Who are the people who surround Obama and what are they trying to do?
A while back, Glenn devoted a full week of his TV show to looking into the men President Obama surrounds himself with, as Obama told us to do, to ascertain who he depends on to help develop his policy and agenda. A number of them are listed in the Group, Radicals, etc. The statements of the czars and others in the executive branch were in their own words. The conclusion he arrived at was the overwhelming problem in today's federal government was corruption.
In that light, he challenged each of us to question with boldness. The questions he asked are listed below:
1. Can we survive this debt? If yes, how?
2. Why the rush on health care reform, cap-and-trade?
3. Who is writing these bills?
4. Will Washington read and understand the bills?
5. Why are you called "grassroots" if you are for, but "AstroTurf" if you are against?
6. Our unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?
7. We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red ink?
8. The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN: How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?
9. It was so important for Congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it; why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent so far?
10. Former President Bush said he had abandoned free market principles in order to save them; how exactly does that work?
11. Why won't members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?
12. Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?
13. Was the "cash for clunkers program meant to save the Earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?
14. How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist, become a special adviser to the president?
15. Did President Obama know Van Jones' radical political beliefs when he named him special adviser?
16. The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill; why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?
17. If politicians aren't writing the bills and aren't reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000-page plus bills actually impose on the American people?
18. If the "public option" health care plan is so good, why won't politicians agree to have that as their plan?
19. If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what's on your mind, why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?
20. Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn't come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss ans speech you give is scripted?
21. Why would you want to overwhelm the system?
22. Is using the economic crisis to rush legislation through Congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about not letting a crisis go to waste?
23. What are the president's "czars" paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?
24, Who is "surrounding" the president in the White House?
25. Do any of the president's advisers have criminal records?
26. Are the president's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?
27. Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?
28. What role do they have in crafting bills?
29. What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders; where are they now?
30. What qualifications must one have to be a presidential adviser?
31. What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?
32. Do the "czars" have power?
33. Should a communist have the ear of the president of the United States?
34. What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?
35, Does the president know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?
36. How many people in the administration are connected to the Movement for a Democratic Society?
37. What role does George Soros play...constitutionally?
38. Why does the FCC have a diversity "czar"?
39. Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to "balance" the airwaves?
40. Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse?
41.Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next?
42. Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation?
43. Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government won't regulate free speech?
44. Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration?
45. If Lloyd has his way, stations ho don't comply to the government's definition of the "public interest" will have to pay a massive fine -- that helps support public broadcasting: What will be the definition of "public interest"? Who defines "public interest"?
46. Why should it be balanced? Because it's public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don't count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them.)
47. Why do we need a civilian force?
48. Who is posing a threat to us?
49. Who will this "force" be made up of?
50. Who is the real enemy?
51. Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?
52. Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into the civilian army?
Ponder these questions and demand answers from your elected representatives, local, state, and federal.
Goodbye Mr. Dodd – Lisa Richards
By Lisa Richards
January 6, 2009
The darling cotton top Senator Chris Dodd said goodbye to Connecticut today. Well, next year he will finally leave the state completely fed up with his lack of accountability, so Connecticut is stuck with the liberal mooch for 12 more months. But wasn’t it simply the most darling speech you have ever heard, or seen; a Senator saying goodbye, surrounded by his adoring wife and cute little girls?
At least this leader wasn’t announcing homosexuality, Latina mistresses, or fathered children campaign coquettes.
Dodd made reference to his sister, who died from cancer, his own battle with cancer, and the most beloved Senator in the history of drinking, driving, and lampshade attire: Ted Kennedy.
The farewell speech had all the pomp and ceremony of all phony send-offs. Dodd reference Kennedy so many times, one wondered if the late senator might sit up in his grave. Dodd told the press he passed four important pieces of legislature this year and the most important bill is his vote on the healthcare bill most Americans do not want. To that he added, that after giving his vote, he walked through Arlington National Cemetery, “on that snowy Christmas Eve day,” and “stood on the snow-covered hillside,” “looking down upon the grave” of his dear friend Teddy’s “brother’s grave,” and “thinking of Teddy.” It was like Frost was speaking on a wintry night.
Yes, let us pass this nearly trillion-dollar healthcare bill so Ted Kennedy can be canonized.
And let us not forget what day this is: January 6th, Epiphany Day. Dodd made sure his lips were suctioned tightly to the Pope’s robes by mentioning he was speaking on just such a day. It might lend help in forgiveness for aiding and abetting in the Wall Street disaster and questionable acquirement's of Irish property.
I love adorable leaders who use dead people and Catholic holidays in attempt to shove exorbitantly expensive healthcare bills down the throats of choking-to-survive Americans.
Dodd’s actions are Statist, they are reason he must leave office: Connecticut is fed up with his lack of discipline and neglect to protect the state’s right to self government and its rights and needs to create jobs through lower taxes and welfare reform he refused to amend and is the cause for Connecticut businesses leaving the state and factory job losses over the last thirty years.
Dodd denies his actions are his reasons for resignation. He said he is aware of his political standing with the citizens of Connecticut: “There are particular times and actions that have caused some of you [people of Connecticut] to question that confidence [you had in me], I regret that, [but] I have never wavered in my determination to do the best job for our state and our nation.” Yet Dodd insisted none of those “circumstances that happened over the last couple years” are the reason he is resigning.
His misdeeds have indeed forced him out, because the people of Connecticut have had enough of a Senator who “loves his job,” but does not prove so by doing his job.
In ending his speech, Senator Dodd made a particular remark, a declaration, which, unfortunately will go over the heads of most Americans. The rhetorical phrase is all too common and utterly and completely false: Dodd stated “The work to make our nation a more perfect union began long before I was elected to this Senate and it will go on long after I am gone.” Those words are correct, our Founders did work tirelessly “to form a more perfect Union,” but the next words are the unfortunate repercussion of the 35 years of Chris Dodd’s constant disservice to Connecticut. These utterances are erroneous and the foundation for Statism: “Our country is a work in progress and I am confident that it always will be.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34728843#34728843
America is no longer a work in progress. The development and evolution, the making steps forward to create a working country, ended in Philadelphia in 1789 when the American Founders signed the Constitution into law. The progress to create a nation was completed in 1789; the actual work we Americans today must continue is just that: continuance and preservation of the Constitution, upholding it and our Declaration of Independence and our great Founding. We must fight to keep it alive for future generations, not work to make a new union, which is what Dodd is de facto implying: change America.
Dodd’s words have been embedded into the minds of Americans for generations now, and Americans actually believe our nation is a revolving work in progress with a living, breathing Constitution that devolves through evolution.
Dodd, and many leaders in power in both parties, are the reason the country is on a collision course through Eurocratic ideology: the belief America must be remade over into something better suited: Statism, the control of government over every aspect of people’s lives.
Chris Dodd is not the only leader who must resign, we the people have a charge to keep, a role we must take part in, and that is to see that every leader who has served us with ill will be removed and replaced with Constitutional Originalists.
Chris Dodd was in office 35 years, eight terms, and four decades in the National Assembly; that is too long for anyone to serve without the temptation to become lazy and consumed with power and pomp while worshiping faux monarchy they pay homage to through with disastrous votes for bills that will, if enacted, destroy this nation and its people.
Lisa Richards Copyright ©™ January 6, 2009, All Rights Reserved
www.lisa-richards.com©™
A Living Constitution Means Death to Our Republic
The very idea of such a thing as a "living constitution" is abhorrent to anyone who believes our Founders knew what they were doing when they framed our Constitution. For 150 years, the Constitution stood as the Founders and the people intended, to be read and interpreted as originally written, not what later generations of jurists wanted it to be. The Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments were the last that dealt with the authority of the federal government defined in the Constitution. All amendments ratified since that time have dealt with specific modifications to the plain language of our Constitution. What has happened since 1900 to cause the federal government's massive intrusion into the rights reserved to the states and to the people, the enumerated rights created by the Congress and the judiciary not included in the Constitution?
Prior to the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the courts still pretty much adhered to the original intent and language of the Constitution, with few exceptions. FDR grossly exceeded the authority granted him, as well as that of the legislatures misguided attempts to end the Great Depression, much as Obama and the Congress are currently doing. World War II ended the Depression, not FDR's social and economic engineering. The door was now open for the judiciary to follow the same path -- to read things into the Constitution that are simply not there.
The Warren Court and other progressives (liberals), even going back to the Marshall Court, embraced the idea that the Constitution must change to fit the times. Justice Holmes explained that when it came to "the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of begetters." (ITS ALIVE). Holmes believed that the decision had to be made "in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what said a hundred years ago." Holmes was at least honest enough to realize that Article VI, which makes "all Treaties...the supreme Law of the Land," had been superseded by the later Tenth Amendment. The case he was deciding was Missouri v. Holland (1920), a case involving migratory birds.
The Constitution is a contract between the generations. Article VI declares that the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." Article I includes a list of powers granted to Congress, a list of powers denied to the Congress, and a list of powers denied to the states. Article V provides mechanisms for amending the Constitution. Its presence is a reminder that when the people ratified the Constitution, it was understood that the government it created was limited.
Judicial activist courts became the norm in the federal courts. Judges embrace the "living constitution" and legislate from the bench, basing rulings on however they feel about the subject at hand or whatever special interests are promoting. Activist judges are rampant throughout the federal system and do no service to the Constitution they are sworn to in Article VI, Section 3.
The Warren Court threw the Constitution away in the case of Trop v. Dulles (1958). They noted that the Constitution should conform to "evolving standards...that mark the progress of a maturing society." As Jefferson warned, the judiciary became "the Despotic Branch." The courts are becoming more like political creatures than the constitutional role they were given.
The Federalist Papers are the most definitive source for what our Founders intended. Federalist No. 73 notes, "Judges...by being too often associated with the Executive...might be induced to embark too far in the political views of that magistrate, and thus a dangerous combination might by degrees be cemented between the executive and judiciary departments. It is impossible to keep the judges too distinct from every other avocation than that of expounding the laws. It is particularly dangerous to place them in a situation to be either corrupt or influenced by the Executive."
Federalist No. 78 further notes, "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments."
Federalist No. 81 makes it abundantly clear, in no uncertain terms, "There is not a syllable in the Constitution which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution..."
Speaking of judicial activism, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says, "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to do 'what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
Our Constitution was written and ratified "in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." As such, it established a republic ruled by laws, not men. Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." Our Constitution established a Republic intended to reflect the consent of the governed. John Adams said, "A Constitution of Government once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
The "nine old men", as some liberals called the Supreme Court in the 1930s, were committed to a contract between the generations, not a living, breathing, constantly mutating Constitution. By contrast, the "living constitution" theory became a method of superimposing the personal policy preferences of a majority of the Supreme Court over what the Framers intended.
NOW WHAT?
Now that we find ourselves in the predicament we are experiencing, a government that is unresponsive to the people, could care less about the constitutionality of the laws they pass, and have spent our children's and grandchildren's future as if they don't even care, what can we do to change the situation? Our choices, unfortunately, are somewhat limited and will take a long time to correct what these criminally negligent politicians have done.
Armed revolution is not a particularly good solution, we must use the other tools we have. The electoral process can be used to replace these crooked, corrupt politicians, other solutions, that I believe are demanded, will take longer:
First, a constitutional amendment originated by the people, through the states, to require any law passed must be enumerated in the Constitution. This will require other amendments to redefine and clarify the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause to conform to the original intent and meaning of the people who ratified the Constitution.
Second, an amendment to redefine the powers vested in the federal courts and to eliminate the lifelong appointment of judges. They must not be allowed to interpret the Constitution, only the laws in relation to the Constitution.
Third, an amendment to require that all spending bills require a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass, along with a balanced budget amendment, with exceptions for natural disasters and war, to stop deficit spending.
Fourth, eliminate the Federal Reserve and put the responsibility for monetary policy back in the Treasury Department where it belongs.
Fifth, an amendment to require ANY increase in any tax to pass both houses by a two-thirds majority.
Sixth, an amendment to term-limit ALL members of the Congress.
If it takes a Constitutional Convention, called by the states, so be it. Those who fear the Constitution can be discarded are misguided. The Constitution itself provides only a way to amend it, no lawful method to scrap it. Additionally, the likelihood of a majority of delegations from the fifty states going along with such a radical move is highly unlikely.
The states must step up to the plate and put some teeth behind the Tenth Amendment resolutions they are passing. A return to the practice of state nullification, used prior to the Civil War, of laws enacted by the federal government that they deem are unconstitutional is absolutely essential to put a halt to the power grab by the feds. The Tenth Amendment means something and must be enforced by the states, since the federal government and the federal courts refuse to honor their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, especially against domestic enemies.
The federal government, the national politicians, the bureaucrats, and the courts must once again be taught that the power, under our Constitution, belongs to the people and we refuse to relinquish our liberties and our God-given natural rights.
I am sure many of you can add to the steps necessary to take back our country and your comments are invited and welcome.
"Evey man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty ought to have it ever before his eyes that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it." JAMES MADISON -- Federalist No. 41.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." PATRICK HENRY -- In a speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1778.
"Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world grateful for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theater, in favor of private rights and public happiness." JAMES MADISON -- Federalist No. 14.
Nullification – What is it?
I have written previously on this subject, however, it is the best weapon We The People have, through the state legislatures, to bring the federal government to heel.
In any discussion of politics, constitutionality, congressional mandates and laws, federal regulations, etc., the very mention of the word "nullification" is like throwing a bomb into a crowded room. It is the one method the states possess under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to tell the federal government to go fly a kite, we will not obey their unconstitutional actions.
In short, nullification is a process, mostly dormant since the Civil War, by which a state legislature can tell the federal government that we believe their actions are unconstitutional and that we nullify their law, regulation, etc. on that basis and will not comply. The popular belief is that nullification is unconstitutional and a discarded political doctrine; this could not be farther from the truth. It was enshrined in the ratification process of the Constitution by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799.
An example of the power of nullification was seen February 1, 2007. The Montana House of Representatives unanimously passed two bills condemning the federal REAL ID Act as an improper use of federal legislative power. Both bills were designed to exempt Montana from the Act; however, the bill introduced by Rep. Diane Rice of Harrison went a step further, stipulating that "the legislature of the state of Montana hereby nullifies the REAL ID Act of 2005, as it would apply to this state." Since that time, several states have passed resolutions or laws nullifying their participation in the highly corrupt national health care legislation winding its way through Congress presently.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In opposition to South Carolina's decision to nullify the Tariff of 1828, President Andrew Jackson denounced the idea that a state could "annul a law of the United States," arguing that nullification was "incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." This is the Supremacy Clause argument, though the Constitution is plain in that the federal government is only supreme in its enumerated powers and, by reading the Supremacy Clause again, it plainly states that the Constitution and all laws made persuant to it are supreme, not the federal government itself or any law it passes on a whim. Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts agreed with Jackson in 1833, as did Abraham Lincoln in 1861. These men were all nationalists, rather than federalists. They all believed that the Constitution had formed a consolidated nation-state, not a confederation, and thus they held the belief that the Union was sovereign over the states. Their other mistaken belief was that the Constitution had been established among the "people of the United States" in the aggregate sense, not among the states themselves, and hence, it was not a compact as the Jeffersonians contended, and those who ratified the Constitution did.
Those who believe in a nation-state need to reconcile several serious problems that go all the way back to colonial times when the American Union actually began. The thirteen original colonies that became states were always separate political entities and attempts to institute a common government over them were always defeated by differences between the colonies or by interference from England. The Declaration of Independence did not create an American nation, it merely stated that they were united in their desire to be free of British rule. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Martin Luther stated, "At the separation from the British Empire, the people of America preferred the establishment of themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties, instead of incorporating themselves into one."
When the Articles of Confederation were cast aside in favor of a new Constitution in 1778 and presented to the states for ratification. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified by the state legislatures, the Constitution was ratified by the people of each state in convention called for that purpose. The states never created the Constitution, the American people did. The new Constitution was a confederation or compact between the ratifying states, with the federal government created to be their agent, not their master.Even Alexander Hamilton, the earliest proponent of a strong federal power, repeatedly referred to the Constitution as a compact to which the states had acceded, and the new Union as a confederacy and a confederate republic.
As the Constitution plainly states, the powers of the federal government are delegated, not inherent and in ratifying the Constitution, the states agreed to give up certain sovereign powers (such as the power to declare war) in deference to having those powers exercised by the Union on behalf of the states as an agent of the states. All other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are retained by the states as defined in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The states certainly did not, nor did they intend to, give up their sovereignty in any other manner than defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Alexander Hamilton surmised in the Federalist Papers that "it will not follow that this doctrine (the supremacy provision of Article VI) that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will merely be acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such, ,,,It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made persuant to the Constitution..." This concept was echoed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.
A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RESIST
If a government is empowered to do only certain things, and is forbidden from doing anything else, it follows logically that any attempts made by that government to reach beyond the scope of its rightful powers are illegitimate and any law passed or any regulation not contained in those delegated powers are not legitimate or constitutional. It also follows that if a state has rights and powers reserved to its exclusive use, it must also possess the natural right to defend itself and protect those rights. This is where the doctrine of nullification is valid. The states must step up to the plate and defend those rights with every means at hand. Nullification serves precisely this purpose.
Thus, Andrew Jackson's assertion that nullification is "incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great objective for which it was founded," is dead wrong, and any others who believe that the federal government is supreme over the affairs of the states are just as wrong. Federal usurpation is expressly forbidden by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and also by the limitations in the Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
In the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 14, The great object for which the Union was formed was to serve as "Our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as they can only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the old world, and as the proper antidote for the disease of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments..."
It then necessarily follows that nullification -- a state exercising its natural right to self-defense in protecting its reserved rights and powers -- is not destructive of any of the things Madison surmised, but usurpation of a state's rightful power is most certainly destructive of those ends, as we have seen time after time throughout our history
Presidents who were usurpers, such as Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Both Bushs, and Obama have killed more than half a million Americans in undeclared wars and other police actions and peace keeping missions, none of which were constitutionally authorized by a declaration of war from the Congress. Unconstitutional acts of Congress and activist judges have severely restricted our commerce and disrupted our common interests with partisan, political corruption, exacerbating the "disease of faction" feared by Madison and others. We are now beginning to see military establishments, the like of which subverted the liberties of the old world, as federal paramilitary raids increase against the civilian population, and as the current government seems determined to use military forces in future "domestic crisis" situations, with or without state permission or cooperation, directly in conflict with the Posse Comitatis Act.
TWO COMMON OBJECTIONS TO NULLIFICATION
Since the early days of our history, the nationalists, especially Chief Justice John Marshall, have planted the idea that the federal courts are the final arbiter of the Constitution, and the majority of supposedly educated legal scholars and professionals believe it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In Federalist No. 81, Alexander Hamilton, himself a nationalist, remarked that there is "not a syllable in the plan under consideration (the Constitution) which directly empowers the national courts to construe laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is evident opposition, the laws ought to give way to the Constitution." There is no place for activist judges or courts to legislate from the bench or to make up new rights never intended under the Constitution. The idea of a living constitution, preferred by the progressives (liberals) is a myth. The Constitution means exactly what it says.
Additionally, since the election of 2000 was thrown into the courts, they have become particularly politicized. Blind justice was now on the take. Currently, politicians go to great efforts to appoint and confirm judges who agree with their agenda, tilting the scales of justice. Our sacred liberties have been supplanted by the advancement of political agendas operating in the halls of justice. The Constitution no longer reigns supreme, it has been replaced by politics.
The Framers of the Constitution never foresaw the way political parties, with their partisan wrangling, would corrupt our system of government, particularly the courts. Marshall said, "there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere." He had it wrong when he decided the federal courts should fill that role. The ultimate arbiter is the people, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or two-thirds of the states. This provision has allowed us to settle our differences peaceably, rather than resort to force as other nations have done.
In conclusion, nullification is a constitutionally consistent principle whereby sovereign states can defend their reserved rights and powers from usurpation, far from being a discredited political doctrine. It is consistent in every aspect with the Constitution's fundamental principles, particularly the concepts of delegated powers and the separation of powers. It should easily be recognized that it is not a state nullifying an unconstitutional law, it is the Constitution itself, since the Constitution limits what the federal government may lawfully do and excludes all other inconsistent actions.
If we are to restore constitutional government in the United States, the states must take a stand and use the tools available. After all, if nullification does not work, secession is the next logical step.
The Blind Following The Blind – Stare Decisis
"Stare Decisis is a maxim among...lawyers, that whatever has been done before may legally be done again: And therefore they take special care to record all decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind." JONATHAN SWIFT, Gulliver's Travels.
Stare Decisis is a doctrine in western law to uphold precedents and maintain former adjudications, usually with little consideration of whether the were decided rightly, constitutionally, or wrongly, unconstitutionally.The doctrine has taken on a life of its own in modern law and is used as a litmus test in confirmation hearings by the Senate for federal judges.
The problem with this doctrine is that all precedents are assumed to be unbiased legal decisions rather than political decisions and to have the authority of the Constitution and the precedents on which they are based and thus, later precedents become more authoritative. The fallacy of this assumption can be seen in two Supreme Court decisions handed down, and the opinions written by Chief Justice John Marshall. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), a dispute over taxes in interstate commerce, he interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution as a means to expand federal power. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), a dispute over state tax on a federal branch bank, he walked all over the original intent and meaning of the Constitution, greatly expanding the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause and granted "assumed rights" to the federal government.
The Necessary and Proper Clause reads: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Marshall, or no other justice of the Supreme Court, has the authority to interpret the Constitution, for it means what it says. Additionally, the Clause itself plainly states that it can only be used to execute the powers vested in the federal government by the people, who ratified the Constitution.
These decisions and opinions by Marshall were wrongfully decided yet they have been expounded upon and enlarged to support the many unconstitutional laws, regulations, and mandates placed on the states by the federal government and not one Supreme Court in over two hundred years has had the courage or desire to reverse them. Stare Decisis, in this context, is an abuse of constitutional authority
The General Welfare Clause reads: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Impost and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." The General Welfare Clause is obviously a taxing authority to pay rightful debts and provide for the common defense. There is no authority in the Clause to pass laws creating programs that will require a future tax -- that came from the Sixteenth Amendment. Claims that this clause gives Congress the power to do anything for the general welfare, other than the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, is ridiculous.
In addition, the doctrine tends to give opinions in the case at hand the force of law. Only the orders and findings have the actual force of law, opinions are simply commentary based on the judges own biases and political agenda. Flawed and poorly-worded opinions that exceed the underlying constitutional enactments and define a legal position then become precedent for future decisions. This is akin to supporting a flawed philosophy with one even more absurd. Judges exacerbate the problem by their failure or inability to clearly delineate the boundaries between decision and opinion. Opinions are best left to the talking heads on TV.
The doctrine favors, or tends to disfavor, legal arguments that precedents were wrongfully decided, especially if the precedent comes from a higher court. pigheadedness reigns supreme. In her conformation hearings, Justice Sotomayor used this defense to support her decisions and opinions that were eventually reversed by the Supreme Court. Most courts make it more difficult when they require precedent to be based only on the most recent cases. Too often, recent precedents, when traced all the way back to the origin of the theory, rely on wrongly decided or greatly expanded meanings of the original question at law.
It has been estimated that the number of unconstitutional legislative actions by the Congress approaches 20,000 each year, nearly the total number of bills introduced each year. There have been many thousands of laws enacted on the flawed decisions and opinions in Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland. Virtually every one of these laws is unconstitutional based on the original intent and meaning of those who ratified our Constitution, yet courts continue to uphold the many thousand precedents based on these rulings by the Doctrine of Stare Decisis.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856 defines the proper use of Stare Decisis:
"Stare decisis. To abide or adhere to decided cases.
2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not after-wards departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundred of such overruled cases may be found in the of American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104,5."
The escape from constitutional legitimacy by the courts is not only a result of incompetence or confusion, instead, it has been, especially in the current and past century, a deliberate attempt to extend precedents beyond original constitutional understanding. It is often supported by selectively choosing cases that support a particular point of view and by "friend of the court" briefs by interest groups pushing an agenda that does not necessarily represent the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.
By treating court opinions as though they are law and not restricted to the particular case, the Congress. the courts, and yes, We The People become accomplices in delegating legislative powers reserved under the Constitution to the judiciary, which is forbidden by Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court doggedly clings to this flawed doctrine as if it were Divine Law handed down by the Creator. Rare has been the occasion when the have been willing to reexamine a prior decision of the Court or to reverse one wrongly decided.
Why We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment
The federal government has been living on the backs of future generations with their outlandish deficit spending for too long. The practice of printing money by the Federal Reserve exacerbates our dependence on other nations, some unfriendly, to finance this deficit. If history has taught us nothing else, politicians will never stand up to the special interests who finance their campaigns and the will never curtail spending that comes in conflict with their own personal agenda. President Obama, during his campaign, promised an end to pork-barrel spending, yet every bill passed in the 111th Congress has been heavily laden with unnecessary spending, sometimes used as a bribe to secure votes, for pet projects of nearly all members of Congress.
The long-term consequences of the runaway deficit spending that we are currently experiencing will have devastating effects on future generations as well as the economic strength of our nation. We owe it to our children to restore fiscal discipline to our government. A balanced budget is no longer a wished for future goal, it must be a top priority if we are to restore and maintain the economic growth of the past, rather than becoming a third world economy. The national debt is up to our necks and if we don't do something about it now, we will soon drown.
Inflation, even hyper-inflation, looms just over the horizon. What happens when twenty percent of your income is lost to inflation in a single year, if inflation reaches twenty percent as it did in the 1970s? Your standard of living will rapidly decline and endanger your children's and grandchildren's future. Every time the federal government spends one dollar more than what it has in tax revenue, it must borrow that dollar adding interest payments to the deficit, not to mention devaluation of the currency. As we have seen in recent months, lack of confidence in the U.S. economy is driving interest rates up to finance the debt. The other alternative, printing more money, as is happening now, further contributes to inflation and drives the value of the dollar down. We must, as a people, decide whether to spend more on government programs, primarily aimed at social engineering, or to encourage economic growth. There is no other choice. The federal government refuses to deal with the reality of the results of so much deficit spending and pretends that deficits don't matter. They do matter because the day will come when the debt must be paid or, our country will become another failed nation, much as California is a failed state.
The Federal Reserve, an unaccountable, semi-private institution that control's the nations money supply, has the power to create money and credit out of thin air. The greater the quantity of money, the higher is the rate of inflation and the less goods and services we can buy for our dollar. Instead of taxing you directly, the government causes inflation to increase revenue and your money buys less and your real income goes down.
Thirty-two states require their legislatures and governors to pass balanced budgets; why can't we demand the federal government to do the same? You have to live within your means, if you are a responsible person, why is the government exempt? The Senate passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982 and the House followed suit in 1995. There has never been enough support in Congress to amend the Constitution. Thirty-two states have passed resolutions or laws to require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The number is two shy of the required thirty-four to call a Constitutional Convention, and if four more, thirty-six, states can be persuaded to pass resolutions, they would have the power to ratify such an amendment without the consent of Congress or anyone else, the federal courts have no power to stop a constitutional amendment.
Since the federal government refuses to rein in spending, the time has come to pass a balanced budget amendment. Naturally, exceptions must be provided in case of war, a declared war, or a catastrophic natural disaster. The practice of the administration and Congress declaring everything a national emergency must be prohibited. The most promising course of action is through the states as described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
A Constitutional Crisis
The United States is currently experiencing a constitutional crisis, the likes of which we have never seen in our history. We are beset with activist judges who create new "rights" with no constitutional foundation, an ultra-liberal president that is spending our way into bankruptcy while cutting defense funding, and an out of control Congress that is hell-bent on increasing taxes and regulate everything they can possibly think of.
The perfect example is a press conference held by House Speaker Nancy (idiot) Pelosi on October 29th, 2009. A CNS News reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her reply, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" The reporter responded, "Yes, yes I am." She refused to respond further. Later, Pelosi's press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com, "You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question."
Constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, stupidity, or unwillingness to adhere to her oath of office, is mirrored by the majority of both houses of Congress. The lack of constitutional knowledge, and outright contempt, should trouble every American, no matter what your opinion on the health care bill is. Do we intend to remain a free people, or surrender our liberties to an out of control federal government.?
Every session of Congress since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act "To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes." It has never exceeded 54 cosponsors in the House. This year, 22 senators agreed to cosponsor the Act, the first time any senator has signed on. The contempt for our Constitution by members of Congress is quite evident, less than 15 percent agree that the laws they pass should comply with the Constitution.
In his latest book, scholar Matthew Spalding makes the case that we do not need to remake America, for we have all the tools we need at hand in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He writes, "We do not need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles. The change we need is not the rejection of America's principles but a general renewal of these permanent truths about humanity, politics, and liberty -- the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country's greatness." His book "We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming our Future" furnishes a road-map to where our country should be.
If each and every American does not know and understand these principles, our founding principles, "The meaning and power of these ideas will be lost in the course of a lifetime if they are not taught to each generation of students," Spalding surmises. "The public mission of our schools in the past was to transmit this knowledge to young Americans as the most important requisite for democracy. This must be the mission of our schools again."
"One small step in this direction would be to require all legislation to contain an explanation of its constitutional authority, compelling at least a consideration of each proposal's constitutional legitimacy, Spalding writes. That is far from what we see now. Congress no longer deliberates, they just ram through whatever unconstitutional legislation they or the president want, without ever even reading it or considering its constitutional justification.
Spalding notes. "Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of 'laws' are promulgated by administrative agencies in the guise of 'regulations' -- a form of rule by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public." And even worse, the courts have thrust themselves into the business of legislating. "It is generally supposed that judges have the final say concerning every constitutional question. These arguments need to be challenged and overcome in the public view, both as a matter of historical accuracy and a necessary condition for reinvigorating limited government, constitutionalism, and the rule of law. By allowing the Constitution to be treated as a malleable document, we should not be surprised that the 'living' Constitution has deadened the political mind of many Americans."
Thomas Jefferson once warned, the principles of our Declaration and our Constitution must again become "an expression of the American mind." We can -- and must -- insist that our leaders again abide by true constitutional principles. But we as a people must rediscover them if we are to reclaim our future.
Supreme Court Doesn’t Understand the Constitution
When the Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, they legislated from the bench, rather than interpreting the law in relation to the Constitution. They ruled in the case that created a new right to rape a child without fear of the death penalty.
They used the Eighth Amendment prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" to come to their decision, which brings into contention the legality of the death penalty in any case. The Court used a "new societal consensus" to justify its ruling. What has a societal consensus got to do with the Constitution?
The Congress had recently passed a law that imposed capital punishment for certain child rapists. Those justices in dissent with the majority stated that the decision was based on "the Court's 'own judgment' regarding 'the acceptability of the death penalty,'" no matter what the people's elected representatives enacted. This is a plain and blatant violation of the constitutional role of the Court in usurping the power granted to Congress and a grievous application of the Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is clearly stated in the Preamble. Congress recommended amendments to the states because several states, when the Constitution was offered for ratification, "expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." The Bill of Rights was added to restrict the federal government because of fear among the citizens of the new federal government. The principle of self-government, federalism, was made explicit by the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights.
In the early years of our nation, there was general understanding that the Bill of Rights was a limitation onthe federal government alone, not the states. Beginning in the early 20th century, the Progressives believed that the power of the federal government was unlimited and the Congress, Administrations, and the Courts have stripped the Bill of Rights to the point that it is generally meaningless as a limitation on federal power.
THE RUNAWAY TRAIN – 2009 Edition
The first year of the Obama administration and the ultra-liberal Congress has ended on a high note from their own insular perspective. Those of us Americans who love liberty, self-reliance and personal responsibility see it quite differently. The TARP, stimulus, omnibus spending bill, 2010 federal budget, cash for clunkers, numerous other spending bills, and last but not least, health care "reform" have put our great grandchildren so far in debt that I don't see a way out.
The radical changes in the social structure of our country, perused by radicals, crooks, and progressives has not seen the like since our founding. We are rapidly becoming a welfare or "nanny" state, with no regard for self-reliance or personal initiative. The question arises, where do we go from here? The beginnings of unrest and dissatisfaction are stirring throughout the people. I suppose we can thank the tea party movement for getting us off the couch and shrugging off our complacency.
I see no solution short of replacing our whole national government, every politician, every bureaucrat, right down to the janitor. I'm just not sure there is a broom large enough to sweep the whole bunch out. Every politician, Supreme Court justice, and petty little dictator bureaucrat who has violated the original meaning and intent of our Constitution, violated their oath of office, should be replaced, if not prosecuted.
The American people have sat around, paying little attention to what has been happening to our country since Ronal Reagan left office. Unless we wish to continue down this path to the destruction of our nation, every citizen must rise up and shout stop! Enough! The federal government cannot continue its destructive path if the people rise up and demand an end to all the illegal, immoral, unsustainable tearing down of our country. This country belongs to us, We The People, not the jackasses in Washington, or state and local governments. Its time we let them know who their bosses really are.
Did no one listen to Obama or bother to find out what he is all about? He, and his Chicago partners in crime, are all about the destruction of our society as we know it. He promised to radically change America, did no one believe him? When he, and his allies in Congress, get to the point that our economy collapses because of debt and social engineering, the elites will take over and turn our great nation into another corrupt, bankrupt, European nation, or worse, a Third World nation. Don't be fooled into believing that he and the progressives don't know what they are doing. They are doing exactly what they said they would do, just nobody, with the exception of those who want something for nothing, listened.
If we want 2010 to be a better year, restore individual liberties, get our financial house in order, and return our country to the ethical and moral standards we deserve, the time to start is now. We need political leaders who will embrace our Constitution, Judges that will enforce original intent, and a populace that is not totally absorbed with their-selves. The congressional elections, as well as many state and local elections, are a short ten months away. We should all be seeking political leaders that embrace our ideals, not those of the "progressive" far-left.