, nullifies the whole
point of having a written Constitution.
Harris Dismisses Kavanaugh's Pocket Constitution: 'That Book You Carry'. Democratic Senator Kamala Harris
referred to SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh's pocket Constitution as "that book you carry" on Thursday [9/6/2018]. Harris
was listing what she believes to be unenumerated rights that are not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution and asked
Kavanaugh which ones he would get rid of. "I'm gonna ask you about unenumerated rights," Harris said. "'Unenumerated
rights' is a phrase that lawyers use but I wanna make clear what we're talking about. It means rights that are protected
by the Constitution even though they're not specifically mentioned by the Constitution." "So they're not in that book
that you carry," she said derisively.
Are No Conservative Judges. Dishonest judges, who view their role as "improving" society, have a very Louis XIV
view of their authority. As such, they believe that they have the authority to impose whatever they deem best on
America. While they pretend, for political purposes, that their activist rulings are based on the law, the reality is
that their methodology, the "living" Constitution, allows them to claim that pretty much anything is based on the
Constitution. It would seem clear to all that if the Constitution was viewed by the courts, the presidents, and
Congress for over 100 years saying something is illegal, it's impossible that the intent of the people who ratified
the Constitution was that that thing is in fact legal.
cracks down on renters, free speech — and common sense. Good luck trying to rent an apartment.
The Seattle City Council seems to think the right to speak is a privilege it can grant or withhold at its pleasure. It
has slapped a year-long ban on the use of certain housing websites that allow renters to place bids on advertised rental
housing, while it reviews the sites. Officials say they fear the sites might violate local housing laws or inflate
housing costs, so the City Council wants to study the sites while forbidding their use in the meantime. While city
leaders try to figure things out, landlords are barred from posting ads on the sites, and renters can't even do a simple
search for Seattle housing on the sites. This is a clear restriction of speech protected by the First Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
There Any Adults Left in Washington, D.C.? As America approaches her 250th birthday, her instruction manual, the U.S.
Constitution, is under assault as never before. The First Amendment is under attack by campus speech police and social media,
censoring and deciding which political statements are welcomed and which are verboten. The Second Amendment is threatened by
leftist elitists happy to ban guns for the law-abiding as long as they can have armed guards protecting themselves and their families
from the criminals who don't give a whit about whatever gun laws the left proposes. It's not only the Bill of Rights under
assault, but also Article Two of the Constitution — specifically, the first section, detailing how a president is elected to a
7 Forces Driving
America Toward Civil War. [#1] A Post-Constitutional Era: Liberals don't believe in the Constitution.
Typically they deny this, but that's exactly what a "living" Constitution means. You make it up as you go along.
The Founders foresaw the instability and danger that would be created by this approach, which is why they wanted us to be a
constitutional republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately, America has in many ways already become a post-constitutional
democracy and we're one liberal judge away from abandoning the Constitution altogether.
'The 2nd Amendment Is Being Very Badly Interpreted' — There Is 'Prostitution of the 2nd Amendment'.
During a discussion at the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday, former Vice President Joe Biden stated that the 2nd Amendment
has been interpreted "badly" and the nation has decided it can't ignore the "prostitution" of the amendment. Biden said, "I think
there's a 2nd Amendment. I think the 2nd Amendment is being very badly interpreted. It's not consistent with what
they're — our founders intended, in my view. You saw Justice John Paul Stevens say that we should — because
it's been so prostituted, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. It was about a standing militia. It's a long story.
I won't go into all the legal side of that having taught it in law school. But there's rational or irrational policy."
Assault On The Constitution.
I'm a former TV news reporter in Washington, DC. I wrote and produced these reports utilizing many sources including the
Conservative Treehouse and the government documents it's published. This report focuses on the Obama administration's
Illegal spying of the Trump Campaign. It includes discussion of the FISA warrant and the House and Senate investigations
of the executive branch's misleading search warrant application to the FISA Court. Former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova
says he expects former top FBI officials to be charged criminally. [Video clip]
Hate Constitutional Government. We should be grateful to Ryan Cooper for acknowledging so forthrightly in The
Week what has been obvious to conservatives for a long, long time — liberals really really hate the Constitution,
because limited government is an impediment to their endless dreams of ruling over us more completely and fixing every human
problem[.] [His article is called,] "America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over."
Cooper makes five main points, some of which merely expose his constitutional illiteracy.
America and the Second Amendment. In a series of articles I wrote last week about post-Constitutional America,
I mentioned how everyday Americans have grown complacent with their God-given rights and how this has led to a growing
acceptance of the idea that Constitutional rights are negotiable if the government gives them something in return. The
consequences of this mindset has been devastating. Freedom of speech is silenced on college campuses in the name of
political correctness. Freedom of the press is threatened by the White House and Congress. Freedom of religion is
under attack by politicians and pro-LGBT radicals. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is compromised at the
hands of a growing police state. Now, with incidents of mass shootings dominating the headlines, a new threat has
risen — the willingness to surrender the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in exchange for a little bit
leader says the First Amendment doesn't apply to Ben Shapiro. Earlier this month, when Daily Wire
editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro went to the University of Utah to deliver a speech, he was greeted by a mob of leftist student
protesters demanding that he not be allowed to speak. Dan Harris of ABC's Nightline was also there to film a segment
with Shapiro, which aired on Friday [10/20/2017]. Harris also interviewed students and faculty at the University of Utah
about Shapiro's speech. In one of the most stunning and infuriating displays ever of honest, unashamed progressivism,
the leader of the student organization opposing Shapiro's First Amendment right to speak, Sean Taylor, outright states that
Ben Shapiro should not have the right to speech and that the Constitution is not a "relevant" document.
Constitutional Crisis Has Nothing to Do with James Comey. The "central function" of our Constitution has always been to limit the
authority of the federal government, and to clearly enumerate the "few and defined" powers of the federal government to be held in contrast to
the "numerous and indefinite" power of state governments, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45. Yet today, a great many of the
things that we consider to be within the federal government's purview are absolute affronts to the Constitution, and particularly the Tenth
Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson held to be the foundation of the Constitution.
FEC Chairwoman Calls for 'Regulations' of Political Speech on the Internet. The former Federal Election
Commission chairwoman Ann M. Ravel says that political speech must be controlled on social media. She presented her
remarks in a speech at UC Berkeley, calling for regulations against "fake news." Speaking at an event called "Future of
Democracy," Ravel argued the proliferation of "fake news" and political advertising on platforms like Facebook influenced
elections. She warned that the lack of disclosure by the creators of these campaigns was becoming a huge problem.
"We know that there's a lot of campaigning that's moved to the internet, whether it's through fake news or just outright
advertising and there is almost no regulation of this, very little," she said. "And so that the disclosure that we
expect as to who is behind campaigns is not going to exist soon"
bill would require people to remove 'inaccurate,' 'irrelevant,' 'inadequate' or 'excessive' statements about others. [U]nder
this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all
would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was "no longer material
to current public debate or discourse" (except when it was "related to convicted felonies" or "legal matters relating to violence"
in which the subject played a "central and substantial" role). And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of
genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was "no longer material to current public debate."
[...] But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the
government thinks the public should or shouldn't be discussing.
Pelosi: Amend the First
Amendment. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional
Democrats on Wednesday [2/22/2017] to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate
political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.
Engagement". The death of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia last year created an unexpected vacancy on the
badly split Supreme Court, which throughout the presidential campaign focused attention on the importance of the Court and the
selection of Scalia's successor. "I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people,
not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy," said Hillary Clinton in the final debate. Advocating desirable
policy outcomes without even mentioning the Constitution itself, as Clinton did in the debate, is a hallmark of the "living
Constitution" philosophy, which has prevailed among liberals since the New Deal.
Obama Says U.S. Constitution 'Just a Piece of Parchment'. President Obama, as he concluded his farewell address
in Chicago on Tuesday, called the U.S. Constitution "just a piece of parchment." "Our Constitution is a remarkable,
beautiful gift," said Obama. "But it's really just a piece of parchment." "It has no power on its own," he went
on. "We the people give it power. We the people give it meaning with our participation and with the choices that
we make and the alliances that we forge..."
Shmoath. I've long argued that the only impeachable offense committed by George W. Bush was when he signed
McCain-Feingold into law while admitting that he thought parts of it were unconstitutional. The president takes an oath
to protect the Constitution every bit as binding as the one the Supreme Court Justices take. If you're president or a
member of Congress it is a violation of your oath to green-light an unconstitutional act, whether or not you think the
Supreme Court will fix it.
A Coup Against the
Constitution. A New York Times editorial Monday [11/7/2016] on the Senate's role in the confirmation process not only gets
it wrong, the analysis betrays a fundamental liberal disagreement with the U.S. Constitution. [...] Specifically, the editorial casts
the suggestion that the Senate has a role to play in deciding who is ultimately confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court as a radical
departure from how the American Republic was meant to work. It does so by an absurd suggestion that the Senate's decision not to
rubber stamp a president's nominee would be equivalent with Al Gore's refusing to abide by the Supreme Court's decision settling the
2000 presidential election — had he done so. This is not how the Constitution works.
Judge Sees Little Value in Studying Constitution in Law School. Judge Richard Posner (shown) is perhaps the
most quoted and most significant federal appellate court judge in the country, and his recent comments (which he has
attempted to "clarify") are illustrative of the differing views on the role of the federal judiciary in the current
presidential campaign. In a brief article published recently in Slate, Posner was highly critical of American law
schools. Among his criticisms was a dismissal of a need to study the meaning of the Constitution. "I see
absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the
Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well,
just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments)," he wrote. "Eighteenth-century
guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century."
woman who claimed police told her to stop praying in her home fights court ruling. [Mary Anne] Sause, a retired
Catholic nurse on disability and rape survivor, was at home on the night of Nov. 22, 2013, when two police officers
approached her door and demanded to be allowed in. Sause said the officers did not identify themselves, and she could
not see them through her broken peephole, so she did not open her door. The officers left, but returned later and
demanded that Sause let them in. When Sause came to the door and the officers asked why she didn't answer the first
time, she showed them a copy of a pocket Constitution given to her by her congressman. One officer laughed and said,
"That's just a piece of paper" that "doesn't work here," while still not explaining the reason for their presence at her home.
Its 229th Birthday, Our Constitution Hangs by a Thread. The Framers kept the Constitution short; it is only
4,440 words. The Framers wrote it in a way so that the voters could read it and understand it, and then use it as the
yardstick by which to measure all their elected leaders. By reading it, the voters would know what the powers of
government are and what their rights as citizens are, and compel government officials to respect both. That's why
originalism — the view that the words of the Constitution must be interpreted according to the original public
meaning of its words, the meaning which ordinary Americans understood those words to carry — is the only
legitimate way to interpret the Supreme Law of the Land. Anything less subverts the will of the American people and
the democratic process.
constitutional crisis is CRUSHING us, but there's one way to break free. On September 17, 1787, thirty-nine
delegates to the Constitutional Convention from 12 states signed the document establishing the most effective form of
government ever known to man. [...] Sadly, over two centuries later, almost every word of that document has been contorted
beyond recognition, flipping our system of governance on its head. There are numerous facets to the severe constitutional
crisis we are confronted with today, and a myriad of culprits to blame for the source of this crisis. But perhaps the
biggest crisis we face is the one resulting from the collapse of representative democracy — with Congress becoming
impotent, and the federal executive and judiciary crushing the states while stealing the sovereignty of the nation, states,
and individual citizens.
the Constitution Is Not Racist, Sexist, or Outdated. In an interview with Breitbart News, noted Heritage
Foundation constitutional expert David Azerrad tackles some prominent myths about the Constitution — falsehoods
that are being propagated in America's classrooms and on its college campuses. The director of the Heritage
Foundation's B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, Azerrad observes, "Many of the myths have just
permeated the culture to a point where people just take it as a matter of fact."
Obama legacy: An assault on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a barricade protecting Americans
from their government. Part of President Obama's legacy will be that he inflicted damage on that barricade, eroding
freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, the right to bear arms and the right to due process. Through his
political arguments, executive actions and political leadership, Obama has taken some of the holes punched by previous
presidents and made them broader or more permanent. This means that after Obama leaves office, people will be more easily
silenced, killed or disarmed by their own government. Obama is leaving behind a public less protected from state power.
Richard Posner: 'No value' in studying the U.S. Constitution. Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner sees "absolutely no value"
in studying the U.S. Constitution because "eighteenth-century guys" couldn't have possibly foreseen the culture and technology of
today. In a recent op-ed for Slate, Judge Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that the
original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments "do not speak to today."
to Kill 1st, Democrats Move on to 2nd and 5th Amendments. In September of 2014, Senate Democrats voted to
repeal the First Amendment. They were enraged by a Supreme Court decision holding that ordinary constitutional
protections for free speech prohibited the government from punishing political activists who had shown a film critical of
Hillary Rodham Clinton in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election. This was a straightforward case of classical
political speech — critics of Mrs. Clinton arguing that she'd make a poor president and distributing a film
making that case — and Democrats, including every single Democrat in the Senate, insisted that that isn't what the
First Amendment is intended to protect. They started at the beginning, and are making their way down the Bill of Rights,
with the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.
Manchin laments Fifth Amendment: 'Due process is what's killing us right now'. West Virginia Sen. Joe
Manchin told an MSNBC panel on Thursday that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is "killing us" in terms of
preventing gun violence. Mr. Manchin, a Democrat, referred to due process as an inconvenient "firewall" when
it comes to denying Americans firearms.
Wants to Make It Illegal to Criticize Her. Hillary was right, Citizens United involved a movie that was
critical of her. The Supreme Court held that the federal government couldn't constitutionally bar the movie from being
shown, regardless of whether an election campaign was in progress. If Citizens United is overturned, as Hillary
wants, it would mean that the federal government can make it illegal to criticize Mrs. Clinton (or any other
politician) in a movie, book, pamphlet, etc.
FEC Dems would ban Drudge, NYT, free media on election eve. The war between Republicans and Democrats on the
politically splintered Federal Election Commission flared late Monday when a Republican commissioner and former chairman
charged that the panel's Democrats want to regulate the press and end free election media. The moves by Democrats
"signal an active regulatory effort within the agency, caution press organizations to look over their shoulders, and chill
the free exercise of press activity," said Republican Lee E. Goodman in a statement on a recent FEC split vote. On that
vote, the Democrats voted as a block to punish the maker of an anti-Obama movie distributed free before the 2012 election.
on FEC Target Corporations in Attempt to 'Blunt' First Amendment. Democrats on the Federal Election Commission
are pushing proposals critics say would disenfranchise many Americans from the political process. FEC Commissioner
Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, has put forth a proposal that she says targets foreign national influence through corporations.
Weintraub's rule would require every entity accepting political contributions from corporations to verify that the corporations are
associations of United States citizens. Additionally, she asked for a rulemaking document that would require those making
independent expenditures and electioneering communications to certify that any individual or corporate resources used are not
owned or controlled by foreign nationals.
Open Letter to Trump Supporters. After eight years of Barak Obama, America is on the brink of destruction and
in grave danger of no longer being that Shining City on the Hill that is a beacon of hope for the world. Basic freedoms
like the ability to say what we please, to openly live out our faiths, and to raise our children as we see fit are disappearing
before our very eyes. If we do not get this election right, our children and grandchildren will live under the strong fist
of government and their opportunity to thrive will be diminished. Our very Constitution is in peril. Please hear
me: if we do not elect someone who both understands the Constitution and has a proven record of working to restore and
preserve the Bill of Rights, we will lose those rights.
We Must Not Destroy
the Constitution to Save It. It deeply troubles me that Trump supporters, most of whom are Republican voters,
seem unconcerned about Trump's seeming indifference to many political issues and the scheme of limited government enshrined
in the Constitution. "That's not important to us. What matters is that he has a lifelong record of getting things
done." They argue that things have so deteriorated that they cannot be fixed through ordinary means. [...] Sorry, but it
doesn't work like that. If we ignore the Constitution, ostensibly to save it, we'll never get it back. And that
means we'll never get America back, no matter how often we repeat the slogan, "make America great again."
the Supreme Court an election issue. Conservatives ought to use Obama's selection of a Supreme Court nominee to
replace Justice Scalia as an opportunity to challenge the role federal courts generally and the Supreme Court specifically
have assumed as the super-legislative body that can overrule all other parts of federal and state government in our republic.
This is not want the Constitution intended at all. The Supreme Court seized this power on its own. [...] The Supreme
Court simply invents what it wants the Constitution to mean and then declares its whims to be the meaning of the Constitution.
The Constitution was written, of course, so that it was easy to understand — that was the idea. Members of Congress,
who pass federal laws, take the same oath to respect the Constitution as do Supreme Court justices. In those cases where the
Constitution is unclear and needs to be changed, there is a clear process for doing that, which requires a super-majority of state
legislatures to ratify any proposed amendments. The practical effect of rogue and limitless federal judicial activism is that
the amendment process, which was once recognized as the only process for changing the Constitution, has effectively died.
Most Menacing Attack on the United States Constitution. The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has
roused debate about the role of the Constitution of the United States. Justice Scalia placed a high value on the U.S.
Constitution, but for years, he had been fighting a losing battle to defend America's founding document. Back in 1997,
Scalia acknowledged: "I am now something of a dodo bird among jurists and legal scholars. You can fire a cannon
in the faculty lounge of any major law school in the country and not strike an originalist."
Enemy of the Constitution. Can you name the single most unconstitutional thing Donald Trump has proposed or
endorsed so far in the 2016 presidential race? Not an easy question to answer, is it? Do you start with Trump's efforts
to suppress immigration by gutting the 14th Amendment? Or do you perhaps point to Trump's long war on the Fifth Amendment and
its protections for property rights, as exemplified by Trump's embrace of boundless eminent domain powers for the government and
Trump's own shameful record of seeking to personally profit when government officials seize homes and businesses and then hand the
bulldozed land over to crony capitalist real estate developers? Either of the above could serve as an answer to my opening
question. But when it comes to Trump's unconstitutional agenda, there are plenty of other noxious options to choose from.
Messing With the Constitution. In
recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United
States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.
The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by
Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties
Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal "USA Today."
Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam. December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will
live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of
the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well
as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell,
Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns "violence, bigotry, and
hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Clinton Hit on Trump Is Her Latest Attack on Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton's claim during the last
Democratic debate that the Islamic State (ISIS) is "showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit
more radical jihadists" was swiftly proven wrong. In reality, the latest Islamic State video features Barack Obama ("liar")
and her husband ("fornicator"), but never mentions Trump. More disquieting than its inaccuracy, however, is the
fact that Hillary's claim shows that one of the people most likely to be the next president of the United States is a foe of
the freedom of speech, the cornerstone of any free society.
Schultz Denigrates Constitution as Old 'Piece of Paper' That is 'Totally Outdated'. Got a soft spot for the
oldest written constitution in the world, the one for which every president upon taking office must swear an oath to
preserve, protect and defend? Then you're clearly a "jackass" according to Ed Schultz, who joins a long sordid list of
lefties who can't hide their contempt for the founding charter that George Washington once described as "a guide which I will
never abandon." Yes, he was the Father of our Country, but clearly didn't have a clue.
Empower Citizens to Restrict Constitutional Rights. The contempt President Obama has for established order in Federal government, particularly
in the manner in which he has ignored Congress, is well known. He has also stated that if he doesn't like a law written by Congress, such as any law
dealing with immigration, he will just ignore their proposed bills and declare his own by Executive Order. Democrats have now empowered citizens to
decide when and where other citizens may exercise their constitutional rights. This is most clearly illustrated in how government treats the
rights of storeowners with regard to same sex marriage and concealed carry laws. Examples abound. In Colorado when a bakery refused to bake a
cake for a same sex wedding, the state court ruled against the baker. The government has made sure that no bakery, florist or pizza place may refuse
to serve a same sex couple.
Amendment under siege: Government should ban speech that offends minorities, millennials say. Forty percent of
millennials support government censorship of speech offensive to minority groups, according to a survey released Friday
[11/20/2015]. The Pew Research Center found that millennials were the most likely of any age group to agree that
government should have the authority to stop people from saying things that offend minorities, while Democrats were nearly twice
as likely as Republicans to favor such bans. The result comes amid a growing campus movement to ban "microaggressions" and
create "safe spaces" free from statements deemed offensive to "marginalized" groups, including racial, ethnic and LGBT minorities.
Poll: 40 Percent Of
Millennials Want Speech Censored. A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials
(ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.
The First Amendment Is Dying.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Unless we're
talking about a white chocolate-paneled cake for a gay wedding or perpetual funding for 'women's health' clinics, because it's
the 'right thing to do.' [...] Or of the press; unless the press invades safe spaces designated by mobs or writes about
incorrect topics at incorrect times. And to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; unless they are members
of pre-designated special interests groups, they should report to the IRS before doing so. That's pretty much the state
of the First Amendment today.
Administration: Constitution's Treaty Clause Is Dead. Asked the right question, a
suspect will often incriminate himself. Asked why the Iran deal isn't a treaty, Secretary of State
John Kerry basically answered it's because we've killed the Constitution. It's been quipped that
the "Living Constitution" liberals believe in so deeply means that the real Constitution is dead.
Its words as written can be twisted by judges, and the non-existent — such as rights to abortion
and same-sex marriage — can be found written between its lines by the Supreme Court. But
Secretary Kerry, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday [7/28/2015], pumped another
bullet into the legal foundation of the American system of government ratified by We the People nearly
227 years ago.
Hello to the 'Identity Person' and Goodbye to Your Rights. [Scroll down] Faced
with a seemingly intractable problem, Kennedy "solved" it by creating a new legal notion called
"identity." Kennedy understood "identity" could not be a protected class either, so instead he
chose to make a person's identity a "liberty." Neat trick, huh? In a work of legal reasoning and
scholarship straight out of the fortune cookie school, Kennedy turned an inchoate physical urge into
a person's identity, and then found (not in the wording of the Constitution) that a person's right to
choose an identity is a fundamental liberty under the 14th Amendment. This bit of legal legerdemain
will be a fount of endless mischief, so much so that it could prove to be single most devastating insult
to the Constitution the Republic has yet endured.
Columnist: Racist Anti-Obama Tweets 'Make You Question' 1st Amendment. Liberal
Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart opined on Twitter that some of the
racist and hateful tweets directed toward President Obama were enough to "make you question your
support for 1st Amendment."
Chief: Fourth Amendment 'Beyond My Competence'. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, a man
with sweeping power to invade the property rights and privacy of every American using judge-less warrants to
search and seize records, has a Fourth Amendment problem: he doesn't really know it. [...] Apparently,
ignorance of the law is an excuse if you run a massive federal bureaucracy with sweeping police state powers.
This is Why Liberty Dies.
In our nation, we have built a rather impressive framework to restrain the government: our
Constitution. Though it has been interpreted into meaninglessness, in many ways, it is still given
lip service and is still the ultimate law of the land. However, there is one glaring hole that is
currently being exploited to make an end-run around its remaining provisions: the rise of the
Democratic assault on free speech. Everybody's for free speech — until
somebody says something he doesn't like. But the genius of the First Amendment is that it is so
direct and plain that even a lawyer or a judge can understand it. The amendment does not
guarantee thoughtful speech, polite speech or even responsible speech. The Founding Fathers wanted
to say only that speech must be free, unfettered and at liberty to flower. The guarantee is unique
among nations, and it sounds so good that a lot of politicians in other nations pay it lip service
but are aghast if their constituents want to try it at home.
Move Forward With Plan To Alter Constitution. A very important meeting is being held in Washington this week,
but career politicians, lobbyists and most in the media don't want you to know about it. More than 100 state
legislators from around the country are meeting at the Naval Heritage Center. The Assembly of State Legislatures
(ASL) will discuss the rules for the first-ever Article V Constitutional amendment convention. This is their
third meeting. They're preparing to take on Washington, and Congress doesn't like it.
City Forced to Obey the Bill of Rights. Park City, Utah, officials were the latest in
a series of local governments that have been forced to respect the Constitution by the Second
Amendment Foundation (SAF). SAF has run up an impressive number of legal wins to protect second
amendment rights. It has become the ACLU of the gun culture. In the Park City case, the city
had adopted local laws in direct violation of the second amendment and Utah state preemption law.
there a legal difference between a few thousand illegals amnestied and 5 million? I'm
not a Constitutional scholar, nor even a lawyer. But you and I can both read. Perhaps the most
incredible aspect of the Constitution is that it was written not so that lawyers would only understand it,
but so that ordinary people could easily grasp the concepts involved and understand their rights and the
limits of government power. If scholars can justify what Obama is doing as Constitutional, then our
reading of what the Constitution says is no longer valid and the document itself has become irrelevant.
Oversight Of Sermons. Officials with the city of Houston, Texas, who are defending a
controversial ordinance that would allow men to use women's restrooms now have demanded to see the
sermons preached by several area pastors. The recent move came in a subpoena from the city to
pastors for copies of their sermons and other communications in the city's legal defense of a
"non-discrimination" measure that allows "gender-confused" people to use public restrooms designated
for the opposite sex. A lawsuit challenging Houston's move alleges the city violated its own
charter in its adoption of the Equal Rights Ordinance, which in May designated homosexuals and
transgender persons as a protected class.
in Houston, Texas, You Will Be Made to Care. Houston, TX is not thought of as a
bastion of liberalism, but it has gone quite rapidly off the deep end. Earlier this year,
Houston's City Council voted on non-discrimination legislation that provides equal protection to the
entire swath of the BLTGCZQDLMAO alphabet silliness. In short, if a guy decides he's a girl and
wants to go hang out in the girl's bathroom, it is a-okay in Houston, or it would be except the law
will not be enforced pending a court challenge.
Brother in Texas: Houston Demands Pastors Turn Over Sermon Notes, Private Communications. After
decades of warnings on the right about liberal politicians threatening religious liberty, a Democratic mayor in
Texas is now subpoenaing pastors to turn over their sermons. Houston city officials are demanding that
city pastors opposed to Houston's "Bathroom Bill" — "a law that allows members of the opposite sex
into each other's restrooms" — turn over sermon notes and "communications with church members" to
ascertain which pastors have (or haven't) "opposed or criticized the city."
of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons. The [C]ity of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding
a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city's
first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
"The city's subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented," Alliance
Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. "The city council and its attorneys are
engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions."
An attorney general committed to the Constitution. It is no secret that the Obama administration has demonstrated
questionable commitment to the rule of law. It has undermined the separation of powers by disregarding congressional
enactments while pushing executive power far beyond its constitutional boundaries. It has further undermined limited
government by disregarding federalism and pushing Washington-knows-best legislation that far exceeds anything the Founding
Fathers could have conceived.
Dem Insider: Save America, Scrap The Constitution. Harry Reid is a determined radical, intent on limiting freedom,
overturning American traditions, and remaking our institutions in the name of crushing the opposition and empowering the left.
His attempt to amend the First Amendment to curb free speech is a natural extension of his obliteration of longstanding Senate rules
that promote deliberation and minority input. But Reid seems almost moderate by left-wing Democrat standards. Take Donna
Brazile, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee for voter registration and participation. For her, eviscerating the
First Amendment is small potatoes; she wants to scrap the entire U.S. Constitution.
the Constitution. It is now well known that the IRS targeted tea party organizations. What is less
well known, but perhaps even more scandalous, is that the IRS also targeted those who would educate their fellow
citizens about the United States Constitution. [...] Grass-roots organizations around the country, such as the
Linchpins of Liberty (Tennessee), the Spirit of Freedom Institute (Wyoming), and the Constitutional Organization
of Liberty (Pennsylvania), allege that they were singled out for special scrutiny at least in part for their work
in constitutional education. There may have been many more.
blocks Democrats' push to rewrite First Amendment campaign spending. A Democratic election year push to amend
the Constitution and roll back campaign-spending free speech rights ran out of steam Thursday [9/11/2014] and fell victim to
a Senate filibuster. Holding the vote, even in defeat, was a major political goal for Democrats during the two-week
session of Congress. They hope the fight will help them rally their base ahead of November's elections, arguing that
changing the Constitution is needed to prevent wealthy conservatives from improperly influencing elections.
Cruz: 'Saturday Night Live' Skits Illegal Under New Campaign Finance Proposal. A new
proposal for campaign finance reform would make Saturday Night Live's political skits illegal,
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz has warned. The Senate is debating a proposal to add a constitutional
amendment allowing Congress reverse a 2010 Supreme Court decision and restore limits on corporate
campaign spending. Republicans say the proposal, put forward by Dems, is an attack on free speech.
New York's 'shut up' rule.
Keep quiet. That's the message being sent by New York State Board of Elections, which disregarded
the First Amendment to enact new "emergency regulations" on political speech that could become
permanent at the end of this month. Intended to regulate spending by independent groups during
campaign season, the regulations are so expansive that almost anyone, citizen or organization,
hoping to have their say on any issue could find themselves in bureaucratic dire straits.
The Constitution Lives
in Ferguson. [Scroll down] Liberals can't stand the Constitution. No less than
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg advised Egyptians caught in the chaos of a dictatorship
that "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year
2012." Former Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book titled Six Amendments: How
and Why We Should Change the Constitution, in which, as noted by Richard Wolf in USA Today Stevens
would "reduce gun violence, abolish the death penalty, restrict political campaign spending, limit states'
independence and make Congress more competitive and less combative." And, of course, there is that
now much cited 2001 radio interview with State Senator Obama in which he complains that "the
Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
Federalizing the police:
to hit Chicago streets to combat gangs. [Michael Sneed] has learned that the feds plan to dispatch
65 FBI agents to the streets in high-crime areas on the South and West Sides in an all-out battle against gang
crime. The 65 feds are part of a group of 100 Chicago agents already assigned to curb gang and violent
crimes. "This is a new tactic the FBI is using in fighting crime," an FBI spokeswoman said, "by working in a
concentrated area and a concentrated time on the street — although the FBI has been working hand in hand
and day in and day out with the police department."
chairman warns book publishers at risk of regulation at heated meeting. The Republican
chairman of the Federal Election Commission warned Wednesday [7/23/2014] that his agency colleagues
could try to regulate book publishers, during a heated session over a forthcoming book by GOP Rep.
Paul Ryan. During the meeting, the FEC declined to definitively spare book publishers from the
reach of campaign finance rules. This triggered a clash between Republican and Democratic
members, with Chairman Lee Goodman warning that the deadlock could represent a "chill" for
constitutional free-press rights.
chair warns of chilling regulations, book ban on conservative publishers. The chairman
of the Federal Election Commission today blasted Democratic colleagues opposed to his effort to
protect conservative media after they imposed rules on the publisher of Rep. Paul Ryan's new book,
opening the door to future book regulations — or even a ban.
Kennedy says Constitution 'flawed document'. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
wasn't out to make news when he addressed the annual conference of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals and devoted most of his 50-minute speech to the Magna Carta, which turns 800 years old in
2015. But Kennedy did let on that he doesn't belong to the school of Constitution-worshipers who
base their legal doctrines on what they glean to be the original, literal meaning of every word and
phrase in the nation's founding document.
Forty-six Democrat Senators Want to Change our
Laws Strictly for Politics. In a bare-faced political move, forty-six elected Democrats in our
United States Senate; that's eighty-seven percent of all Democrats, are willing to make a change to our
most predominant, most revered and oldest established legal document, the United States Constitution, all for
their desire for more political power in our government. These self-loathing discriminators, just for
personal gain, would change the most important document in the American arsenal of judicial decrees, destroying
any and all credence in the minds of the American people. They would ban free speech for Americans if
they chose not to like it. No political discourse would ever reach our newspapers or airwaves if those
Democrats chose to block it. Two sides to every political discussion would be gone forever if banned
by our Constitution as the Democrats are successful in their banning efforts.
executive actions seen as threat to Constitution. A prominent law professor and avowed
supporter of the Obama White House will tell the House on Wednesday that the president has created
one of the biggest constitutional crises in the country's history and will endorse House
Republicans' effort to sue to rein him in. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington
University, will say President Obama is trampling the founders' vision for the country in his push
to circumvent Congress, and he will demand Republicans and Democrats alike forget their party labels
to unify against this White House's power grab.
Democrats look to rewrite First Amendment in fight to limit campaign cash. Saying the
foundations of democracy are threatened, Senate Democrats took the first step Tuesday [6/3/2014] to rewrite
the First Amendment, holding a hearing to rally support for their proposed constitutional change
that would give government the power to ban all spending on political campaigns. The effort drew
vows of resistance from Republicans, who harangued Democrats for abandoning free speech rights for
political gain. Republican lawmakers said the solution was for Democrats to improve their
arguments, not to silence their critics in an assault on fundamental freedoms.
Rejects Amendment to Corral Campaign Spending. Democrats pushing for a constitutional
amendment that would give government the authority to regulate political spending by outside groups
will do so without one traditional ally at their side.
Try to Repeal First Amendment. Today [6/3/2014] in the Senate Judiciary Committee,
the Democrats held a hearing on Tom Udall's proposal to gut the First Amendment by allowing
Congress to prohibit or restrict participation in political campaigns. The Democrats like to say
that the amendment would reverse the effect of the Citizens United and McCutcheon
cases, but in fact it goes much farther than that. The amendment, which is favored by Harry Reid
and most Senate Democrats, would give Congress unprecedented power to limit debate on public issues
in the context of elections. You really have to read the proposed amendment to understand how
radical it is.
VA hospital hides Jesus behind
curtain. Some folks in Iron Mountain became infuriated earlier this month when they discovered that statues of Jesus
and Mary, along with a cross and altar, were hidden behind a curtain in the chapel of the VA hospital there. The chapel still
has stained glass windows, though for how long is unclear. A VA hospital spokesman told me they are still trying to figure out
what to do with the windows. The decision to hide the religious icons came after the National Chaplain Center conducted an
on-site inspection and determined the hospital's chapel was not in compliance with government
Sign Regulations and the
Threat to Free Speech. In 2006, auto shop owner Wayne Weatherbee decided to expand
his business by purchasing a vacant lot that had once held another auto shop dating back to the
1940s. But zoning officials in the city of Clermont, Florida, determined that Weatherbee's plans
for the lot clashed with the city's aesthetic agenda and zoning regulations, so they asked him to
first obtain a special permit before doing what he wanted with his own property. Rather than
apply for said permit, Weatherbee posted a dozen signs on his lot criticizing city officials,
including the city manager and chief of police.
Reid's Crusade Against the Koch Brothers Threatens Your Free Speech. Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised the Senate will take up a proposed constitutional amendment
this year that would radically alter the First Amendment. The Senate resolution would allow
Congress to limit fundraising and spending on election campaigns and independent political speech.
Reid and others insist restricting the amount of money that may be raised and spent on political
speech is not the same as limiting speech. That's like saying that limiting the amount of newsprint
a newspaper can buy does not limit its speech.
issued citation by authorities for Facebook comment. Christine Adamski said she was
surprised last week when she received a citation in the mail for a comment she made on Facebook,
but she also knew immediately she wasn't going to pay it. Adamski, 25, opened the $50 ticket from
the Will County Forest Preserve District last week and read the letter alleging she had used a dog
park without a proper permit. The citation arrived at her Bolingbrook home with a letter
explaining the ticket, an application for a dog park permit as well as a copy of her social media
post "admitting her guilt." "I laughed," Adamski said Thursday. "I was like, this is
totally untrue. Obviously I'm not going to pay this."
uphold (and honor!) the Constitution. Some would say that the Constitution has
already been twisted beyond recognition by activist judges, congressional chicanery and tyrannical
presidents, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt here, and affirm that the genius of
the Founders still holds our nation together despite the best efforts of our worst citizens to draw
us apart. You can all provide your own examples of laws that have been passed by the Congress,
affirmed by the courts and executed by the president, which on their face would be self-evidently
unconstitutional were it possible for such decisions to be based on the plain words of the
Constitution rather than the convenience and connivance of our governors.
Ted Cruz: Democratic
Senators Want to 'Repeal the First Amendment'. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told attendees at a Family Research Council pastors
retreat that Senate Democrats want to limit free speech through amending the Constitution. "When you think it can't get any worse, it
does," Cruz said at the FRC's Watchmen on the Wall 2014 event in Washington, D.C. on Thursday [5/22/2014]. "This year, I'm sorry to tell
you, the United States Senate is going to be voting on a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment." Calling these "perilous,
perilous times," Cruz said Senate Democrats have said they are ready to vote on the amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19 — "an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections."
Amendment's worst enemies are in nation's capital. [Scroll down] The Washington Examiner's Paul
Bedard reported Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee Goodman's warning that "there are impulses in the government every
day to second-guess and look into the editorial decisions of conservative publishers." There have already been several
proposals before the FEC to regulate conservative media outlets, Goodman said. The proposals were defeated, but only
because the FEC is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats voted for the proposals.
chairman warns agency's desire to regulate media 'alive and well'. The chairman of the Federal Election Commission
warned Wednesday that officials at the agency want to start regulating the media, despite a longstanding congressional ban on
doing so. "The impulse to regulate the media within the FEC is alive and well," Chairman Lee E. Goodman told
FoxNews.com in an interview. Goodman pointed to several recent decisions and developments that stoke concerns about the
commission — which is supposed to regulate money in federal elections — sticking its nose in the
affairs of the press.
FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity
face regulation — like PACs. Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news
outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media's exemption from federal election laws governing
political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is
vowing to fight. "I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the
editorial decisions of conservative publishers," warned Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman in an
interview. "The right has begun to break the left's media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like
the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet
communications," he added.
Chairman Warns Conservative Media Could Be Regulated Like PACs. As conservative media grows, the head of the Federal
Elections Commission (FEC) is warning that he thinks liberals will look for ways to regulate conservative news outlets just like
they do political PACs. Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman is vowing to fight back against such regulations
by putting a stop to efforts to undermine the media's exemptions from federal election laws.
chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs.
Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to
curtail the media's exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention
that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.
Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search
citizens' vehicles. Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen's
vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion. The high court's opinion, released Tuesday [4/29/2014],
is being called a drastic change in citizens' rights and police powers. Previously, citizens could refuse an
officer's request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant —
signed by a judge — to conduct the search. That's no longer the case, according to the opinion
written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery. The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to
an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Breathtaking Finding. Fifty-five
percent of likely voter respondents tell Rasmussen that the federals should review political ads and candidates'
statements and punish those who make inaccurate statements about their opponents. (We'd need a new agency,
call it the Ministry of Political Truth, to oversee this brave new government power. Perhaps it could be
headquartered in Benghazi.) I would comment on this, except that it leaves me speechless.
SAFE Act Claims it Allows 'Warrantless' Police Searches. The registry process of New York's SAFE Act allows for
warrantless police searches into gun owners' homes, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, according to plaintiffs of a lawsuit
filed in U.S. District Court Eastern District. The law firm representing plaintiff Gabriel Razzano argues the registry
process is "essentially secret and results in a mandatory, warrantless Penal Law 400 gun removal visit from police."
"The entire purpose of the registry is a sham to permit intrusions into a person's home on consent without a warrant for a
'gun removal,'" La Reddola, Lester and Associates said in a release. "The entire registry and database seek to justify
warrantless police searches, which my client and I now believe to be the real purpose of the SAFE Act."
Burlington voters opt to give up
gun rights, gut state preemption. Three City of Burlington resolutions were passed by voters Tuesday, Vermont's WPTZ
News Channel 5 reported this morning. The measures are now headed to the state legislature, where it will be decided if
municipalities will be given the power to override state preemption protections. Voters chose to allow authorities to seize
firearms at domestic investigations (Yes: 5,579 / No: 2,066), ban firearms from establishments that serve liquor (Yes: 5,194 / No: 2,517),
and require firearms in the home to be locked up (Yes: 4,351 / No: 2,971) in an election that marks the latest battle in a long campaign
being waged between "progressive" Burlington Council members working with Gun Sense Vermont, and the Vermont Federation of Sportmen's Clubs.
Our Shredded Constitution, Part I: Free Exercise of
Religion. Too many Americans today do not ask whether government defends our rights; instead, they ask, why government should
allow Americans to exercise their rights. The result has been a complete shredding of American rights altogether. The Bill of
Rights is now a relic of what it once represented, a Swiss cheese of liberty.
Obama's Trifecta. In its violations of the First Amendment,
the Obama administration has consistently relied upon self-serving definitions of press, religion, and political speech. Holder justified violating
Rosen's press freedom on the grounds that he somehow wasn't acting as a legitimate member of the press. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius has arrogated to herself the right to determine what is and what is not a "religion." She claims the HHS mandate doesn't violate religious
freedom since groups that serve the public aren't religious according to her criteria. She declared at the time of the mandate's release that only
purely sectarian groups are deemed religious under Obamacare and thus worthy of an exemption. The Federal Election Commission plays the same game on
what constitutes political speech, defining the concept ever more narrowly to justify restrictions on ordinary participation.
Harvard writer: Free speech
threatens liberalism and must be destroyed. If this Harvard University student got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and
professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier
preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps. Her name is Sandra Korn. She is a senior at Harvard
and columnist for the Harvard Crimson. In a recent column, Korn unambiguously insisted that the university should stop guaranteeing professors
and students the right to hold controversial views and pursue research that challenges liberalism.
FCC Can Have My Pen and My Microphone When They Pry Them From My Cold, Dead Hands. While it looks like the FCC has at least temporarily
backed down from their threats of putting monitors into newsrooms, we haven't seen the last of it. This has been a dream of liberals for a
long time. "According to the research design presented to the FCC by a government contractor named Social Solutions International Inc.," writes
RealClearPolitics, "it wasn't just television stations, either: Internet news organizations and newspapers were to be included in this information
sweep, as if that were actually in the FCC's purview."
about the FCC.
The FCC Plan To
Police The Newsrooms. The FCC has cooked up a plan to place "researchers" in U.S. newsrooms, supposedly to learn all about how
editorial decisions are made. Any questions as to why the U.S. is falling in the free press rankings?
Obama Is Giving Conservatives All The Tools They Need To Transform The Country. As any civics class teacher knows, the
way American government is supposed to work according to the U.S. Constitution is that Congress makes laws, and then the executive
branch executes them (that's why it's called the executive branch). It can't decide what provisions it wants to enforce or not.
The reason for that is pretty obvious: if the executive branch can decide willy-nilly to enforce or not enforce whatever
legislative provisions it wants, it is, in effect — and in reality — enacting its own legislation.
The Left's War on the Free Press. As anyone who has been paying attention
knows, the left isn't terribly fond of the free press because the free press makes the narrative harder to control. That's why you end up with "thought leaders"
like Paul Krugman bemoaning the fact that his preferred narrative is "up for argument." Krugman's lament is benign in comparison to a pair of other complaints
aired this weekend.
Treaties Don't Trump the Constitution.
Can the President and Senate invest the federal government with new powers not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution simply by signing and ratifying a
treaty? Can the treaty power be used to override the Tenth Amendment and render it a dead letter? Those issues will be argued before the
U.S. Supreme Court on November 5, 2013, in the case of Bond v. United States.
Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution. Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at
the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with
the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S.
allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities. That is a dangerous
argument, according to Cruz.
Exclusive: Feds confiscate
investigative reporter's confidential files during raid. A veteran Washington D.C. investigative journalist says the Department of Homeland
Security confiscated a stack of her confidential files during a raid of her home in August — leading her to fear that a number of her sources
inside the federal government have now been exposed.
Silencing dissent by SWATing messengers of truth. [Scroll down] Ms.
Hudson is now speaking out because of what the agents of this Gestapo-like tactic took from her home. While the search warrant was limited to any
alleged guns on the premises — again — stemming from a quarter-century old incident reportedly involving her husband, their reach
well exceeded their authority. What was taken from the home of Audrey Hudson was more valuable than any gun. What was taken from Audrey Hudson,
in addition to her freedoms as an American citizen and a Pulitzer Prize nominee for her journalistic prowess, were her pages of notes and names of sources
inside and outside of government who had confidentially provided her information over the years.
Checking Your Kids' School Assignments.
Have you checked your kids' school assignments lately? You might be shocked if you do. Sixth-grade children in a history class in the Bryant School District in
Arkansas (whose website brags that the district "has embraced" Common Core standards) were assigned a project to update the U.S. Bill of Rights because it is "outdated."
They were instructed to "prioritize, revise, omit two and add two amendments."
Houston, We Have a Problem. The Senate, at the behest of the
White House, is now working on a bill to allow the president to raise the debt ceiling on his own — granting powers to the president that are specifically
reserved to the House of Representatives by the Constitution. This is not a small matter. This is a Republic, not an Autocracy.
The U.S. Constitution has no Teeth. As the Obama
Administration works around the Constitution and performs thousands of acts that are in direct defiance of constitutional law and established legislative
practice, the emerging issue is that it does not appear to be a crime to defy the Constitution. The U.S. Code, the list of Federal laws, has many laws
that can be used in Federal court to take employers to court, for example, for discriminating against minorities, or violating the voting rights act.
But with regard to purely Constitutional issues, such as the First Amendment violations of the IRS, there doesn't seem to be any teeth in the Constitution.
There is no codified way to fight these abuses.
Freedom of the Press is now an Entitlement?
Diane Feinstein and a few other well meaning Senators are in the process of defining who qualifies for 1st Amendment rights, or privileges as she put it, as
the Senate Judiciary Committee attempts to iron out a "shield law for reporters or journalists" from having to divulge their sources. This rush for an
immediate fix regarding the press has nothing to do with a recent scandal in which the NSA ran rough shod over individual rights or private records and which
the Justice Department claimed to have no knowledge; no there's no connection, move along.
Senate Panel OKs Measure Defining a
Journalist. A Senate panel on Thursday approved a measure defining a journalist, which had been an obstacle to broader media shield
legislation designed to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal their sources.
There Ought To Be No Law.
As I've written elsewhere, under the guise of "protection," the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party is moving toward its real goal of licensing
journalists and creating an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act. The Senate bill has nothing to do with protecting journalists,
and everything to do with the Government Class protecting itself from those who would expose its activities. Having successfully co-opted
what used to be the national media — so much so that there is now a veritable revolving door between Washington and old-media
institutions — Congress now seeks to shut down via exclusion all those who do not toe the party line.
Who's a journalist? The bill is supposed to protect
journalists by defining who get the protection accorded to the Fourth Estate. I get that. But it's not up to the government
to define who is, and who is not, a journalist, especially in an era when "reporting" covers everything from being a beat jocket at a
paper to being a guy who records something on his cellphone and distributes the news via YouTube.
Enacting the Liberty Amendments.
Without getting into the detail of the potential disputes over the procedures for an Article V convention, it is certain that, even if
two thirds of the States were to call for a convention, it would be tied up in litigation for years. And if it was ever able to convene,
it would likely turn out to be the largest convocation of leftist law professors ever assembled, who would dominate the media coverage and
assure that no amendments would issue which would accomplish anything sought by constitutional conservatives.
Sen. Feinstein Threatens Press Freedom. [Scroll
down] Someone is lying, and of the two sides, the government has a much worse track record. [Senator Dianne] Feinstein would only protect
the anonymous sources of what she would call "real journalists," those being paid by an "established news organization." The law would still have
had direct bearing on the James Rosen case, and that of homophonic New York Times reporter James Risen. But Feinstein would exclude bloggers, an
entirely arbitrary, meritless distinction.
Sen. Dick Durbin Wants Government to Decide Who Qualifies as a Real Journalist. What qualifies as "legitimate journalism" or a "news
website" in Durbin's mind? Anyone can tweet something that constitutes news and the broadcast of which can be deemed journalism. Tweets of
ordinary citizens molested by the TSA have become news stories. As we've seen repeatedly over the past several decades, so-called journalists
can bury stories harmful to powerful politicians or pet causes.
No right to silence. Monday's decision scales
back the Miranda decision. Not only can your words be used against you, but the Supreme Court says your silence can be, as well. Genovevo
Salinas found this out after he was questioned by Houston police regarding the 1992 murder of two brothers.
5th Amendment? Supremes rule silence can be used in court. In a 5-4 decision regarding Salinas v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that a potential defendant's silence can be used against them during police interviews prior to arrest and reading of Miranda
rights. In 1992, Genovevo Salinas voluntarily entered a Houston police station to discuss the murder of two brothers, Juan and Hector
Garza. He complied with officer's questions, but when asked whether shotgun casings would match his firearm, he fell silent.
Texas prosecutors convinced jurors that his silence was an admission of guilt.
Americans who cherish freedom must push back
against government surveillance. On Thursday, I held a news conference announcing my intent to pursue legal action
against the federal government for infringing on Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. The National Security Agency's collection
of Verizon's client data probably only scratches the surface. A court order that allows the government to obtain a billion
records a day and does not name an individual target is clearly beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment, which states clearly that
warrants must be specific to the person and the place.
out of control: We the people at fault. Today, the front page of every major national news website is featuring reactions
to Glenn Greenwald's explosive report on the FISA court order that "requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA
information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries." That means that
the government is collecting information on every call made on Verizon's service, regardless of probable cause or any suspicion that
the parties have committed a crime. The Fourth Amendment was written specifically to prohibit this activity by the government.
But they're doing it, unapologetically.
about domestic surveillance.
The U.S. Constitution. America is a country that
bases its political system on three equally important governing bodies: the legislative branch, the executive branch and the
judicial branch. This arrangement comes directly from the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution has been the supreme
law of the U.S. since September 17, 1787. This was eleven years after the U.S. got its independence from England.
Durbin wonders: Does [the]
First Amendment apply to bloggers, Twitter? Thanks to the Obama administration's attacks on the Associated Press and its representation
in federal court that Fox News' James Rosen is a spy for asking questions, one has to wonder whether the First Amendment applies to anyone in
the Age of Hope and Change.
Beck: If Police Get Drones, 'The 2nd Amendment Is Absolutely Dead'. Senator Rand Paul's media tour following his
"misunderestimated" statements on drones brought him to Glenn Beck's radio show Friday, where the two men discussed the prospects
of a terrifying future where police cars have "robotic firing arms" that take down criminals with the push of a button. If that
ever happens, Beck told Paul, "the Second Amendment is absolutely dead."
Mayor Bloomberg's Personal Reading Of
Constitution. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says that in light of the Boston Marathon bombing, our interpretation of the Constitution will
"have to change." Americans should be appalled at such a statement.
Bloomberg's creepy authoritarianism. So, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that the public's
interpretation of the Constitution must evolve in the face of terror attacks such as the one in Boston.
"You're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days," the man explained,
"and our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change." Of course he thinks they
do. That's why we have constitutions — so they can be changed in tumultuous times.
Bloomberg wants you to give up liberty to acquire a little temporary
safety — with no guarantees.
Says Interpretation of Constitution Will 'Have to Change' After Boston Bombing. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings,
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday [4/22/2013] the country's interpretation of the Constitution will "have to change" to allow for greater security
to stave off future attacks. "The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Mr. Bloomberg said during a press
conference in Midtown. "But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did
back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."
That Pesky Constitution. It wasn't
too terribly long ago that talk of dismantling this country's most sacred document would get you labeled a crackpot. But now?
Well, it's apparently fine. Never mind that lawyers are sworn to uphold the Constitution.
A direct threat to the 1st and 10th Amendments:
Law would fire
sheriffs for defying gun control measures. Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to
defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or
appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders. The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by
Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.
What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they
will not obey federal orders.
Appeals Court Curbs Border Agents' Carte Blanche Power
to Search Your Gadgets. A federal appeals court for the first time ruled Friday [3/8/2013] that U.S. border agents do not
have carte blanche authority to search the cellphones, tablets and laptops of travelers entering the country — a "watershed"
decision in the court's own terms and one at odds with the policies of the President Barack Obama administration.
9th Circuit Appeals Court: 4th Amendment Applies At The Border. For many years
we've written about how troubling it is that Homeland Security agents are able to search the contents of electronic devices, such as
computers and phones at the border, without any reason. The 4th Amendment only allows reasonable searches, usually with a
warrant. But the general argument has long been that, when you're at the border, you're not in the country and the 4th Amendment
WA Dems Sponsor Bill Allowing Police to Search
Gun owners' Homes. In a mistake that probably wasn't a mistake, a Washington state bill sponsored by liberal Democrats contained a little-noticed
provision that would have called for the police to have the right to search private citizens' home once per year if they own certain types of guns.
What Our Society Has Become. The United States Constitution, and its concepts of
limited government, State sovereignty, liberty, and a political system governed by the people is being tossed aside as nothing more than an archaic obstacle to
progress. Federalized, our schools have become indoctrination centers that spit out compliant citizens hailing that central government is the new god of the
new age. Television programs, all the way down to the cute little yellow feathered Street for toddlers, reinforces the mental programming of the youngsters, and
the news media and entertainment industry reinforce the teachings not only for the children, but to ensure the proper re-education of the older folks that might still
remember what America was like when it was still truly free.
Reasons America Is Becoming An Increasingly Nonfunctional Society. [#16] Our entire society is based on a Constitution that is being
systematically ignored, distorted, and treated as optional by the populace, our politicians, and even the judges who are sworn to enforce it.
Congress has a Constitution
problem — many don't understand document. Under rules that the new Republican majority put into place, each House member
introducing a bill must cite specific parts of the Constitution that they think grant Congress the authority to take the action they are
proposing. The first year's worth of action was less than inspiring for adherents of the founding document: Many lawmakers ignored
the rule, while others sliced and diced the clauses to justify what they were trying to do. One thumbed his nose at the exercise
altogether, saying it's up to the courts, not Congress, to determine what is constitutional.
Dangerous Times. When
the media openly question the right of Tea Parties to exist, they are telling us they really want single-party rule. That's why
they want to abolish the free political opposition. They are political control freaks, totally contrary to American history and
tradition. That is why they want to dump the US Constitution.
Dispensing with the Constitution.
It was Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 69, who explained that an American president must "take care that the laws be
faithfully executed." The "take care" clause in the Constitution that he was defending is a cornerstone of the Founders' vision
of limited and divided government. It was one of the many bulwarks against tyranny that were built into the remarkable structure
that has ensured our freedom over the past two-and-a-half centuries. In that structure, a president may only refuse to enforce
a law if it is plainly unconstitutional, a power that is as antique as it is rarely employed.
Trying to nudge the Constitution
out of place. Will 2013 come to be known as the year of presidential decree? The year the president ignored Congress, changed
the rules of government, and put into place whatever policies he saw fit? [...] During his first term, President Obama issued executive orders in
lieu of laws passed by Congress, signed executive agreements with foreign countries in lieu of treaties ratified by the Senate, and formulated
burdensome regulations with little legislative justification.
Liberals Should Be Concerned About An "Imperial" And "Nixonian" President. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tells Sean Hannity that
President Obama has "drunk the kool-aid" and believes he can do nothing wrong since he got reelected. [...] Cruz also tells Hannity that
disregarding the constraints of the Constitution is a "pattern" with Obama and that it's only going to get worse in a second term.
Desire To Weaken Constitution Endangers American Freedom. During the debate over ObamaCare — a massive, budget-busting
entitlement funded with money our country doesn't have — former New Jersey Judge Andrew Napolitano pointedly challenged then-U.S.
Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., regarding the constitutionality of this socialized medicine monstrosity. Clyburn's response? "There's
nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do," he said. Therein lies the
root of our problem.
Who Would Dare Veto the Sandy Bill?
In the late 19th century we had a president empowered by the same Constitution we have now, who felt its limitations mattered.
Today's politicians, judges, academia and mainstream media are unashamed to openly defy the Constitution, circumvent it, or declare it
outdated and irrelevant — while at the same time seeking to publicly shame those who strive to adhere to it, or at the very
least hesitate to spend what our treasury doesn't hold.
House 'blocks use of pictures of Malia and Sasha Obama on the beach'. Paparazzi shots of Malia and Sasha Obama have been blocked by
the White House after a photographer reportedly stumbled across the girls on a public beach in Hawaii. [...] Secret service agents, who were
accompanying the girls on their walk, immediately approached the photographer and asked for identification. They allowed the man to keep his
camera but gave him a stern warning to stop photographing the first daughters.
Appeal for Dictatorship Comes Out of the Closet at the New York Times. True to form, the New York Times saw out 2012
by publishing another apology for dictatorship. In his op-ed, Louis Michael Seidman — Professor of Constitutional Law at
Georgetown University — argues that the Constitution should be abandoned. The suggestion is so preposterous that it is
tempting to dismiss the article altogether, but to do so would be to miss some very revealing implications. The article is not so
much a suggestion of constitutional reform as an open call for dictatorship.
The Editor says...
Rather than abandoning the Constitution, let's abandon the New York Times.
Fair: Second Amendment 'Must Be Removed from the Constitution'. On January 2, Vanity Fair ran an all-out attack on the
constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and common sense in a column by Kurt Eichenwald titled, "Let's Repeal the Second Amendment."
Eichenwald's approach consists of attacking the NRA, arguing that gun owners avoid discussing more gun control by saying they don't want
to "politicize" shootings, and taking the standard progressive position that there wasn't really a right to keep and bear arms until
Justice Antonin Scalia created one in recent Supreme Court decisions.
Unmitigated propaganda in the New York Times:
Let's Give Up on the Constitution.
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.
The Editor says...
The writer of the article immediately above is identified by the New York Times as "a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University," which tells us
a lot about the potential for anti-American indoctrination at Georgetown. He never gets around to his alternatives
to the Constitution, but apparently he would prefer that
Marxist, Barack H.
Obama, be pronounced America's
not-so-benevolent dictator, bypassing the
ballot box. The whole article sounds like sedition to me.
Subverting the Constitution. Louis Michael
Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, is no fringe figure. He is a pillar of the left wing legal
establishment, graduate of Harvard Law, former clerk for Thurgood Marshall, and notable figure in the Leftist "critical legal theory" movement. [...] Seidman
has taken to the pages of the daily bible of the progressive establishment, the New York Times, to lend respectability to a movement to subvert the
Constitution, and turn to an undefined system which inevitably means the loss of our safeguards against tyranny. All expressed in superficially
Hey! Let's have a 'Burn the Constitution
Day!' I don't believe the Constitution is holy writ nor do I think that the Founders had all the answers for today's America. But
all public officials and members of the military swear fealty to our founding document for a reason; it is the most visible, the most tangible
representation of our sovereignty as a nation. We don't have kings, or castles, or ancient ruins to which we can point and say our sovereignty
lies within. It is the Constitution that unites us as a people. And positing the notion that we should just throw it away is outrageously
stupid and disquietingly radical.
Law professor: Scrap 'archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil' Constitution. Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman writes
that the time has come to scrap the Constitution. In an op-ed published in the New York Times Monday, Seidman, a constitutional law professor,
claimed that the nation's foundational document is the real impediment to progress and solutions to America's troubles.
Give Up On The
Constitution? The Political Left Already Has. For many, the Constitution is the barrier that blocks government from
trampling a free people. Yet many on the political left see it as a hurdle to their ambitions. Consider the constitutional
law professor who wants to kill it.
Dem Rep. Hank Johnson:
Amend Constitution to Restrict Freedom of Speech. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says, "corporations control the patterns of
thinking" in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the
power to restrict freedom of speech. "We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free
speech rights of corporations," said Johnson.
DOJ Can't Say Criticizing Religion Will Remain Legal. [A recent exchange], between Representative Trent Franks and
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, occurred in late July, but is particularly relevant today. Representatvie Franks
tries to extract an assurance from Perez that the Obama administration will not push a proposal to criminalize speech "against any
religion." He has a tough time doing so.
DoJ Civil Rights Division
chief can't commit to protecting free speech. Via Eliana Johnson and Michael Totten, the question that Rep. Trent Franks asked Assistant
Attorney General Thomas Perez in July shouldn't be very difficult to answer — especially for the man who heads up the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice, and who swore to uphold the Constitution when taking that job. [...] If you read the First Amendment, the answer is simple.
Perez, however, does a two-minute dodge while Franks asks it four times.
On Bourbon Street, party but don't preach at
night. The ordinance passed in October bans spreading "any social, political or religious message between the hours of
sunset and sunrise." City officials say it's a public safety measure to keep people moving at night along the crowded, raunchy
strip. During the Southern Decadence festival over Labor Day weekend, a group of nearly 10 street preachers were arrested.
We Don't Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing,
Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena. Meet the administrative subpoena: With a federal official's signature,
banks, hospitals, bookstores, telecommunications companies and even utilities and internet service providers — virtually all
businesses — are required to hand over sensitive data on individuals or corporations, as long as a government agent declares
the information is relevant to an investigation. Via a wide range of laws, Congress has authorized the government to bypass the
Fourth Amendment — the constitutional guard against unreasonable searches and seizures that requires a probable-cause warrant
signed by a judge.
Obama, Holder Sledgehammer the First
Amendment. [Scroll down] Gallup has every First Amendment right that other media outlets have. It will be
interesting to see if any other media organizations side against Obama's apparent heavy-handed attempt to stifle Gallup's voice.
DOJ Official Won't
Say Whether Justice Department Would 'Criminalize Speech against Any Religion'. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
Thomas Perez refused to say Thursday whether the Justice Department would ever "entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any
religion." During a House subcommittee hearing examining fairness in voting rights enforcement, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chairman of the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, referenced an article detailing a meeting between top Justice Department officials and Islamist advocates,
where the advocates reportedly lobbied officials for "a legal declaration that U.S. citizens' criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination."
Schumer: There Should Be Limits to the First Amendment. While debating the DISCLOSE Act last night [7/17/2012] on the
Senate floor, New York Senator Chuck Schumer called for restrictions on the First Amendment, citing other laws and regulations
already in place in the United States that do so.
Dislike soda bans? Then restore the Constitution.
The debates surrounding this question, and other constitutional issues like executive privileges and orders, are instructive. Not only have
Americans learned more about the Constitution, we've discovered that many lawmakers neither understand nor respect the document they're sworn to
uphold. Even worse, we have leaders intent on fundamentally transforming the relationship between the citizen and government in a manner the
Constitution doesn't allow. By allowing these politicians to create and impose solutions better left to sovereign states and individuals, we
permit their government-driven agenda to trump our liberties and their Leviathan government to limit our choices and make our decisions.
This is not the fulfillment of our Founder's dream — it's their nightmare.
Constitution 101. The Republican Study
Committee (RSC) analyzes the constitutional statements for every bill and joint resolution introduced and sends out a weekly email
highlighting the "most questionable." Last week, it selected Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, for justifying his bill to
authorize the president to award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to boxer Muhammad Ali by citing irrelevant constitutional clauses,
including the one giving Congress the right to set its governing rules and expel members.
Jim McGovern's War on the
Constitution. It is hard to overstate how radical and dangerous the People's Rights Amendment would be. It
would overturn Citizens United, all right — along with much of the freedom Americans have always taken for
granted. All of them would lose their constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and of the press, if US Rep.
Jim McGovern's "People's Rights Amendment" were adopted.
Obama Policies Are
Clearing a Path for a Dictator. Podesta's Center for American Progress in their definitive essay,
The Power of the President, Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change subtly outlines a virtual blueprint for a U.S.
Presidency that rules by fiat, ignoring the laws of the nation. Their reasoning is that Congress has failed to act, but
that is nothing more than an excuse to circumvent our Constitution. With obfuscating language, it says that the President
should use the powers he has to ignore Congress and the confines of the Constitution. It outlines a plan for an
extremely powerful Executive Branch.
Keep the First Amendment. The phrase "stunning
development" is used far too often in our politics, but here is an item that can be described in no other way: Nancy Pelosi and congressional
Democrats, frustrated by the fact that the Bill of Rights interferes with their desire to muzzle their political opponents, have proposed to repeal the
First Amendment. That is precisely what the so-called People's Rights Amendment would do.
Shredding the Constitution.
The Obama administration has expanded its executive branch powers under a comprehensive czar system and myriad executive
orders. Meanwhile, Congress quietly passes questionable legislation with the potential to limit personal
freedoms — and U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), engage in activities that raise serious concerns about constitutional violations. Even local
law enforcement officials have become increasingly intrusive and hostile to civil liberties.
If the Government Rejects the Constitution? What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline
to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that
lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines
of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don't think that the Constitution was
written to keep them off the people's backs? What if there's no substantial difference between the two major political
Virginia Attempts To Silence Free Speech. Something terrible is underway in Norfolk, Virginia, that should disturb all
Americans who value property rights and free speech. Central Radio Company, which first opened 78 years ago and has been at its
current location of 1083 West 39th Street for 50 years, is currently under siege. First officials at the Norfolk
Redevelopment and Housing Authority attempted to seize their property in order to transfer it to Old Dominion University, which currently has no
specific site development plan for Central Radio's property. The owners of the company, Bob Wilson and Kelly Dickinson, rightfully objected
to the eminent domain proceedings. They then commissioned a 375-square-foot banner (left) and hung it on their building to protest the
out and shut up: 78-year-old business fights back against eminent domain, censorship. One business's eminent domain nightmare has
also turned into a case about protection under the First Amendment. Central Radio Company, a small business in Norfolk, Va., may soon become
a victim of eminent domain, but in the meantime it has also been ordered to remove a giant banner protesting the impending seizure.
code as a weapon. A drearily familiar dialectic is on display here: Government is behaving badly in order to silence protests
of other bad behavior. It is violating the Constitution's First Amendment, stifling speech about its violation of the Fifth
Amendment, as it was properly construed until 2005.
Constitutional Convention Can Not Be Controlled.
A [Constitutional Convention] has no oversight or rules other than those made by the actual participating delegates themselves. There are no rules for
selecting delegates. Once a [Constitutional Convention] is called for by the legal number of states, as laid out in Article V of the Constitution,
It is the duty of Congress to call for one. Period. That's as far as it goes.
Is the CIA in your kitchen? The war on drugs
has regrettably weakened the intended protections of the Fourth Amendment, and the Patriot Act — which permits federal
agents to write their own search warrants — has dealt it a serious blow. That act, which has not yet been ruled
upon by the Supreme Court, fortunately has not yet animated the Supreme Court's privacy jurisprudence. Last year, the court
invalidated the police use of warrantless heat-seeking devices aimed at the home, and it will probably soon invalidate the
warrantless use of GPS devices secretly planted by cops in cars. ... Relying on the Patriot Act, federal agents have written their
own search warrants just like the British soldiers did [in the 18th century]. They have done this more
than 250,000 times since 2001.
Oust Obama. Defense Secretary
Leon E. Panetta recently gave congressional testimony saying that the United States no longer needs the approval
or consent of Congress before launching a major military offensive. In particular, Mr. Panetta — to
the amazement of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican — argued that the administration needs only
"international permission" to engage in war. In other words, Mr. Panetta stressed that international
approval from the United Nations or NATO trumps the sovereign authority of Congress.
Passes Bill Severely Curtailing First Amendment Liberties. A bill has just passed the House and the Senate that criminalizes
protests anywhere near the presence of a designated government official. On Monday [2/27/2012], the U.S. House of
Representatives voted nearly unanimously (388-3) in favor of H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds
Improvement Act of 2011. As part of this legislation, Congress expressly forbids trespass onto the grounds of the White
House. Many likely believe that such a law already existed and they are right. The controversial aspect of this bill's
restatement of that statute is that it expands the scope of the federal government's authority to bring charges against those deemed
trespassers at any location placed provisionally under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service. The present state of the law
prosecutes White House trespassers under a local Washington, D.C. ordinance. Prior to this latest federal action, violation
of this ordinance was a misdemeanor.
Protests Near Secret Service Protected Folk
Effectively Outlawed. In case you question the value of having a Justin Amash or a Ron Paul in the House of Representatives,
they were two of only three votes against H.R. 347, the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." ... Although
[Secret Service] protection isn't extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a
person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Insurance rights trumps religious rights. Senator Boxer warned yesterday [2/14/2012] that if the HHS
contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to
Post Journalist: 'Maybe the Founders Were Wrong' to Guarantee Free Exercise of Religion. Washington
Post political writer Melinda Henneberger shockingly stated, Wednesday [2/8/2012], that "maybe the Founders
were wrong" to guarantee religious liberty. Henneberger appeared on Hardball to discuss the Obama
administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control in health care.
According to Obama: [Scroll down] Our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious
institutions. Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for
example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such "health-care services" (in secularist parlance)
as contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion — to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed
as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life. Ah. But there would be no such
Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.
End of the Constitution:
Obamacare birth-control mandate would defeat the First Amendment. Mr. Obama is not simply an inept,
liberal president in the mold of Jimmy Carter. He is an ideological revolutionary who seeks to sweep away
traditional America. The American war of independence did not just overthrow British imperial domination.
The Founders forged something almost unique in history: a nation devoted to individual liberty, Christian civilization
and federalism. The rule of men was replaced by the rule of law. The linchpin was constitutional government
based on the separation of powers and checks and balances. The American system is entirely predicated on the
Constitution. Once the Constitution becomes meaningless or just an inconvenient piece of paper, the American
experiment is over. The republic is dead.
Levin: We're Living In A Post-Constitutional America. We are not a representative republic really in
the true sense anymore. We have this massive administrative state with, you know, hundreds of thousands if not
several million bureaucrats who are making laws and issuing them every day, 80,000 pages last year. So that's
not a representative republic.
Obama Wins Georgia
Ballot Challenge. [Scroll down] Opponents of the controversial birthright citizenship practice
should also take note, since Judge Malihi's opinion further entrenches the notion that every baby born on U.S.
soil, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of its parents (presumably even an "anchor baby" or "birth
tourist" baby) is a "natural born" citizen.
York's Long-Distance Body Scanners Challenge 4th Amendment. The NYPD, sometimes referred to as the
world's "seventh largest army" with 35,000 uniformed officers, already does a brisk business frisking potential
suspects, with little pushback. In the first quarter of last year, 161,000 New Yorkers were stopped and
interrogated, with more than nine out of 10 of them found to be innocent. And there are cameras already in place
everywhere: in Manhattan alone there are more than 2,000 surveillance cameras watching for alleged miscreants.
Mark Levin: You
Cannot Have This EPA and a Constitution. "The purpose of the Constitution is to have a limited
central government where the sovereignty remains with the individual and the people and the states," said
Levin. "The purpose of utopianism is the opposite of all that. It's a relative handful of
masterminds and their massive army of bureaucrats and their experts advising them from the colleges and so
forth on how to run society. "You cannot have an EPA and a Constitution at the same time doing what this
EPA is doing," Levin told CNSNews.com. "You cannot have an NLRB deciding who gets to work where, how,
and when, and at the same time follow the Constitution," he said.
Obama's naked thuggery.
After all these years it took a great constitutional scholar who had spent a life cloistered in academia and
street work to utterly rape our most cherished Constitution. This business of bypassing the Senate to
pick "recess" appointments to positions most Americans have never heard of may seem trivial. It is
anything but. What Barack Obama has done has been to disembowel the U.S. Senate and shred the most
carefully worded document in the history of civilized society.
Oops, she did it
again. Nancy Pelosi is "glad" that President Obama ignored the Advice and Consent requirement
of the Constitution on his recent appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the new bureaucratic
beast, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Ms. Pelosi has shown her contempt for the Constitution
before. When asked where in the Constitution she found the power to pass Obamacare, Pelosi said, "Are
you serious?" President Obama shows a similar contempt about whether the Constitution constrains him.
Obama's Standing Army of
Regulators among Us. The Third Amendment, prohibiting the quartering of government troops in peacetime
in private homes, seems irrelevant in modern times. Yet how is the intrusion of government regulators into every
corner of our lives substantively different from quartering troops in our homes without our consent? While
Americans have clashed in sharp debate over taxation from the very beginning, government regulation has, oddly enough,
escaped scrutiny. Yet regulators' destruction of a vibrant economy by strangling industry and commerce while
depriving owners of their private property rights is as toxic and pervasive as taxation.
Is the Supreme Court a Constitution-free
zone? On January 11, 2008, police arrested 80 protesters at the Supreme Court.
Why is the Supreme Court — of all places — off limits to protest? ... The Constitution
protects the right to peaceful protests. The Supreme Court exists to protect the Constitution.
Banning protests at the Supreme Court is at best a mixed signal; at worse, hypocrisy.
Hold Your Breath for a 28th Amendment. With no fanfare, the country in August quietly passed a
peculiar milestone: The 14,746th day since Congress last proposed a successful amendment to the Constitution,
officially becoming the second-longest such dry spell in history and raising questions about when, if ever, the next
amendment will pass.
Will Happen When the People Realize that the Constitution Is No More? Dishonest, manipulative,
agenda-consumed politicians who hold power will not easily surrender that power. Today, an overwhelmingly
"progressive" mainstream media feed progressive politicians' lies as truth directly to the people, thereby
reinforcing the lies, giving the lies credibility in the minds of a mostly gullible electorate. The
education establishment distorts school curricula and softens the brains of the young, creating sponges eager
to soak up the media-reinforced political untruths. But when the growing awareness of this nastiness
reaches a critical mass, just what kind of ugly revolt will America be in for?
Constitutionalism Means. The Supreme Court has amended the Constitution hundreds of times, in
ways large and small, by reinterpreting its provisions, almost always to serve progressive ends. American
constitutional law now includes restrictions on police procedure, regulations on permissible school-discipline
policies, minute if unpredictable edicts about the proper placement of municipal displays involving religion,
and rights to solicit and perform abortion at any stage of pregnancy. In each case, Americans had spent
decades living under the relevant constitutional provisions without anyone's imagining that they commanded
what the Court now says they command.
Couple Threatened With $500-Per-Meeting Fines For Home Bible Study. An Orange County couple has
been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city
ordinance as a "church" and not as a private gathering. Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San
Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called "a regular
gathering of more than three people". That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as
defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple's legal representation.
On the Rule of Law.
Freedom is lost by degrees, and the deepest erosions usually take place during times of economic
hardship, when those who favor expanding the sphere of government abuse a crisis to persuade free
citizens that they should trade in a little of their liberty for empty promises of greater economic
foreign-born candidate. Can a foreign-born citizen run for president? The
Federal Election Commission thinks so. Earlier this month, commission members agreed
that Abdul K. Hassan, a Guyana-born naturalized U.S. citizen, could qualify as a presidential
candidate. In an advisory opinion, the commission concluded that Mr. Hassan may be considered
a candidate and could solicit funds to support his campaign. However, he would be
ineligible for federal matching funds.
No Faith or Allegiance to the Constitution. Too many members of Congress regard the Constitution
as an obstacle, not as a sacrosanct document they must support and defend. They bear little faith, and
less allegiance, to its directives. The Constitution, now a "living" document, has devolved into a
legislative and bureaucratic playground where anything goes.
the new "Super Congress" Constitutional? A number of constitutionalists have warned that the
new "Super Congress" — technically a joint committee of Congress — may be unconstitutional.
The new entity will be created out of the Obama-Boehner debt limit deal. "It smells," Representative
Ron Paul (R-Texas) told Fox News August 1. "I just don't understand why Congress is so willing to
give up its responsibilities to 12 people.... It's a reflection that they don't have answers."
An obvious violation of the First Amendment:
Faces Prosecution for Videos Mocking Police. In Washington, a cartoonist is possibly facing
jail time for a series of animated Internet videos that mock police officers. The cartoonist, who
goes by the name Mr. Fiddlesticks, is being investigated for alleged "cyberstalking," a crime in Washington.
Posse Comitatus: Military Cops Arrest Civilians in Florida City. In Homestead, Florida,
Posse Comitatus is dead. The Air Force now responds to civilian crime in the small city, population
around 30,000. "Here at Homestead Air Reserve Base we have the Crime Stop hotline that allows anyone
either on base or off the installation to anonymously report a crime," explains the Homestead Air Reserve
What is Liberty, That We May Defend It?
Is American Liberty under attack? Perhaps more so than any time since the Revolution. ... The Constitution
is displayed as an elaborate, ancient joke. Politicians present themselves as gods, above error, who
dismiss dissent as if it were the babble of infants. Between irrational new laws, and the government's
refusal to enforce common sense rules, Americans feel trapped and betrayed by increasingly tyrannical leaders.
Dallas turns to extortion to
preserve petty sign ordinance. If the government can dictate what you can put in your own
window, there's no limit to what it can do. ... [A Dallas] ordinance specifies that no sign may appear in
the upper two-thirds portion of any window or glass door. In the space that remains, signage may not
take up more than 15 percent of the available window space. The ordinance carefully carves out
an exemption for artistic and political speech. So a gigantic "Vote Obama" sign is acceptable, but
one that states "20 percent off on Wednesdays" is not.
FCC report finds serious shortage in local reporting.
Newspapers have seen a sharp drop in revenue because of the weakening economy and a shift by advertisers
to free or cheaper alternatives on the Internet.
The Editor says...
That may or may not be the whole truth of the matter, but even if it is, that's not
the government's problem.
precedent for press. A little more than a week ago, Vice President Joe Biden traveled to
fundraisers in two battleground-state cities, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Neither stop included the
White House press corps; requests by local media to cover the events were denied by the vice president's
The Indiana Supreme Court
Guts the Fourth Amendment. A ruling by the state of Indiana's Supreme Court last Thursday [5/12/2011] in
Barnes vs. Indiana has seemingly vacated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment provision against unreasonable search
and seizure. The case involved a domestic dispute and the Court ruled 3-2 that police can force their way into a
person's home without a warrant if they deem such entry is necessary.
Out Of The Pool. If the mainstream media had any gumption at all, they would vigorously protest the
strange, new self-appointed arbiter of "fair" press coverage as an implicit threat to their own capacity to cover
the news fairly. What the White House has done by telling the Boston Herald it can no longer send a pool
reporter to cover local campaign events on behalf of the media is another baby step toward state control of the
media, using the carrot of access against the stick of exile.
No right to resist illegal cop entry into home. Overturning a common law dating back to the
English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday [5/12/2011] that Hoosiers have no
right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David
writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a
homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
gives police a new entryway into homes. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case,
says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting
evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
of Pre-Crime. Moral of this story: If you hear the cops at the door, quietly get off the
john, and whatever you do, don't flush. Read the whole account of the case, which ought to get your
Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct Random House to House Searches We Will. According to Newton
County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful
following the Barnes v. State of Indiana Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011.
When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent
natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks,
adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
too much license to cops. A series of recent court rulings, including one this week from the
US Supreme Court, appear to erode one of our bedrock defenses against the arbitrary, abusive power of the
state. At risk: the Fourth Amendment guarantee to all American citizens of the right to be "secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
Home Insecurity. While the U.S.
Supreme Court said police may force their way into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence, the Indiana
Supreme Court, in a less noticed decision issued the week before, said police may force their way into a home
for any reason or no reason at all. Although the victim of an illegal search can challenge it in court
after the fact, three of the five justices agreed, "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by
police officers." They thereby nullified a principle of common law that is centuries old, arguably
dating back to the Magna Carta.
US Police State Begins Exponential Expansion.
The recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling against the US Constitution, rendering the Fourth Amendment null and
void in that State by patently leftist activist judges, is only the latest unconscionable step in a series of
actions designed to unravel each and every portion of the Bill of Rights. It is also one of the latest
actions designed to compliment and enhance the already jack-booted Obama police State march into our States,
our cities and homes.
held in protest of 'unlawful police entry' ruling by Indiana Supreme Court. Protesters showed up
on the south steps of the Indiana Statehouse Wednesday [5/25/2011], to rally against a controversial ruling by
the Indiana Supreme Court. The ruling, which allows police to enter your home without a warrant,
sparked threatening emails and phone calls from those angry with the court's decision.
High court urged to rethink
ruling on resisting police. A group of 71 state lawmakers is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to
reconsider a ruling that says people don't have the right to resist police officers who enter their homes illegally.
Bob Hasegawa wants to tax newspapers based upon content. Rep. Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, ... has
introduced an amendment to a bill that would result in differing rates of taxation for newspapers based upon
their editorial content. This is a stupid and patently unconstitutional bit of legislative foolishness,
and Hasegawa should be so ashamed of himself that he should resign in disgrace.
wants to tax newspapers based on their editorial content? [Scroll down] I don't see much
difference between those two approaches to media criticism and that of the Obama administration's attempts
through the FCC to "help" newspapers and "quality journalism" survive in the digital era because what
always follows federal assistance is federal control.
Obama's ineligibility: The
oath of office for US President is unique. No other Federal official is required to preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution. The President is the custodian of the Constitution, the fundamental laws
governing our country. ... Obama, in his first act as President, dishonored the oath of office by accepting
a position for which he was not eligible. It was not a demonstration of "preserve, protect and defend",
but more likely an initial step towards radically transforming the country by undermining the foundation upon
which it is based. Without the Constitution, there is no linchpin for the rule of law and the enforcement
of law becomes an arbitrary tool of the state. It is a recipe for tyranny.
Were Americans set up by the press and then
scammed by the Congress? In April 2008, it appears that a political deal was struck between
the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility.
That would also explain the continuing conspiracy of silence by our political elite. Because SR 511
has no force of law, Congress protected itself from legal consequences, but by political fiat they could do a
"quick and dirty" amendment to the Constitution. My fellow Americans ... we've been had.
Patent Bill is Unconstitutional. The biggest issue for many new members of Congress and tea
partiers is trying to hold the federal government within its constitutional limits. Unfortunately,
the House now seems poised to pass a law in direct violation of the Constitution. One of the most
valuable individual rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution is the right of "inventors" to own "the
exclusive right" to their "discoveries" for "limited times." This right was set forth in Article I,
Section 8, years before the rights to freedom of speech and religion were added.
Another Democrat That Hates the US
Constitution. Making it easier every day to assert that Democrats hate the U.S. Constitution,
once again we find a Democrat in Congress expressing disgust with the law of the land. This time
extremist, left-wing Democrat Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D, CA) was heard complaining to a lefty radio host
that many of her new colleagues are just too ... concerned with whether or not the actions of Congress
Feigns Southern Accent to Deride Tea Party Lawmakers. A Democratic congresswoman, frustrated
with her interactions with a new class of Tea Party-backed conservative lawmakers, mocked them this week by
talking in a Southern accent and referring to them as "Moe," during an interview on nationally syndicated radio
show. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., told liberal host Stephanie Miller that every time she tries
approaching one of the 87 freshman lawmakers in an effort to build relationships, they're always
complaining about something being unconstitutional.
Baloney: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, plugging his book "Making Our Democracy Work,"
says the Constitution should be adapted to modern times. Sorry, your honor, that's not how our
Democrat: 'I'm Tired of Reading the Constitution and All the Silly Things'. Be proud,
Washington's 7th congressional district, as your congressman, Jim McDermott, expresses his exasperation of
"silly stuff" like "reading the Constitution."
bill lists Shariah as felony. Tennessee is considering making it a felony to follow some versions
of the Islamic code known as Shariah, the most severe measure yet put forth by a national movement whose
members believe extremist Muslims want Shariah to supersede the Constitution.
The Vanishing Constitution.
The federal government has increasingly assumed unlimited powers and acted against the will of the people.
When they can't legislate, they regulate. The attitude is: We know you don't want it, but we are
going to force it on you anyway. Who are you to know what is best for you? You are just a pesky
voter. We are entitled to discount what you say because you cannot possibly grasp our progressive agenda.
Progressives began the gradual erosion of constitutional principles around the beginning of the 20th century.
The goal? To impose their superior wisdom on the rest of us. The way progressives measure progress
is by moving up from the vision of the founding fathers. But the Constitution gets in the way with its
restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. So it must be bypassed.
About Things to Come. Have you seen the television pictures of the tens of thousands of
demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol who are protesting proposed budget cuts for state employees?
If so, you've had an advance peek at the sort of demonstrations that will take place if state legislatures are
foolish enough to pass resolutions asking Congress to call a national convention to consider amendments to
the U.S. Constitution.
How Should We Interpret
the Constitution? The Constitution is plainly written. It was intended to be easy to
understand. The Constitution is also short. Why do we need a process for interpreting the
Constitution? If we have such a process for divining the meaning of the Constitution, why should
that process be secret deliberations of nine judges who are effectively unaccountable to the people?
The issue, after ObamaCare, has become more than academic.
Activism" Ploy. The new definition of "judicial activism" defines it as declaring laws
unconstitutional. It is a simpler, easily quantifiable definition. You don't need to ask
whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution. That key question can be sidestepped by
simply calling the judge a "judicial activist." A judge who lets politicians do whatever they want to,
whether or not it violates the Constitution, never has to worry about being called a judicial activist by the
left or by most of the media. But the rest of us have to worry about what is going to happen to this
country if politicians can get away with ignoring the Constitution.
Florida Bar vs. Free Press.
According to Mark A. Adams, writing for The Daily Censored, a news blog affiliated with Project Censored,
"The Florida Bar has proposed a new rule to eliminate coverage of court proceedings by citizen journalists."
Outstanding investigative journalism by Adams has uncovered this proposed rule which would allow only an employee
of a "traditional media outlet" or an official court reporter to bring audio or video recording equipment into
a court room. Not even a laptop computer would escape this infringement of free speech.
Administration Should Enforce Obamacare Anyway. Following a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
on the constitutionality of the new health care law, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
told CNSNews.com that the Obama administration should continue enforcing the health care law despite federal
judge Roger Vinson's ruling that it is unconstitutional.
about the various legal challenges and court decisions opposing Obamacare.
Non-Political Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives: Conservatives believe that we need
to try to interpret the Constitution in the way that the Founders intended it to be read and if we want to
change it, then we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Liberals believe in a "living Constitution,"
which is functionally no different than believing in no Constitution at all.
Preserving States' Rights
and the Constitution. It is a grim fact of history that strong central governments have gone hand
in hand with horror. Nazis, very quickly, essentially ended the system of strong state governments in
Germany. The Soviet Union was also ruled with an iron hand from Moscow, and the destruction of whole peoples
followed its central policies. The closer people are to the elected officials governing them, the more
freedom flourishes. The more remote the government, the less citizens feel like equals and the more they
seem like cattle. That is why the Founding Fathers considered states' rights as absolutely indispensable to
the purposes of our nation.
Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional
Acts of Congress. The U.S. Constitution, which created the federal government,
permits Congress to make laws only on those few objects which are listed in the Constitution.
The objects on which Congress has authority to make laws applicable throughout our Country are itemized
at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 (and in a few of the Amendments). Since the Federalist
Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the true meaning of the Constitution, let us see what
those Papers say about the extent of Congress' legislative powers.
The Hate Speech
Inquisition. There isn't a shred of evidence that deranged Tucson massacre suspect Jared Loughner
ever listened to talk radio or cared about illegal immigration. Indeed, after 300 exhaustive interviews,
the feds "remain stumped" about his motives, according to Tuesday's Washington Post. But that hasn't stopped
a coalition of power-grabbing politicians, progressive activists and open-borders lobbyists from plying their
quack cure for the American body politic: government-sponsored speech suppression.
Mourning in America. [Scroll
down] The timing of the [Tucson] tragedy fell right into the left's area of expertise: Exploiting
a crisis for political leverage by blaming it on the opposition, particularly those like Sarah Palin and
conservative radio commentators who are perceived as threats to the very survival of liberalism. In
addition to blame, their strategy is always to work toward shredding the U.S. Constitution, in this instance
to stomp on the first and second amendments by seeking to limit the free speech of conservatives and to take
away the right to own a gun.
We Don't Fetishize the
Constitution; We Dread Tyranny. What we recognize is that the Constitution is the supreme law
of the land. That is, what it says must be followed, until the text is amended or a new basic law
enacted. Because a Constitution that is not knowable, a Constitution that is twisty-stretchy and
dictated by the needs of the moment, is no Constitution at all. When the law becomes whatever the current
ruling clique decrees, then we have taken the first step (and middle, and last) on the road to serfdom.
Stupid Idea from the Donkey Side of the Aisle: Should someone send Rep. Robert Brady a copy of
the First Amendment? According to The Hill, the Democratic lawmaker "plans to introduce legislation
that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or
inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."
Congressman Slanders the Constitution. For more than 200 years, Americans have revered the
Constitution as the law of the land, but the GOP and tea party heralding of the document in recent months —
and the planned recitation on the House floor Thursday — have caused some Democrats to worry that
the charter is being misconstrued as the immutable word of God. "They are reading it like a sacred text,"
said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the outgoing chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution,
civil rights and civil liberties, who has studied and memorized the Constitution with talmudic intensity.
Hypocrisy of the Left. The fact is that the Democratic Party and the political Left in this country
use the Constitution as nothing less than an instrument of pure demagoguery. When it suits them to cite it,
they do; when it suits them to ignore it, they do; and when neither alternative suits them, they invent phrases out
of whole cloth (e.g., "separation of church and state," "jury of one's peers," "freedom of expression," "right to
privacy") that exist nowhere in the Constitution and invest these phrases with constitutional authority.
Read it again, John. I thought it
was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked
off its new session. ... But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good
naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their
lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication
to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.
distaste for the Constitution. The Constitution was read at the opening of the new session of the House
of Representatives yesterday [1/5/2011]. What was most remarkable about this was the almost hysterical opposition
from congressional Democrats and left-wing commentators. In what should have been a united celebration of the
nation's foundation document in a period of partisan rancor, liberals instead reinforced the view that they are profoundly
uncomfortable with the essential truths underlying American freedom.
stands for underlying values, principles. I salute the Republicans of the 112th Congress for
their initiative to restore the U.S. Constitution to its legitimate place of prominence in our public
discourse. Reading it aloud at Congress' opening session and requiring members to cite constitutional
authority when introducing new legislation are great ideas. It will help highlight that the real debate
is about the underlying defining principles of our nation that the Constitution exists to protect.
Constitution Senile? The congressional Republicans' decision to read the Constitution aloud on
the floor of Congress has forced some Constitution-contemptuous liberals further out of the closet, which is
an instructive development to behold. ... Liberals will mock conservatives for their stodgy nationalism and
their fealty to a document that is more than 200 years old. But their arrogance and mockery just
serve to confirm their disrespect for our founding institutions.
Rediscovers the Constitution. The House Republican majority has said it will require
members to cite the specific authority for any bill they introduce.
Timeless Constitution. In an interview last Thursday on MSNBC, Post blogger Ezra Klein complained
that "the text" of the U.S. Constitution "is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and
what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
He also claimed, without challenge from the MSNBC host, that the Constitution "has no binding power on anything."
Rights a forgotten document. According to a survey conducted earlier this month for the Bill
of Rights Institute by Harris Interactive, for example, nearly half of the American people — some
42 percent — believe that the communist phrase "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs" is part of one of the more important documents in American history. Through
ignorance and forgotten history, Karl Marx has morphed into James Madison in the mind of the American
people. Other aspects of the survey are equally disconcerting, though not necessarily surprising.
Fifty-five percent do not realize that education is not a First Amendment right; despite no such guarantee
anywhere in either the Bill of Rights or the body of the original Constitution.
2010: The Year They Came for the
Constitution. [Scroll down] Time after time, when asked about the constitutionality of their
congressional machinations, Democrat legends had a never-ending outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease. No human
being could possibly ascertain whether a bill could be considered constitutional if he or she had never even read
the bill. Yet, over and over again, Democrat Congress members were caught on tape saying exactly that —
that they had not even read the bills they were voting on. This despicable lackadaisical attitude on the part of our
lawmakers came into perfect focus the day a giddy-with-power Nancy Pelosi met with reporters just after she had performed the
legislative-blitzkrieg passage of ObamaCare. Still flush with the thrill of pyrrhic victory, Speaker Pelosi was asked
whether the bill, especially the individual mandate, was constitutional. Her response will be remembered in constitutional
infamy: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Messing With Texas:
The federal agency declares Texas unfit to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions and seizes control of the
permitting process. Jobs, states' rights and the 2012 presidential election are all involved.
unbridled bullying power must end. Authority to enforce the law is inherent in police powers.
Enforcement means investigations into violations of law. Given Obamacare's "unbridled" police powers, it would
be a historic, massive expansion of government authority to investigate or audit businesses and households. The
power to investigate is the power to bully and deprive people of rights, which is why government investigations are
subject to the Fourth Amendment. Protections under the Fourth Amendment, however, have eroded as Congress expanded
use of its powers to regulate interstate commerce.
Political End Runs.
The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people." But neither the Constitution
nor "we the people" will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.
Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs. ... The Constitution
cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it.
The Constitution keeps getting in the way
of the left's agenda. On December 13, 2010, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson signed
a Memorandum Opinion declaring unconstitutional a key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 — better known as ObamaCare. ... The
core issue examined by Judge Hudson was whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and
tax — a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce, to wit, the purchase of
insurance. Judge Henry correctly points out in his decision that no reported case from any federal
appellate court in history has extended the Commerce Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision
not to purchase a product — notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.
Health Care. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written and ratified by the states
for the purpose of allowing congressmen free rein to control every aspect of our daily lives. They were
written for the opposite purpose of leaving Americans free. ObamaCare flagrantly violates that principle.
Rep. Bachmann: Tax
Bill Violates Article 1, Section 7 of U.S. Constitution. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told
CNS News that the tax bill passed by the Senate on Wednesday [12/15/2010] violates the U.S. Constitution.
"Article 1, section 7 says that all revenue bills originate in the House and that is our province
and, of course, this originated in the Senate," she told CNS News in an interview Wednesday [12/15/2010]
on Capitol Hill.
Enemies List. The TSA's policy is simply to ignore and overrule the Fourth Amendment, and to
resort to brute force. This is what it regularly tells travelers who question the policy. It and
the DHS will sooner or later decide to ignore and overrule the First Amendment, or freedom of speech.
It can claim that my writing — or anyone else's writing, no matter how calmly or emotionally
composed — has caused others to oppose or "disrupt" the TSA's policies. Whether the actions
of those so inspired or so persuaded are criminal in nature, or lawful actions taken under the mantle of the
Fourth Amendment, is irrelevant. The threat implied in that directive is there are certain individuals
and organizations that must sooner or later be silenced.
Victory for Islamic Jihad Courtesy of the TSA. [TSA] security procedures are egalitarian in
nature and treat all travelers as suspects — except Muslims. One could even make an argument
that the TSA is also violating the Fifth Amendment, without even affording Americans the benefit of a grand
jury. Suspicion of having committed a crime necessarily implies a possible indictment. But who are
one's judges? Rent-a-cops. This is not the horrible death that jihadists wish upon infidels,
but it is the next best thing.
overreach. Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson's ruling yesterday that Congress can't compel
Americans to buy health insurance ought to be required reading for Congress members. They take an oath to
uphold the US Constitution, but most members are ignorant of what the document says and routinely enact laws
without giving the Constitution a moment's thought.
to be introduced demanding all legislation cite Constitutional authorization. New Jersey Republican
Rep. Scott Garrett plans to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives Tuesday [12/7/2010] that would
require all legislation to cite an enumerated power in the Constitution that grants authority for the bill's mandate.
Garrett, founder and chairman of the House Constitution Caucus, told The Daily Caller that the resolution is the
direct result of the American people's expressed desire for Congress to return to its Constitutional roots.
Leasing Your Life From The State.
The right to own property is actually one of the most intellectually challenging aspects of our Constitutional
system, as evidenced by how easily people are willing to abandon the defense of that right for others.
There is towering public outrage at the merest suggestion of compromised First Amendment rights for millionaire
actors or musicians, but nary a peep at the idea those same millionaires don't have the right to pass their
full estates — built with already-taxed earnings — along to their children. You
don't "own" anything that can be taken away from you when you're no longer alive to defend it.
Power Corrupts. From the
passage of ObamaCare to the offensive TSA screenings, this country's citizens have seen the Constitution trampled
upon with little to no acknowledgment that such actions would have caused our forefathers to board a ship to a
far-off land in search of liberty and freedom.
Commissioner Calls For Greater Regulation of News Media. In a Wednesday [12/1/2010] interview
on BBC World News America, liberal FCC Commissioner Michael Copps told correspondent Katty Kay: "I think
American media has a bad case of substance abuse right now.... we are going to be pretty close to denying our
citizens the essential news and information that they need to have in order to make intelligent decisions about
the future direction of their country."
to regulate news draws fire. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) pushed back on Monday [12/6/2010] against a contention by
a Democratic FCC commissioner that the government should create new regulations to promote diversity in news programming.
Barton was reacting to a proposal made last week by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who in a speech suggested that broadcasters
be subject to a new "public values test" every four years.
Tyrant's Thinking. A member of the Federal Communications Commission appears to want Washington
in control of broadcast news. What a shame that people with such ideas are placed in positions of power.
Why the TSA pat-downs
and body scans are unconstitutional. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, only 32 percent of
respondents said they objected to the full-body scans, although 50 percent were opposed to the pat-downs offered
as an alternative. That means opponents of the new measures will have to shift their efforts from the airports
to the courts. One advocacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has already filed a lawsuit, calling
the body scanners unconstitutional. Could this challenge succeed?
U.S. Airports a
"Constitutional Twilight Zone". Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the
Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers'
dignity while passing through scanners. But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution,
does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional
"twilight zone" — the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and
it has been this way long before September 11.
Judicial Imperialism. If judges are going to act like politicians, then they should be voted out
like politicians. Results of the recent elections showed that growing numbers of Americans are fed up
with "public servants" who act as if they are public masters. This went beyond the usual objections to
particular policies. It was the fact that policies were crammed down our throats, whether we liked them
or not. In fact, laws were passed so fast that nobody had time to read them. Whether these policies
were good, bad, or indifferent, the way they were imposed represented a more fundamental threat to the very
principles of a self-governing people established by the Constitution of the United States. Arrogant
politicians who do this are dismantling the Constitution piecemeal — which is to say, they are
The U.S. Constitution:
An Agreement by States. Initially, it must be stated that if there were no Constitution, there
would be no United States and, for that matter, no federal government. The several states at the time of
the drafting of the Constitution were each as separate and sovereign as France, Poland, or Germany today.
Recognizing that by virtue of their small size and common borders, there were efficiencies to be realized in
such areas as Postal Service, post roads, common defense, border control, international relations, and
commerce between and among the states, they entered into a partnership — a business arrangement, if
you will — to provide those services necessary to the common protection and promotion of the
betterment (the general welfare) of the states as a group and individually. The partnership agreement is
better known by its title: The United States Constitution.
TSA 'Strip and Grope':
Meet the Fourth Amendment. [Scroll down] Do these sorts of things violate our rights to be
secure in our persons against unreasonable searches? No act of Congress gave TSA agents the power to do
these things; the Congress delegated various powers to the TSA and the TSA developed the procedures, evidently
with no little or no adult supervision and even less consideration given to the Fourth Amendment. It appears
that substantial discretion is left to low-level TSA employees in deciding what is "reasonable" — substantially
more than is left to more "ordinary" and often better-trained law enforcement officers in deciding whether there
is reasonable cause to think that a crime has been or is being committed.
about the TSA's abusive and invasive searches.
De Facto Shariah Law
in America. Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent
events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud
constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws. The result is that
when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill
of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better
than for non-Muslims. Several recent examples illustrate this point.
Elasticity always has its limits.
NPR is unconstitutional.
Much has been said lately about the Commerce Clause in regards to Obamacare. What about the Commerce
Clause in relation to NPR? Undoubtably, if NPR's funding is constitutionally justified, it's done using
the Commerce Clause with an assist from the "Elastic" Clause. Everything's done that way. The
founders might as well have taken Article 1, Section 8 and said: "Congress can do whatever."
But they didn't. The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States," not to get involved in private business.
spending ahead. [Scroll down] If the Constitution doesn't say the Congress or President can do it,
then they can't! Unfortunately for us — for We the People — this amendment is utterly
ignored by the government it is supposed to restrain. So, dear citizen, please take a look at Section 8
of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It's not hard to do so. The section runs to
less than a page of printed material.
Is No James Madison. Unfortunately, the ideal of a federal government limited by enumerated
powers has eroded, slowly at first but gaining speed and momentum over the years, especially the last two.
Thus, when a reporter for CNSNews asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last September if the Constitution allowed
the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance or pay a fine, her response was, "Are you
serious? Are you serious?" That's why we need a Constitution Day now more than ever!
Contemptible Congress. Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., responding to a question during a town hall
meeting, said he's "not worried about the Constitution." That was in response to a question about
the constitutionality of Obamacare. He told his constituents that the Constitution guaranteed each
of us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Of course, our Constitution guarantees no such
thing. The expression "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is found in our Declaration
On Citizenship. A U.S. Court of Appeals has invalidated an Arizona law requiring proof of
citizenship to vote in state and federal elections. Not only our borders but our voting booths are
Silencing the Opposition.
The Obama administration has been itching for a way to control the flow of information for almost a year, and
multiple approaches have been tried. But all of these approaches have run into the same snag: the
First Amendment. President Obama began by creating his own Ministry of Truth, headed up by Cass
Honor the Constitution's
limits. Today's 223rd anniversary of the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution occurs as Americans
increasingly insist the federal government honor constitutional limits on federal power. The backlash
against overweening government is boiling over in the Tea Party movement, town-hall meetings, demonstrations
on the National Mall and in polling data.
A Party of 'No'
Means 'Yes' to Liberty. Progressives denounce conservative Republicans as the "Party of No," as
if they were ignorant and thoughtless. ... It is true that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution denominates
a number of significant matters which the federal government is not allowed to control. Thank Goodness!
Therein lay our freedoms, all of which are positive! Conservative Republicans are derided by progressives
for saying "no" to their liberal/socialistic agenda without offering alternatives. The Conservative reply
should be, "Thank you very much! We say "YES!" to our Constitutional directives!
It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be
in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government.
How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at
every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people? To get their
way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another.
Too Far. Philadelphia is charging bloggers $300 for a "privilege" license. In the city
where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Constitution signed, a right has become a privilege.
The scheme went virtually unreported until the Philadelphia City Paper ran a story last week noting that the
city requires privilege licenses for any business engaged in what local tax attorney Michael Mandale terms
"activity for profit."
back the Constitution piece by piece. Improvements [to the Constitution] have come in the form
of amendments that accomplished the abolition of slavery and giving women the right to vote. Those were
both long overdue by the time they passed. But there have also been mistakes made in the amendment process,
including the prohibition of alcohol and the decision to turn senators into panderers by making them directly
electable by the people instead of through the choice of each state's legislature. With more than a
hundred years of monkey-wrenching the prime law of the land through "progressive" court decisions, there is
also lots of damage to undo that is based on "precedent" rather than the plain language of the Constitution.
Grasp on Self-Governance. The accelerating pace of America's deconstitutionalization is no
coincidence. Over time, the political attacks on our system have become more brazen, while built-in
protections have been torn down. We are now in the precarious position of meeting our tyranny's
strongest push with freedom's weakest defense (institutionally speaking). We face a tough road to
recapture our vanishing right to self-government.
Taking Back Our
Constitution. Americans, the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't belong to
us anymore. We have let our guard down one too many times with regard to our constitutional responsibilities,
rights, and liberties, and now elected politicians control the document. ... It took a long time for Congress
and the government to amass these powers that they have taken from us, and they certainly won't relinquish them
as easily as we gave them up. But with unflinching purpose, we must begin to take the Constitution
back, as well as reimpose limits on congressional powers, for the sake of future Americans.
Government 'for the people'
turned upside down. Abraham Lincoln closed his powerful Gettysburg Address during the Civil War by
calling for a new resolve "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the
earth." But today, 147 years after Lincoln spoke, the nation is struggling with another identity crisis:
Our federal government is growing excessively large, tax-hungry, intrusive, and overbearing, contrary to the
desires of most "of the people" and contrary to the basic limited-government principles written into the U.S.
First Amendment. Last week, the House of Representatives passed the dishonestly named DISCLOSE
Act after weeks of backroom dealings and closed-door meetings. The bill, which aggressively attempts to
limit the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans, was brought to a floor vote after a 45-page amendment
was dropped into it the previous evening in the Rules Committee. For a bill supposedly aimed at
disclosure, the process by which it was passed was anything but transparent.
The Tenth Amendment Protects
Our Liberty. The Tenth Amendment embodied a revolutionary concept. Written just a few
years after we had won our independence from Britain, the Constitution fundamentally changed the relationship
between people and government. For millennia, the source of power and authority had always been kings
and government, and rights were seen as gifts by grace from the Monarch. The Constitution inverted that
understanding, with sovereignty beginning in the American people — beginning with We the
People — and power given to government only to a limited degree.
attack on the First Amendment. Democrats are committed to attacking our First Amendment rights
by passing a bill that will limit freedom of speech for groups with whom they disagree. ... The most troubling
aspect of this is that the Democrats are fully aware that this legislation will not hold up to the scrutiny of
the Supreme Court but, if passed, would have major implications on the upcoming elections because the court
probably would not address the issue before November. This Saul Alinsky-type approach is obvious:
Its goal is to take away our rights as Americans.
Save the Constitution, Liberals Must First Destroy It. Although Ray Bradbury's dystopic world of
Fahrenheit 451 book banning has not yet become reality, that day may arrive sooner rather than later in
view of the Obama administration's rush to control not only physical property such as banks, auto manufacturers,
hospitals, drug companies and the like, but also intellectual real estate such as thoughts and ideas.
Constitution of No.
When a reporter asked House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) during a press conference last year where the
Constitution granted Congress the authority to enact an individual health-insurance mandate, she answered,
"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Speaker Pelosi then dismissed the question and moved on to
the next reporter. This exchange illustrates the way "yes we can" liberals treat the Constitution:
They simply ignore it when it gets in the way of their big-government bailouts and takeovers.
Free Speech: Use It or
Lose It. Recently, independent journalism and blogging have come under attack on multiple
fronts. Congress is considering a new DISCLOSE Act that could force bloggers to file reports with the
government stating whether their political speech was coordinated with efforts by corporations or labor
unions — whereas traditional news media such as newspapers, magazines, and TV/radio would be exempt.
Health Care Statists
on the March. The American Medical Association's top journal publishes an article calling for
startling change to our medical and political system. Not content with passage of recent health care
reform, doctors Samuel Sessions and Allan Detsky suggest that US citizens ignore the literal meaning of the
Constitution. This would allow health reformers to transform the US medical system with fewer roadblocks.
Pity the Constitution.
To the century-old debate about whether the Constitution is "living" or static, we may now add yet another
argument, an even more woeful assault on the founding document of our country. ... There's a perfectly reasonable
devolution from an established Constitution to a living Constitution to a populist legal system. The
question becomes, if the Constitution is "living," who's breathing life into it? And with what intentions?
Which political party wants to take away your right to own a gun?
Ohio Democratic Party
unsuccessfully tries to get gun records. The Ohio Democratic Party tried unsuccessfully this
week to get information on all people licensed to carry concealed weapons in the Buckeye State. The
state party sent letters to Ohio's 88 sheriffs requesting the names and addresses of permit holders and
the dates the licenses were issued. Ohio has about 211,000 permit holders.
How Did We Get There?
[Scroll down] Today, it is estimated that two-thirds to three-fourths of federal government expenditures
do not have a foundation in its enumerated powers, and nearly all of the regulatory agencies are without any
Constitutional foundation. How did we get there? ... The Tea Party has made a start on the reclamation
effort. It seems to recognize that every dollar spent by the federal government is extracted under threat of
imprisonment from one of our fellow citizens. The journey back to liberty will be long, and it will be
Michigan Considers Law
to License Journalists. A Michigan lawmaker wants to license reporters to ensure they're credible and
vet them for "good moral character." Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate
reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers.
Why not License Politicians Seeking Public
Office? State Senator Bruce Patterson of Michigan recently rocked the journalism trade with
a proposal that would establish a state licensing board for journalists. ... Although Patterson's legislative
proposal is not likely to become law any where soon, his reasoning and logic could give rise to another
terrific idea: Why not license politicians seeking public office?
Senate to vote on Obama's
power grab. On Thursday, the Senate will vote on S.J.Res.26, a resolution to block EPA from
usurping powers never delegated to it by Congress. Failure means allowing EPA to go forward, apparently
in flagrant violation of our constitutional traditions simply because too many in Congress desire, but can't
bear to take responsibility for, more of the Obama agenda.
claim to Constitution — or lose it? One of the most worrisome social trends today is
that many Americans no longer claim ownership of the Constitution. Every time I write about some
constitutional issue, I inevitably hear from some smug liberal scoffing at how "Frank the Constitutional
Scholar" knows more than the judges and congressmen who reign in Washington. Apparently we are supposed
to be comfortable with the idea of letting President Obama, Harry Reid and the judges they appoint and confirm
tell us what the Constitution means.
Beware — They're Coming After You!. Just when you thought it was safe to start
expressing your right to free speech, Democrats in Congress are gearing up for a vote on a new piece of
legislation to blatantly undermine the First Amendment. Known as the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), this
bill — written by the head of the Democrats' congressional campaign committee — is
their response to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
It's the Constitution that's
Radicalizing Our Politicians. [Scroll down] Before the passage of the 17th Amendment, members of
the Senate were chosen by state legislatures to be the agents of those sovereign governments in Washington, D.C., much
like ambassadors today at the United Nations. While a member of the House would represent the intemperate passions
of the people as citizens, a senator would represent the very different interests of the people's state governments.
The interests of the two bodies were purposefully not aligned — their constituencies were different. The
17th Amendment allowed for the direct election of senators by the citizens of each state. What the U.S. had
prior to 1913 was a bicameral legislature competing bill-by-bill for the direction and scope of the federal
government. Now that both representatives and senators have an identical interest (pandering to the
citizenry), Congress is one herd of cattle in two pens.
Constitution in decline.
It's time to reform our administrative state. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was right when she said Congress
would have to "pass the health care bill so you can find out what's in it." That's because the
health care bill, like most major laws passed by Congress over the past hundred years, isn't really a law.
Rather, Obamacare is a series of assignments to bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services.
It is emblematic of what scholars call the administrative state, where legislative, executive and judicial powers
are delegated to unaccountable experts sequestered in a fourth branch of government.
Reasons Government Has Become Completely Dysfunctional in America. [Scroll down] Why do
you think we so seldom pass constitutional amendments any more? In all honesty, it's because Congress
and even many of the judges in our court system pay so little attention to the Constitution that they just do
anything they want. That's the biggest reason why our government does so many things slowly, stupidly,
and inefficiently: it's because our system of government was supposed to preclude the government from
doing those things in the first place.
Guam from Capsizing All in a Day's Work for U.S. Congressmen. If anything, the Constitution has
been nothing but a menace to politicians. Because of it, we're currently stuck with democracy. Thus
the morons who make up America actually have power, which is why politicians can't just ignore them and do their
important work. Luckily, as more and more of the economy is controlled by the government and thus politicians,
democracy can do less and less damage to the politicians' plans. Thus this disconnect will become less and
less relevant, as citizens will lack the power to do anything with their inane objections.
Congress Has Become an Institution of the
Useless. With the approval rating of the current congressional gaggle hovering somewhere
in the single digits, one has to ask: Can't we do better than this for $174,000 a year and the best benefits
package in America? It takes one's breath away to see the blatant disregard so many of our senators and
representatives have for the very Constitution they have sworn to defend.
What kind of
nation have we become? The issue is whether the politicians have violated their oath to
protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. If they have, is
anyone going to enforce the law and prosecute these people for this crime?
The States Must Rise Again. The
Constitution is the contract the American people have with one another, and enumerated in it are the rights
and responsibilities of all those party to it. But it has one serious flaw. It only works if you
actually abide by it.
Should Obama Be Impeached? Obama
is purposely undermining the US Constitution. In doing so, his actions make unstable every institution and
office below the presidency, since the Constitution is the foundation of every government power and official
Your Lords and Masters. There was a time in this country when the government of the United States
followed the Constitution and had greatly limited powers. Today, the Constitution is largely ignored and
our Congress can do almost anything it wants — and it does just that.
Government can't force
people to buy insurance they don't want. It is not part of my job as Colorado Attorney General
to tell our Congressional delegation how best to reform the nation's health care system. And I don't
see it as my role to opine whether the Patient Protection and Affordability Health Care Act is good public
policy. It is my job however, to defend states' rights and the constitutional rights of Colorado
citizens when the federal government oversteps its bounds.
owns you? The risk of 'unlimited submission'. Thanks to the "judgment" of Congress
that it can "create" new rights "ex nihili" (out of nothing) — namely the peculiar right to be forced
to buy health insurance — the states, and the individual citizens therein, have fallen under the
"dominion, absolute and unlimited," of the federal government. You will not find anything like
this power of Congress in the Constitution, which is why more than a dozen state attorneys general
have already filed suits to block the health-care bill from taking effect.
the Constitution : The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media
are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures — the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors.
Discussion over: You lost, deal with it. The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges
to the war on terror so easily...
Tell Us The
Total. One of the many reasons why so many North Carolinians opposed the ObamaCare legislation
is that the process that yielded it was full of backroom deals, prevarication, and confusion. A republican
form of government requires both clarity and transparency on the part of public officials, to whom voters have
granted the coercive power of government only grudgingly, with important restrictions and reservations.
You may have seen a list of these restrictions and reservations. It's colloquially known as the United States
The Looting of America:
[Scroll down] Our enemies aren't necessarily Democrats, and our salvation doesn't automatically reside
with Republicans. Our enemy is corruption, and both parties have a demonstrated spectacular lust
for it. That corruption is enabled by the enormous power concentrated in our oversized,
unconstitutional federal government. Our only hope is fielding and electing candidates determined to
drive the federal beast back into its constitutional cage. The "Roman holiday" is over. Either we turn
away from our porn, drugs, and games and restore our republic, or we board the cattle cars to the gulag.
The Interstate Commerce Clause and the Kitchen
Sink: Despite what liberals want you to believe, the Constitution actually gives very few powers
to the federal government; and if that power is not specifically spelled out, it was meant to go to the states.
Let's dispense with the supremacy clause. Democrats are insisting that federal law always trumps state
law when there is a conflict. (Apparently, that doesn't apply in Chicago when the issue is the
2nd Amendment, however).
and the incredible shrinking Constitution. The House of Representatives [voted] on the SENATE
health-care bill, which is illegal. The Constitution mandates that "all Bills for raising Revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other
Bills." What happened in this case is that the Senate took an unrelated bill that originated in the
House, amended it by completely removing the previous provisions and then substituting 2,400 pages of
bureaucracy-creating, money-stealing, rights-restricting health-care reform. This is a blatant
end run around the Constitution, and means that Congress can do anything it wants.
The Originalist Perspective.
Written constitutionalism implies that those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by
the meaning of the United States Constitution — the supreme law of the land — as
it was originally written. This view came to be seriously eroded over the course of the last century
with the rise of the theory of the Constitution as a "living document" with no fixed meaning, subject to
changing interpretations according to the spirit of the times.
The Meaning Of The Constitution.
Part of the reason for the Constitution's enduring strength is that it is the complement of the Declaration
of Independence. The Declaration provided the philosophical basis for a government that exercises
legitimate power by "the consent of the governed," and it defined the conditions of a free people, whose
rights and liberty are derived from their Creator. The Constitution delineated the structure of
government and the rules for its operation, consistent with the creed of human liberty proclaimed in
Rules Committee meeting descends into chaos. At the
House Rules Committee meeting, Democrats desperate to pass their national health care plan are running into
the barrier of basic civics. ... I just talked with a Republican rules expert, and it appears that there is
nothing in the rules of the House that will prevent Democrats from scheduling the vote for the amendments
package before the vote on the Senate bill itself — that is, voting to amend the law before
it becomes law.
Pence: Dems 'So Desperate' to Pass Health
Care They'll 'Trample Upon The Constitution'. Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Mike
Pence (R-Ind.) said Thursday [3/18/2010] that the Democrats' plan to pass the Senate health care bill
without a formal vote in the House goes against "our system of government" and shows that Democrats are
willing to "trample upon the Constitution itself."
Turning America Into a
Banana Republic. America was a democratic constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law,
a beacon of liberty to the entire world. But no more. After just one year of Barack Obama's
fundamental change, aided by the far left House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco, and the easily
confused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, America has been transformed from a Constitutional Republic
into a Banana Republic.
The Wisdom of Conservatism:
[Thomas Jefferson] favored the kind of government that was established by the U.S. Constitution, the kind of
government that was intended to protect individual freedom and to secure peace. However, over the last
hundred years, the government has morphed into a limitless monster swallowing up individual freedom, encouraging
irresponsibility, restricting economic growth and creating terrible problems in its wake.
vs. the 10th Amendment. Not surprisingly, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released
last Friday [2/26/2010] revealed that 56 percent of Americans think the federal government has
become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to their rights and freedoms.
Particularly apropos here is the feds' health care violation of the 10th Amendment, which is
part of our Bill of Rights and was ratified Dec. 15, 1791. The amendment says, "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."
Constitution: Another Victim of Obamacare. Reports have come out today [3/12/2010] that
the Parliamentarian has not ruled that the President must sign a law before it is considered a law for
reconciliation purposes. First, they came up with a strategy to get Obamacare passed in the House
without the House ever voting on the bill, now they have come up with a strategy and a ruling to get the
Obamacare bill to qualify as law without the President signing the law.
The Left's Great Motivator:
The Constitution was established to protect individual rights and liberties against a coercive government. Indeed,
it protects the very smallest minority in this country: the individual. ... However, the leftist ideologue dismisses
the Constitution's original intent and meaning, as it constrains the leftist's pursuit of ideological supremacy. To
confiscate a person's property, redistribute wealth, restrict free speech, or force a person to purchase a product would
violate the very principle the Constitution was established upon.
Obama, the Scourge of the Constitution.
Barack Obama taught a University of Chicago Law School course on the U.S. Constitution. ... Presumably, he knows
something about the Constitution, but that has not prevented him from ignoring parts of it that he finds
inconvenient and undermining others.
Privacy. In a hearing at
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an effort to overturn a lower court ruling, the Administration argued
that a cell phone user has no expectation of privacy therefore the government can subpoena any and all cell
phone records at any time for virtually any reason without the need for search warrant issued by a judge. ... Is
the real motive to spy on US citizens? On the surface it certainly appears so.
Police push for warrantless searches of cell
phones. This is an important legal question that remains unresolved: as our gadgets store
more and more information about us, including our appointments, correspondence, and personal photos and videos,
what rules should police investigators be required to follow? The Obama administration and many local
prosecutors' answer is that warrantless searches are perfectly constitutional during arrests.
Conservative Leaders Against
the Unconstitutional Individual Mandate. Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance,
and imposing any penalty — civil or criminal — on any private citizen for not purchasing
health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution. As such, it is unconstitutional,
and should not survive a court challenge on that issue. Supporters of the legislation have incorrectly
contended that the legal justification for the mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General
Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause. Given that this mandate provision is essential to
Obamacare; its unconstitutionality renders the entire program untenable.
The Editor says...
Don't get too confident that the Supreme Court will naturally find Obamacare to be unconstitutional, especially
if he can put another couple of leftists on the court before this question comes up. Remember, President
George W. Bush signed "campaign finance reform"* into
law assuming the Supreme Court would throw it out, and of course, they didn't, and we're stuck with it.
Constitutional Crisis and the Security Crisis. [Scroll down] First, there is the
matter of the ongoing constitutional crisis that, as al-Qaeda's attempted Christmas Day attack amply
demonstrates, is now endangering our nation. The Constitution gives the political branches plenary
responsibility for the conduct of war. The conduct of war includes the detention, trial, or release of
enemy combatants. The federal courts have no role except the one they have usurped. This brazen
power grab flouts the bedrock constitutional separation of powers, and the political branches do not
have to abide it. Indeed, as national defense is their chief responsibility, it is their duty
not to abide it.
Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight.
First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill — and it's
supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the
Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be
repealed by future Congresses. ... The Democrats aren't playing by the rules; they may be
violating the Constitution.
Epstein: The Reid Bill Is Blatantly Unconstitutional. At PointOfLaw.com, the distinguished
University of Chicago constitutional scholar Richard Epstein provides a painstaking, withering analysis of the
healthcare legislation wending its way through the Senate. He concludes that it is clearly unconstitutional.
The essay is lengthy and, in places, complex; but it is brilliantly done, accessible, and compelling.
Reid Bill is Unconstitutional. Senator Orrin Hatch has long urged that the legislation is
unconstitutional for its overreaching on individual choice. This paper focuses on the constitutional
question in the ratemaking context, by comparison to analogous regulations in the context of public-utility
Health Care Not In Constitution.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein says it comes under the Commerce Clause. Rep. Steny Hoyer says it's mandated by the "general
welfare" clause. Despite liberal wishes, health care is not a right. The "living Constitution"
that Democrats and their court appointees have given us may be the death of our freedoms. Their
constitution adapts to the times and serves the whims of the elitists. The Constitution is supposed to
limit government powers. It does not allow government to do anything it feels like doing.
Constitutionally, the next
time. Thanks in great part to the new, alternative and social media, people are talking and writing about
the Constitution — certainly more than I've seen in my lifetime.
Minority View: Constitutional Contempt. At Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Oct. 29th press
conference, a CNS News reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant
Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Speaker Pelosi responded,
"Are you serious? Are you serious?" The reporter said, "Yes, yes, I am." Not
responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter.
[Dispensing] with the
Constitution? Much has been made recently of the unconstitutionality of federal health care
reform, especially a government-run system (the "public option") that could devolve into a "single-payer"
system. The main objection is that the federal government has no authority to operate a health care
system. Indeed, the 9th and 10th Amendments forbid it, according to Larrey Anderson of American
or slavery? You make the call. Health-care reform? Let's call it what it is —
theft. Or if you prefer, "redistribution of wealth." The problem is, no matter what you call it, too many
Americans are in favor of requisitioning money from other Americans to pay for the health care of strangers.
And they don't care if it is legal or not. That's because most Americans have not bothered to educate themselves
about the principles on which our country was founded, nor about the rocks on which it will founder if it abandons
What our founders couldn't foresee. This
once-great nation is coming apart at the seams. ... This wonderful system has survived the rough and tough tumble of
political discourse for more than two hundred years. It survived because, despite their differences, the vast majority
of Americans were in absolute agreement about the purpose and goals of the government created by the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution. ... [But now,] Only a handful of Americans are aware of these enumerated powers,
or where to find them. Today, the federal government is as dictatorial as King George ever was...
to Preserve the Constitution. There is no question that [David] Hamilton, a former fundraiser
for ACORN and board member of the ACLU, is a radical. He has plainly said that judges have the right
to amend the Constitution by writing "a series of footnotes to the Constitution." Hamilton believes
judges have the ability to make the law and has demonstrated his determination to implement his own views
on social issues instead of following the precedents of the Supreme Court. He was chastised by the
Seventh Circuit for refusing for seven years to allow Indiana to implement an informed consent abortion
law despite the Supreme Court's approval of such laws. Even the ABA rated him as "not qualified"
when he was first proposed for a federal district court judgeship.
Can the 10th
Amendment save us? Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government
excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the power and reach of a centralized
federal government, slow down the juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this
administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the Constitution?
Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare.
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the
Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats' health-care reform plan is constitutionally
justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance "then there is
literally nothing the federal government can't force us to do."
Might Be a Constitutionalist if... [#1] You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe
that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.
[#2] You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies
another country, Congress must first declare war. [#3] You might be a Constitutionalist if you
believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.
Constitutional Question. [Judge Andrew] Napolitano says Congress has conveniently forgotten
that the federal government was granted specific enumerated powers, limited by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The power to regulate interstate commerce was intended to keep regular the trade between states and eliminate
unfair in-state advantages. Stretching the interpretation of interstate commerce regulation that Pelosi
and others are attempting to do, and applying it to a very intimate matter like health care is far beyond the
scope of the Commerce Clause.
No Health Care in the
Constitution. Notice that the Constitution doesn't say the "general welfare of the citizens
of the United States." It says "general Welfare of the United States." This clause only gives the
Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government.
It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other
kind of pork barrel project — including health care.
Nor does the Constitution authorize
the exploration of other planets.
for School Choice. President Obama isn't taking kindly to a television ad that criticizes his
opposition to a popular scholarship program for poor children, and his administration wants the ad pulled.
Former D.C. Councilmember Kevin Chavous of D.C. Children First said October 16 that U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder had recently approached him and told him to kill the ad.
Where does the Constitution Authorize Congress to Order Americans to
Buy Health Insurance? [Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick] Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting
Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority
to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that "nobody questions" Congress'
authority for such an action.
Pelosi: 'Are You Serious?' When Asked About Constitutional
Authority. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not explain where Congress gets the authority to force
Americans to buy health insurance, when asked by CNSNews.com, and dismissed the query with the response, "Are you serious?
Are you serious?"
In response to the same question...
Sen. Ben Nelson: 'I'm Not Going to Be Able to
Answer That Question'. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNSNews.com that because he is not a
constitutional scholar he was "not going to be able to answer that question" of where specifically the
Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.
Dems Shred The Constitution.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says it's constitutional to mandate insurance coverage. Congress, he insists,
has "broad authority" to make us buy things to provide for the "general welfare." Democrats' Alice In Wonderland
interpretation of what they consider to be a "living Constitution," where words mean what they say they mean based
on political considerations, gets more bizarre by the minute.
of Law versus Legislative Orders. The reason baseball games end peaceably, and players and team owners
are generally satisfied with the process, whether they win or lose, is that baseball rules are known in advance.
They apply to all players. They are fixed, and umpires don't make up rules as they go along. ... That Americans
have become ruled by orders and special privileges helps explain all the lobbyists, money, and graft in Washington.
We've moved away from a government with limited powers, as our Founders envisioned, to one with awesome powers.
The Education of Congressman
Hoyer. Congress is moving closer to enacting a law requiring all Americans to purchase health
insurance. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says that this is "like paying taxes." He's right
about that. But Hoyer made this statement as part of an effort to justify the health-care mandate on
constitutional grounds. Here he indicates that he doesn't understand the Constitution that he
took an oath to support. When asked what power the Constitution gives to Congress to enact this
legislation, Hoyer claimed that it came from the Constitution's "general welfare" clause.
Do Not Blame Barack. [Scroll
down] When I hear the [tea party] protesters complain about the violation of the Constitution, I have to wonder
we [sic] they've been. Did they miss the activist 1947 "separation of church and state ruling"? Have they
learned about FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society? Don't they realize that the federal government long ago
exceeded its constitutional bounds? Where is the constitutional mandate for Uncle Scam to involve itself in and/or fund
housing, food stamps, farm subsidies, Medicaid, global-warming research, mass transit, and school sports programs?
Insurance Is Unconstitutional. Federal legislation requiring that every American have health
insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a
mandate, however, would expand the federal government's authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented
degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.
Washington. The Framers of the Constitution knew that the document founding our democracy must
be the anchor of liberty and the blueprint for its preservation. Wisely, they provided a balance of powers to
ensure that no individual and no single arm of government could ever wield unchecked authority against the
Did someone mention President
and the Constitution. Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking
Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate
the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal
government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me
where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?" Rep. Clyburn, like many of his
colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers.
He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted
in the Constitution.
Constitution Day — What
Constitution? Americans are slow to rile, but in the end it will come down to millions of them
preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, thus their freedom and liberty,
by any and all means. What we are witnessing today is nothing less than an avalanche of freedom that
has been triggered by a government who has lost all allegiance to the constitutional limits on its power and a
collection of traitors who have thumbed their collective noses at the consent of the governed.
The Left's new
enemy: 'Tenthers'. Some on the left see them as radical and infinitely more dangerous
than the birthers. ... Who are the dastardly people who are now unhinging the left? They are the
"Tenthers," those who believe the 10th Amendment — reserving to the states and the people all
powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states — isn't dead letter.
The Editor says...
Scoff at the Constitution if you like, but you'll miss it when it's gone.
Is Health Care Reform
Constitutional? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the government can force people to
buy health insurance? And by what authority does it prohibit the purchasing of insurance across state
The Brevity Act: Time
for a 28th Amendment. Earlier this year, Congress passed a "Stimulus" Bill. It was 973 pages long.
This past Friday, the House passed a "Climate Change" Bill. It was more than 1200 pages long. This got me wondering:
how long, exactly, is our Constitution? How many pages did it take our country's founders to lay out the structure
and functions of our Federal Government?
Congress Needs A Read-The-Bill
Bill. Lawmakers voted on the stimulus and global warming bills without having read either.
Eventually they'll vote on health care legislation that could fund unrelated items. Time to end this
systemic fraud. The stimulus bill, signed into law less than a month after Barack Obama took office,
reached 1,434 pages and will eventually cost the nation more than $1 trillion.
Out of the Constitution. It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague
national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.
It ain't America no
more. In America, school security guards don't get to revise the First Amendment to suit
their whims. Nobody does. But that's exactly what happened at a Reston town-hall meeting
sponsored by Alexandria Democratic Rep. James P. Moran last week. Fairfax County Public School
Security Officer Wesley Cheeks Jr. took it upon himself to decide that one sign — among a
panoply found outside the event — crossed the line.
Is the United States
of America Doomed? America has faced grave crises previously: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the
Depression, Fascism, and Communism. In every instance, we managed to prevail. But with diminishing self-esteem
prevalent, it is easy to be pessimistic about our prevailing again. And yet we have ammunition in this battle that
Europe lacks — such as, God-fearing people, a formidable military, guns in the closet, talk radio and
of course our Constitution.
Majority believe government is doing too much. A new
Gallup poll shows that the number of people who believe government has its hand in too many areas of American
life has reached its highest point in more than a decade.
More Likely to Say Government Doing Too Much. Americans are more likely today than in the recent
past to believe that government is taking on too much responsibility for solving the nation's problems and is
over-regulating business. New Gallup data show that 57% of Americans say the government is trying to do
too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals, and 45% say there is too much government
regulation of business. Both reflect the highest such readings in more than a decade.
Introducing the Tenth Amendment.
The question to be explored is this. By what authority does the federal government intervene in health care?
Ah, the stumper! This is the kind of question that reduces arguments to sputtering. ... The idea that government
(whatever that is) exists to fix problems (whatever they are) is so ingrained in the common mentality that the very
question of what is proper is not even considered. Surely only cranks and constitutional fossils would ever go
there! But, of course, our founding fathers started there.
Health Care and
the Ailing Constitution. Here's the question I didn't get a chance to ask President Obama when
he stopped by Montana recently. So far as I know, no one else has asked it of him either: "If the
federal role in health care is not enumerated in the Constitution, and it isn't, then shouldn't it be reserved
to the states or the people as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment?"
Charity and the
good ol' Constitution. "Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public
money in charity?" It might be a question out of today's headlines, but it isn't. ... That question was
asked not of President Obama nor of Sen. Max Baucus or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but of the less well-known Tennessee
congressman, David Crockett.
Mark of the True Conservative.
As on his radio show, so in this book, [Mark] Levin is unapologetic in his indictment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and
successive generations of FDR acolytes — including LBJ and BHO — for perpetrating a
"counterrevolution" against the limited government prescribed by our Constitution and for creating and expanding
a welfare state that breeds dependency in the people and that — if not soon dismantled —
will bankrupt our nation.
Genius. The Founding Fathers designed our Constitution so as to make it very difficult to bring
about significant changes. New legislation requires majorities in both houses of Congress followed by a
presidential signature. ... This suggests the Founding Fathers were suspicious of quick and easy change.
The actual genius of America, and what makes our country unique, is precisely the opposite of change.
the US Run Amuck Constitutionally? The Ninth and 10th amendments specify that the federal
government may not do anything that isn't spelled out in the Constitution. That is why, after citing
200 pages of constitutional abuses and violations by our government, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
concludes in his book "Constitutional Chaos" that the whole government has run amuck constitutionally,
and we must question and be leery of its future motivations and decisions.
The easiest way to add two more Democratic Senators.
D.C.? The District [of Columbia] was allotted a delegate in 1970 precisely because the Constitution
doesn't permit it to be given a representative. In 1978, Congress passed a constitutional amendment to
grant the District a representative and senators because a statute couldn't grant the representation. The
amendment failed when only 16 states ratified it within seven years.
needs tutorial on the U.S. Constitution. Some federal employees are griping because a new law
requires them to take a 25-minute tutorial on the U.S. Constitution. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.,
… deserves our thanks for this great idea because most Americans, including public officials, are
abysmally ignorant of the text and the meaning of our Constitution. The only thing the matter with his
law is that he should have required a constitutional tutorial to be taken by judges and members of Congress.
Lincoln Legacy Revisited. The Founding Fathers established the Constitutional
Union as a voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to The Declaration of
Independence, which never mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly
references the states as sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence.
Signing Away Our
Constitution: The Bush administration ... has adopted the use of the signing statement,
affixed to legislation when signed into law, as a means by which the legislative power may be more fully
exercised by the office of the president, despite and against the Constitution's sole delegation of this
power to Congress.
No child left
behind — Republican ode to socialism. The Constitution grants no authority
for the federal government to be involved in education, and for good reason: centralizing all
learning in one distant spot is a stupid, narrow, dangerous, communist idea, one which has throughout
all the world's history led to despotism and slavery. Thus our forefathers limited federal power
to a few necessary objects like national defense and foreign policy, and not at all to education.
permissible? In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing
a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, "I find no
warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the
power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of
individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service
to the Constitution. "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" is an essential reference
book for anyone interested in our nation or in democracy in general.
Is Anything Not Interstate
Commerce? It is doubtful a single member of Congress — except Rep. Ron Paul, Texas
Republican — truly wants a Supreme Court that is serious about the Constitution's
limits on congressional power.
A living Constitution
for a dying Republic: FDR's extra-constitutional exploits opened the door for the
judiciary to … read into the Constitution what was necessary to make it conform to the demands
of the prevailing political will.
The issue here isn't medical
marijuana, it's the Tenth Amendment.
high cost of nuances: The question before the Supreme Court was not
whether allowing the medicinal use of marijuana was a good policy or a bad policy. The
legal question was whether Congress had the authority under the Constitution to regulate
something that happened entirely within the boundaries of a given state.
and the Weather Underground: It was Nixon, after all, who (in defiance of
the Constitution) created the Environmental Protection Agency. He signed the law
creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; enacted wage and price
controls; expanded the size and reach of the "civil rights" enforcement bureaucracy; and
in manifold other ways abetted the growth of the regulatory leviathan. Compared to
the routine crimes against the Constitution committed by Nixon by way of official policy,
Watergate was little more than a series of silly pranks.
Monopoly: Both sides in the actual Civil War were engaged in subjugation. The
South was protecting chattel slavery; the North was denying the right of secession on which this
country was founded. At the time the Constitution was adopted, several states, including
Virginia and New York, ratified it on the express condition that they might withdraw from the
Union at any time they deemed it in their interest to do so.
the People": A Mandate or a Motto? Article V of the Constitution
provides the process by which the Constitution may be amended. That process
does not permit the judiciary to do so by issuing rulings that contradict the
Constitution or by creating "constitutional" rights that do not exist in the
Constitution. When that happens, as can be seen in some of this year's Supreme
Court decisions, it is a government of men and not of laws. Consequently,
"We the People" ceases to be a mandate and is reduced to a mere motto bereft of meaning.
company is an option: Every single bit of evidence shows that states have a
right to secede. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits
secession. What stops secession is the brute force of a mighty federal government,
as witnessed by the costly War of 1861.
Support the Liberty Bill Act and put the
Constitution on our dollars. Four years ago students from Liberty Middle School in Ashland, Virginia
developed a presentation about the Constitution. In working with the kids, their teacher, Randy Wright,
had a thought: wouldn't it be great if our dollars carried a copy of the Constitution on back? The
kids liked the idea so much they decided to push politicians at all levels to make it happen.
( http://www.libertydollarbill.org - the Liberty
Bill Act web site. )
the Constitution: Socialism is not in desperate retreat,
as falsely proclaimed by the establishment press. On the contrary, it moves forward
confidently, aggressively and, for the most part, uncontested everywhere in the world.
would abolish Electoral College. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish
the Electoral College on Friday [6/6/2008], less than a week after the Democrats settled on how to handle delegates from
Florida at their national convention. "It's time for Congress to really give Americans the power of one-person,
one-vote, instead of the political machinery selecting candidates and electing our president," Nelson said in a release
announcing the amendment.
Crime Fighters vs. the Constitution.
The authors of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act did not even pretend they were exercising powers
granted by the Constitution. This week the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether they were, focusing on
a provision of the 2006 law that permits civil commitment of federal prisoners deemed to be "sexually
dangerous." Such preventive detention is bad enough when states do it, since it keeps people locked up
indefinitely after they have completed their sentences, based not on crimes they have committed but on crimes
they might commit. The federal version is even worse.
State: Sometimes the deepest changes in a political system sneak in almost unnoticed. So
it has been in the United States, which has quietly shifted from being a decentralized federal republic to
being a centralized democracy. … If the Founding Fathers could see us now, they'd surely ask, "How
on earth did you get yourselves into this mess?" We've managed to do nearly everything the
Constitution was designed to prevent us from doing.
None Dare Call It
Fascism. Fascism operates under the principle of "might makes right," through the exercise of raw,
naked governmental police power. In America today, the increasingly rough-shod violation of constitutional
rights by government agents in the name of "protecting the environment" or the "war on drugs" is an indication
of how far we are proceeding in this direction.
Let's do some detective
work. Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they can muster a
majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders and previous congressmen and
presidents, who could not find constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid
Getting back our
liberties: We all have a moral obligation to pay our share for constitutionally mandated
functions of the federal government, but we have no such obligation to have Congress take the earnings of one
American and give them to another American. Forcing one American to serve the purposes of another is one
way slavery can be defined.
Job security: Americans
have suffered decades of nutty decisions from the Supreme Court. At the present time our precious
American values are on the line, as arrogant judges decide for the rest of us how we should live our
lives. Now they purport to tell us how we can worship our God even though the Constitution
clearly forbids their meddling.
The Price of Incremental
Lawlessness: Article X of the Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from authority to
regulate our lives in any areas other than what is specifically given the federal government by the
Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given power to regulate education,
medical care, social welfare, or the private ownership of guns?
Basics: Our founding fathers gave us a Constitutional Republic. Because of them, we were
born free. Nevertheless, we could die slaves because we have lost sight of basic truths.
A Citizen's Guide to the
Constitution. Needless to say, the roles and relationships of the people, the states, and the federal
government to each other are still an issue 230 years later, and they are the subject of numerous other provisions
of the Constitution that [Seth] Lipsky annotates in an equally interesting fashion.