Census Questionaire Exceeds Consitutional Authority

I received the Census Bereau's normal form, filled out what they were entitled under the Constitution to know and sent it back. A few weeks later, the form being referenced in this report arrived.

After perusing the questions being asked, I decided that this form fell under the heading of TMIFTGTH or TGDNTKAOT.

Too Much Information For The Government To Have OR The Government Doesn't Need To Know Any Of This.

I then fired up the shredder and disposed of the document in an environmentally safe manner and waited for the knock on the door. I'm still waiting.

Veteran's Day 11-11-11 Washington DC

WILL VETERANS BRING END TO SOCIALIST MARCH ON USA?


By J.B. Williams
November 6, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Veterans and service members across the country have issued a national Call-to-Action for all patriotic Americans under a document titled A Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic, an ongoing strategy to be launched in Washington D.C. on Veterans Day, November 11, 2011.

Men and women who have risked life and limb to fight for freedom and liberty around the globe, now turn their attention to fighting for freedom and liberty at home. They are calling for peaceful actions, both nationally and locally, beginning on 11.11.11 in their assembly at the Washington Memorial at 0600.

The Declaration to Restore is extensive, and very clear. They are calling upon all who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, to act now, upon those oaths. They are calling upon oath takers, both active and inactive, as well as all patriotic American citizens prepared to stand with them in pursuit of justice, a return to constitutional government and the rule of law.

Led by Col. James Harding, USAF Ret., the twentieth most decorated military officer alive today, and Col. Harry Riley, USA Ret. – via Veteran Defenders of America – the organization has had enough and will not sit idly by and watch the current destruction of their country and the daily assault on everything they hold dear.

Working against a strong head wind to get their word out, the word is getting out and many are answering the call. A partial list of supporters is posted at the organizations web site, demonstrating a clear grassroots rebellion swelling from the bottom up.

Great effort went into the Veterans Declaration, but what is the end game? A call for Obama and others to resign is not likely to result in any resignations. Even the call for impeachment is unlikely to cause members of congress to begin impeachment proceedings, after congress has ignored their honor-bound duty to have stopped Obama & Co. long before now.

Another rally in D.C. is likely to end with the same results as all previous rallies in D.C., no change in the anti-American national direction, if there is no clear strategy for carrying out the demands.
So, what is the real strategy?

When asked what the Veterans and Patriots hope to achieve, U.S. Patriots Union Co-Founder Tim Harrington said it right – “We have to start somewhere...” – Patriots Union is the parent organization for Veteran Defenders. The two organizations joined forces back in May 2011, with Veteran Defenders becoming the “oath takers” division of Patriots Union.

Explaining further – “The 11.11.11 Event in D.C. is not intended to be the end-all be-all solution for our nation’s woes, in one afternoon. It marks the beginning, a launching pad for an ongoing strategy to confront anti-American and unconstitutional activities in our government from the ground up, fighting local corruption as well as national corruption, one day at a time, one incident at a time.” – said Harrington, a former Marine Sergeant. “The idea is to no longer be silent or complacent...”

11.11.11 will not mark the end of the march to socialism in the U.S., but it will mark the beginning of the end, according to Harrington and Harding.

“We don’t expect criminals in the federal government to give up easily, after working so hard for so long to entrench themselves in positions of power,” said Col. Harding, explaining further, “We anticipate serious resistance from those who mean harm to America, but we are up to the task.”

“It is apparent, based on many indisputable facts, that individual liberty, possession of property, national sovereignty, national security, and freedom will not survive if the present political power base prevails. Therefore a course change is now required as determined by millions of Americans, and spelled out in A Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic.” – Said retired USAF Brigadier General Charles Jones III.

Veteran Defender Major General Paul Vallely (USA Ret.) was even more succinct in his statement – “President Obama, his appointees and czars must be replaced immediately.” But nobody is operating under the illusion that the massive problems in our country can be solved in a single afternoon or event...

Col. Harry Riley puts a fine point on the matter at hand – “Consider the millions that have sacrificed to their death, blood spilled and families destroyed...most from our warriors and families...just one example of the price paid for our freedom and liberty. And now, Obama is exercising a free rein to destroy our nation as slowly and methodically as a creeping undetected cancer. – It must stop!”

An increasing number of veterans and patriots are joining the veterans Call-to-Action, and it marks the first time in recent history when veterans stepped up to take a firm stand against a runaway government, calling upon all patriotic citizens to stand with them.

For the veterans, they seem to understand the long road ahead, the challenges involved, and the need for a sustained strategy which relies not on politicians, but rather on the people, who will not allow the destruction of the American Dream to continue.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin lost his honorable military career and went to prison for simply doing the right thing, what his oath required him to do, made a political prisoner by his illegitimate Commander-in-Chief and a corrupt UCMJ... Lt. Commander Walter F. Fitzpatrick, III sits in a Monroe County jail today for attempting repeatedly to keep his oath to protect and defend.

Meanwhile, our federal government continues to drive the nation deeper into chaos and calamity.

Sitting in military prison today, are numerous honorable soldiers who kept their promise, only to be charged, tried and incarcerated for doing so, by an anti-military administration that continues to place soldiers in harm’s way without the consent of congress, the support of the people, and under insane rules of engagement, making them political prisoners upon their return from combat, the truth that would exonerate these soldiers, withheld from the public. This insanity must end and these political prisoners must be set free.

The time for real American change has arrived, and the veterans are the right people to lead that initiative. I will being standing with those veterans in D.C. on 11.11.11 and invite YOU to stand with us too, on Veterans Day and every day after, until true justice is achieved and freedom rings once again in America.

The Truth WIll Not Remain Hidden For Very Long

Congress Attempted to Remove ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Requirement

There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.

Documentation for this video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.

Read more:

Daily Caller Buys keitholbermann dot com

and Olbermann is furious.


Keith Olbermann threatens legal action against The Daily Caller via Twitter

Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, has responded to the news that The Daily Caller has acquired the domain, KeithOlbermann.com.

In a tweet posted at 10:46 AM, the aging cable anchor wrote, “Regarding @TheDailyCaller and Keitholbermann.com: I hope whoever sold it to them got CASH.”

Several minutes later, an apparently still-reeling Olbermann clarified his meaning: “Also regarding @TheDailyCaller and KeithOlbermann.com – the law’s pretty clear on this, so, nice waste of money, Tuckie. #p2 #tcot.”

The implication is that MSNBC, or Keith Olbermann personally, will pursue legal action to stop the dissemination of news and information on The Daily Caller.

Not so fast, responded Tucker Carlson, editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller. “Some might step back and allow Mr. Olbermann to drain his bladder on the first amendment – indeed, on the Bill of Rights itself,” said Carlson. “Not us. No, by God, not us.”

Continue to check this space for updates on this developing story. And in the meantime, Tucker Carlson may be reached at his personal email address, keith@keitholbermann.com.

Read more:

A Reposting of Our Beliefs Is In Order

Wasnigton Examiner Editorial

"For the last decade, presidents and Congresses representing both major political parties have caused federal spending, regulation, and debt to explode as never before, with a result that the central government is in truly dire financial shape even as its power to control the most minute details of American daily life has never been greater. ... [W]e think incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner has been unjustly criticized in some, mostly liberal, precincts for his decision to open the 112th Congress with a public reading of the Constitution. Aside from the sad fact that the reading will likely be the closest encounter many lawmakers have ever had with the actual words of the document, the occasion will be a happy one because it will also provide citizens across the country with an opportunity to join Congress in examining and discussing the words of our founding document. Comparing the words of the Constitution to the actions of our leaders in recent years will surely make clear the enduring wisdom of James Madison's warning that 'there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.' Talking seriously about this condition is the first step to remedying it, just as Madison and the rest of the Founders intended."

--The Washington Examiner

Another (Barely) Useful Idiot

Klein must have been educated in a government school

Which Part of the Constitution is ‘Confusing’ Ezra?

Such an old document is impossible to understand? Forgetting the obvious slams that could be made at young Mr. Klein with regard to his youthful ignorance of any bit of important American culture that predates ‘N Sync, I’d instead like to thank Ezra for providing evidence of one of the basic, principled differences between the right and the left: Conservatives still look to our country’s founding documents to guide their political and legislative agendas and the left just does what they want and then tries to force it through because working within the confines of the Constitution is just “too hard.”

Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at this fine bit of work from The Right Place, a citizen journalist who provides a liberal’s interpretation of the Constitution:

He Says "End Run"- I Say Trampled

Thomas Sowell: The Progressive end run around the Constitution

These words begin the Constitution of the United States: "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. But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical "end of life consultations" rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.

Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Senator Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counselling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, soon to become Speaker of the House, objected to this provision in 2009, saying: "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

We'd Be Better Served With A Constitutional Review of the Legislation Before It Passes

Constitutional Amendment proposal to streamline legislative repeals to hit Congress soon

Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

And our very own House Majority Leader-elect is on board with this.

According to The Repeal Amendment, a nonprofit pushing the idea forward, those in favor of the Constitutional change at the federal level include House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Congressman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, while many more state-level government officials are on board.

Cantor says he’s behind it because it will limit the power of the federal government.

“It’s time to return America to the common sense conservative principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual responsibility. The Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around,” Cantor said in a statement. “In order to return America to opportunity, responsibility, and success, we must reverse course and the Repeal Amendment is a step in that direction.”

Marianne Moran, a spokesperson for The Repeal Amendment, told The Daily Caller she expects the amendment to make it through and get approved in the 112th Congress.

Read more:

There's A Little Bug Inside Me, Too

Well, actually its a stent that was put in one year ago, but I digress.

Jay Rockefeller (Asshat-WVA), thinks the reason Americans are so confused and scared is because FoxNews and MSNBC are broadcasting news 24/7/365 and the only way to return the universe to harmony and balance is to make them go away. H'mm. An elected official, who supposedly took an oath to defend the Constiutution, (all of it, not just the parts he likes), wants to stop publicly owned companies from conducting legal and Constitutionally protected business.

Does anyone else find this particularly disturbing or am I just being my normal, cynical paranoid self?

West Virginia's Sen. Jay Rockefeller wishes the Bill of Rights didn't include the first one -- If his brief appearance during a hearing on retransmission yesterday is any indication, the coal dust is starting to cloud Sen. Jay Rockefeller's mind. “We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming,” Rockefeller said during a subcommittee meeting led by Sen. John Kerry. "There’s a little bug inside of me which wants the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Good-bye.’ It’d be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress and to the American people to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly in their future."

DHS Loads Working Group With Muslims and Leftists

One "token" Christian.

Government reports characterizing some returning veterans as possible extremists have echoed the sentiments of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has likened tea party participants to shades of executed mass murderer Timothy McVeigh.

But now it seems the SPLC has been made part of the broad Department of Homeland Security community, with its president, Richard Cohen, helping formulate plans to be submitted to Secretary Janet Napolitano to help "combat violent extremism."

That report, identified as being from Spring 2010, also includes as a contributor Ronald Haddad, the chief of police in Dearborn, Mich., who in recent weeks has seen his officers arrest Christians for talking to Muslims about Jesus on public rights-of-way. Charges later were dismissed.

Also on the panel was Amin Kosseim, a deputy inspector for the New York City Policy Department; Mohamed Magid of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society; Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; Asim Rehman of the Muslim Bar Association of New York; Nadia Moumani of the American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute; and a contributor Rhodes called a "token Christian," Mary Marr of the Christian Emergency Network. Agency officials did not return a WND request for comment today.

Remember boys and girls, if you think the Constitution means what it says, if you believe your freedoms are God-given, if you think the money you earn is yours, YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST and you will be targeted.

You can consider yourself in good company, though.

We Don't Need Continuity, We Need Reciprocity

If you listened to Doc today, he was asking for continuity in the manner in which the liberal left is dealing with the Ground Zero mosque.

That is a fair request, but I doubt the left will ever grant it.

I, on the other hand, want reciprocity. I want the practitioners of Islam to grant the same freedoms and rights we as Americans are obligated, according to the Most High Annointed One (may peace be upon him), to grant them under our Constitution.

Problem is: practitioners of Islam do not recognize any document other than the Koran. Islam is not just a religion, it is a form of government. Predominately muslim countries have no constitution. They have Islam and the Koran and culture police. They have no religous freedom. Christians and Jews are routinely persecuted and possession of a Bible in a muslim country could result in a death sentence.

Islam, as practiced today, cannot exist under our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, simply because the Koran is antithetical to our system of government, and while we are more than willing to allow anyone to worship anything, a religion which places women in a less than human standing cannot be allowed. Any system which discriminates against non-believers cannot function in our society, because we have the God given right to believe anything we want. We have the God-given right of free will and self-determination. Islam and the Koran do not recognize those rights.

As a Christian, I am directed by the Bible to tell others about Jesus and the way to salvation and Heaven. I am not obligated to do it. If I choose to do so, I am also directed to not cast my pearls before swine, or preach to dogs. Those are metaphors for non-believers. I am not directed to force those non-believers into salvation, nor am I directed to kill them for being non-believers. Thats the beauty of free will. The Koran directs followers of Islam to convert those they can and kill the ones they can't.

A religion which directs its followers to kill is not a religion, its a cult. Just like Charles Manson or Jim Jones.


Crazy wackjobs.

Patriot Post

Upright
"True judicial restraint asks the question: 'What does the Constitution actually say?' and then limits Supreme Court decisions to an honest application of the law." --David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society and former congressman from Indiana

"It will be tempting but futile to ask [Elena] Kagan whether she thinks Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce is elastic enough to justify requiring individuals to buy health insurance. That is, does the power to regulate interstate commerce give Congress the power to punish the inactivity of not making a private purchase from a private health-care provider? If the commerce clause is sufficiently elastic, in what sense do we still have limited government -- government limited by the Constitution?" --columnist George Will

"Some of the senators -- not most, but some -- will be interested to know what [Kagan] thinks of the Constitution as the Founders wrote it. President Obama will want her to rule on the law as decent and high-minded folk like him think it ought to be, not what it is. The gay community, which rarely seems very gay, expects her to be a reliable vote for changing the definition of marriage and for remaking the military into something Barney Frank can be proud of. Since Mzz Kagan has argued that the Supreme Court's role is mainly to tend the interests of 'the despised and disadvantaged,' somebody will be disappointed." --Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden

"What we're seeing in Greece is the death spiral of the welfare state. This isn't Greece's problem alone, and that's why its crisis has rattled global stock markets and threatens economic recovery. Virtually every advanced nation, including the United States, faces the same prospect. Aging populations have been promised huge health and retirement benefits, which countries haven't fully covered with taxes. The reckoning has arrived in Greece, but it awaits most wealthy societies." --columnist Robert J. Samuelson

"Anyone who thinks Greece isn't the proverbial canary in the coal mine is in a coma. See if this sounds familiar: out-of-control spending, a bloated, self-entitled public service sector, a mountain of accumulated debt, trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates -- and a corrupt political class completely out of touch with the people. With precious few exceptions, what nation couldn't be plugged into the above description?" --columnist Arnold Ahlert

"Have you ever noticed how liberals desire to be judged by open minds and met with understanding when their policies fail, while all the while they've zero tolerance for anything less than perfection in their political opponents? If so, you only have to remember they view 'big oil' as an appendage of the Republican Party to know that one major spill in forty years is no better in their eyes than one major spill every two years." --columnist AWR Hawkins

Sign WND's Petition

The petition reads:

"Whereas, the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States of America reached a new low watermark in 2009 and 2010 in approving legislation in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution, I, an American citizen eligible to vote in my state, do solemnly pledge the following:

• "Refuse to vote for any congressional candidate, House or Senate, who supported the so-called "health-care reform package" approved in Congress;
• "I will only consider voting for congressional candidates who pledge to overturn the unconstitutional health-care legislation;
• "I will only consider voting for congressional candidates who vow to apply the strict test of constitutionality to all future legislation;
• "I will enthusiastically support with my vote and financial support those congressional candidates who offer an aggressive legislative program for taking America back to its constitutional moorings in self-government and the rule of law."

We've Lost Patience With Them

The Nation's Pulse
America's Quiet Anger
By James P. Gannon

There is a quiet anger boiling in America.

It is the anger of millions of hard-working citizens who pay their bills, send in their income taxes, maintain their homes and repay their mortgage loans -- and see their government reward those who do not.

It is the anger of small town and Middle American folks who have never been to Manhattan, who put their savings in a community bank and borrow from a local credit union, who watch Washington lawmakers and presidents of both parties hand billions in taxpayer bailouts to the reckless Wall Street titans who brought down the economy in 2008.

It is the fury of the voiceless, the powerless, the ordinary nobodies of Flyover Country who are ridiculed, preached to, satirized and insulted by the Celebrity Loudmouths of the two Left Coasts, the Jon Stewarts and Keith Olbermanns, the Paul Krugmans and their ilk.

It is the salted wound of the millions who see that ruling Democrats in Congress are not listening to them but are willfully ignoring public opinion and the verdict of recent elections in passing a huge new health care entitlement when the existing entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already going broke.

It is the frustrating helplessness of citizens who revere the Founding Fathers and the genius of the Constitution that they wrote, who actually believe the words of the Constitution mean what they say, not more and not less. They who watch politicians and the courts stretch and bend that Constitution -- finding "rights" not enumerated, powers never granted, meanings unimagined -- believe that their country is being redefined without their consent.

Most of the angry are not out marching in the streets, waving signs or shouting into bullhorns. And they are not smashing windows or phoning death threats to politicians. They are simply waking up angry in the morning, and going to bed angry at night. And their resentment is multiplied by the media's efforts to portray them all as dangerous, crazy people, and by the effort of certain Democrats to tar them with brush of violent intent.

They are embittered, too, by the rhetoric of a triumphant president who turns on its head Winston Churchill's heroic attitude promising defiance in defeat but magnanimity in victory. For a president of a deeply divided country, defiance in victory is not an endearing posture. It has all the persuasive charm of a Chad Ochocinco victory dance in the end zone of the opponent's stadium.

These quietly angry people gather in their churches while their religions are called divisive and their beliefs are labeled as bigotry, and they pray for a better day. They talk among themselves in their Main Street cafes, at the Rotary club or at their kids' softball games, seeking others who understand their frustration and will not respond with arrogant dismissal.

They are tired of being told they are too stupid to understand the country's complex problems, too rooted in the past to find solutions, too selfish to share what they have worked for with everyone else who wants it.

They are not reaching for guns or for pitchforks. They are holding their anger within, waiting for their time, watching those in power over-reach and over-indulge.

Their wound is deep, and it will not be salved by more presidential speeches, Congressional hand-outs, or promises of wonderful things to come. They no longer believe any of that. Their quiet rage abides, waiting till it can be expressed in that
silent place behind the curtain where the ballot lists the names that they have now committed to an angry memory.

Senate Amendment to force the House to Obey the Constitution

“Mr. President, I send an unprinted Amendment to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration,” are the exact words that any U.S. Senator can say when offering this amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

This amendment, below, should be walked down to the floor of the U.S. Senate and voted on prior to any vote on the floor of the U.S. House, in order to prepare the legal battlefield for the court challenge against the Alice-in-Wonderland-like-Red-Queen, Speaker Pelosi, and her dictatorial and unconstitutional scheme to pass the Senate Health Care bill without voting on it. While we are uncertain that we will be fighting on this ground, it is essential to prepare the battlefield, if we do.

This amendment, I am reliably advised, was written by a former judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals who was on President Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court (Roberts beat him out) and is recently retired and is teaching Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious national law schools at University on the west coast.

So, in other words, don’t mess with the language of this amendment. Just launch it, now on whatever bill is now pending on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

START OF TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT:

Unprinted Amendment No.___ .

Intended to Proposed by Mr. _________.

Viz:

Add at the end of the bill the following new Section:

“Sec.___ . a) Inasmuch as Sections Five and Seven of Article I of the United States Constitution mandate a certain process for the enactment of a federal law and do not allow a measure to become a law by “deeming” it passed by either House of Congress, it is the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that the House of Representatives is required by the Supreme Law of the United States, to vote directly and up or down on H.R. 3590 in order to send that measure lawfully to the President, if, and only if, it shall have been approved by a majority vote of each such House taken on an identical measure; and, more particularly, it is the Sense of the Senate that, in conformity with Article I of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, unless the measure is returned to the Senate with an Amendment by the House, must vote directly on the language sent to it by the Senate precisely as it was duly enrolled at the direction of the Senate by its Enrolling Clerk, certified as an Act of the Senate by the Secretary of the Senate, and thereupon transmitted by the Senate’s Messenger to the House Chamber while the House of Representatives was in actual Session.

b) It is the further Sense of the Senate that the exact words that the Senate caused to be enrolled on parchment and taken by messenger to the House of Representatives, constitute the sole document and the only document upon which Members of the House can lawfully cast their vote, whether Yeah or Nay, under the process expressly mandated by the United States Constitution; and it is also the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that to do otherwise by “deeming” rather than voting would void any purported enactment, deprive it of the force of law, justify disobedience to it, and cause irreparable violence and harm to our system of government and its fundamental law through fraud, deception, abuse of power, and usurpation of the civil rights of the People.

c) This Section maybe cited as the “Congressional Voting Rights Resolution.”.

END OF AMENDMENT TEXT.

I further ask all patriots and Americans who care deeply about the U.S. Consititution to re-post the text of this Amendment every where possible on the internet. Specifically, wallpaper the web with the text of the this Amendment, today.

Reposted from Dan Perrin's Diary at RedState

Pulling the Plug on our Constitution

Mark Alexander in the Patriot Post

Pulling the Plug on our Constitution
Our Constitution is on life support, and House Democrats are about to pull the plug.

Leaders of the Democrat Party ("Progressives" as they call themselves, Leftists as we call them) have been unable to garner popular or even Democrat Party support for their plan to socialize our health care system. Fortunately, Republicans are united in their opposition to this one issue.
Barack Hussein Obama, titular head of the Demos, proclaimed, "I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi concludes, "Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill."

She is proposing to overtly circumvent our Constitution by way of the "Slaughter Solution." Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairman of the House Rules Committee, proposes to pass legislation using the "self-executing rule," which will allow the House to accept the already-passed Senate health care bill by presumption alone, thus negating a formal up-or-down vote by House members.
Pelosi confessed, "I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Unfortunately, there is precedent in invoking the "self-executing rule" -- by Republicans, no less -- concerning "mundane" legislation agreed to by House leaders of both parties. Unconstitutional as these precedents are, there is nothing "mundane" about ObamaCare.

"Slaughter" and "self-executing" may describe both the process and the electoral future of many Democrats in the House.

Most of the Leftist-controlled political and popular debate about the Democrat proposal to turn over to the central government control of more than 17 percent of the U.S. economy, is focused on one question or another -- what will it cost or save, who will pay and who won't, who will be covered and for what, will there be enough physicians to support this in 10 years, will federal funds be used for abortion, can our economy afford another trillion dollar boondoggle, does it really address the entitlement cost tsunami we're facing, ad infinitum.

These might be interesting topics for debate, but none are germane.

The only relevant debate must begin with First Principles, our Constitution and Rule of Law.
Does our Constitution allow the Executive and Legislative branches to collaborate to confer authority upon the federal government over, in this case, so-called "health care reform"?
Those who laid the Foundation of our Constitution were crystal clear about its enumeration of both the authority and limits upon the central government.

James Madison, our Constitution's primary author, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."

Madison continued, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

To that point, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

Clearly, our Constitution, does not authorize Congress to nationalize health care, anymore than it authorizes Congress to do most of what it does today.

That notwithstanding, Obama and his Leftist cadres in the House and Senate are moving forward with their endeavor to inflict socialized medicine upon the United States.

They have again, one and all, abandoned their oaths to "support and defend" our Constitution.
Democrat "leaders" have all been questioned about constitutional authority, and have uniformly asserted that the question is irrelevant.

Typical of their non-responses was this indignant question from Speaker Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Such utter contempt for our Constitution explains why Democrats refuse to support any measure to cite constitutional authority for legislation. For example, the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359) would require that "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act," but for years, insurmountable obstacles have prevented passage of HR 1359 -- and you know who they are.

As for the Slaughter Solution, Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, and that in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

Typical of Republican protests about this effort to evade the Constitution's prescription for passage of legislation, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) called the ruse "the acme of arrogance" and the "shredding the U.S. Constitution."

Unfortunately, more than a few Republicans have dabbled in such unconstitutional chicanery. Thus, I am reminded of the admonition regarding hypocrisy in Matthew 7:4-5. In contemporary terms, Republicans must first demonstrably abide by First Principles before calling on Democrats to do the same.

The only silver lining to this cloud: If Democrats pass ObamaCare, every medical complaint by a Democrat constituent will be hung around their necks.

Fellow Patriots, stand firm for Essential Liberty for we still hold these Truths.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US

A Virginian's Response To Mr Cantor

From VA Freeper Iceskater posted on the Virginia forum:

Eric Cantor’s post on social media re: HCR “We have a very difficult gap to bridge here. Our country just can’t afford this. That’s the ultimate problem.”

I just can’t take it anymore! Here’s my response....
“No, with all due respect, not being able to afford HCR is not the ultimate problem. The ultimate problem is that IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT’S ROLE TO TAKE CARE OF US FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE!!! The fact that we can’t afford it ought to give you a clue that it isn’t constitutional!

How about all ya’ll take a walk across the street and go read the Constitution? It’s right there in the National Archives.

It’s a little dusty from lack of use but I swear it’s there! How about we use that as the guiding principle and not whether we can afford it???”

Thanks Iceskater. Well said.

Don't forget that Cantors Advisory Council Meeting is coming up in March. We gave him an earful last year. Lets make sure he knows we're still here, and we still believe in the Founding Principals.

Justice Thomas On CU v FEC Decision

So it would appear that the original law dates back to the early 1900's with a Democrat Senator from Dixie trying to keep the black man in his place and silence the mean old Republican corporations.

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

All That Is Hidden Is Made Known

Early Draft of the Constitution Found in Philadelphia
"The Continuation of the Scheme"

BY Mary Katharine Ham

The founder of a non-profit group that promotes teaching of the U.S. Constitution stumbled on an early draft of it in Philadelphia this week, penned by James Wilson and entitled, "The Continuation of the Scheme."

She was exploring in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, when she connected a short passage on the back of one draft of the Constitution, in Wilson's hand, to the rest of the document, buried in the archives among Wilson's papers.

"This was national scripture, a piece of our Constitution's history," she said of her find in November. "It was difficult to keep my hands from trembling."

As other researchers "realized what was happening, there was a sort of hushed awe that settled over the reading room," Toler said. "One of them said the hair on her arms stood on end."

Two drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand had been separated from his papers long ago. One of them included the beginning of still another draft and was apparently seen as part of a single working version, instead of a separate draft.

Toler said "The Continuation of the Scheme," including its provisions about the executive and judiciary branches, completes that draft, making it a third.

I guess there are worse pitches to make to possible donors for a Constitution non-profit than, "Remember that time I found a new draft of the Constitution?"