From The Patriot Post

Lets be very clear here: There is no law, regulation or resolution that can disarm law-abiding American citizens. It can only make us outlaws.

Mr Cantor, we expect you to stand for the Consitution and specifically, the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution when these bills are presented.

As Majority Leader, it is your job to insure that any legislation being considered meets the requirements of a Constitutional Impact Study.

Do your job and we may allow you to remain in your current position.

Gun Grabbers on the Move

Four pieces of civilian disarmament legislation made it to the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. While Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) "assault weapons" ban was included in the final package, it faces tough odds of getting anywhere in Congress. Democrats instead chose a piecemeal approach, the reasons being twofold: It increases the likelihood that something gets passed, and if a major overhaul fails, Republicans will face the backlash when Democrats cry wolf.

One of the bills being considered is a bipartisan proposal "that would for the first time create specific federal prohibitions on gun trafficking and the straw purchasing of firearms," according to the Associated Press. Recall that these were the same tactics used by the ATF in the infamously (and tragically) botched Fast and Furious sting operation. We're glad to see Congress agrees that the feds shouldn't be trafficking firearms to Mexico.

In related news, "States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths," trumpeted the Associated Press this week, citing a study by Dr. Eric Fleegler of Boston and published in JAMA Internal Medicine. However, Fleegler is an anti-gun activist and used data from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the most anti-gun organizations in the country. Also, though he considered all 50 states, he excluded the District of Columbia. The Brady Center did their own calculations based on findings in a dozen states and came to the conclusion that -- surprise -- we need more gun control. The inconvenient truth is that the "gun-related deaths" prevented by tougher gun laws are suicides, not homicides. In fact, the homicide rate was slightly higher in the 10 states with the most regulation. DC's rate is nearly four times that of the rest of the country.

The Brady Center wasn't the only leftist group promoted by the press either. USA Today placed a piece on an anti-gun study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) front-and-center of Tuesday's edition. PIRE's study purports to show that gun violence cost $12 billion annually. Not surprisingly, financial help is given to the institute through a company tied to none other than far-left billionaire investor George Soros.

The Vetting - Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court

The Vetting - Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court

Its all those racist white men on the Supreme Court. yeah, thats it, racist white men; yeah yeah. Devious, cunning, calculating and dangerous to the original intent of the writers of the Constitution.

The president deliberately confused judicial activism--the wholesale manufacture of rights and laws by judges in accordance with their personal or political views--with judicial review, the power courts have to overturn unconstitutional legislation, which the Supreme Court has exercised since Marbury v. Madison (1803).

What is important about Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court yesterday is not that he attacked “judicial activism,” but that he attacked the court at all. It is clear that Obama does not even believe what he said about judicial review—i.e. that courts should not overturn a “duly constituted” law that had received a majority vote in the legislature. If he did, his Department of Justice would not be suing the state of Arizona over its immigration law, and would not be suing the state of Texas over its new voter ID law. In that sense, his comments are merely partisan hypocrisy.

But Obama, following Bell, does believe that the Supreme Court does not deserve the respect accorded to it by his predecessors (even FDR “usually waited” until the Court had made its decisions before criticizing it).

As always, we should pay more attention to Obama’s actions than his words. The very fact that he disparaged the Court is more important than the muddled substance of what he said.

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.

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:

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

Constitutional Authority

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. Here’s my top-ten list, highly abbreviated for length.

Read more:

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 Already Knew This

20 States: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

President Obama's landmark health care reform law is being challenged in court by a coalition of 20 states. Lawyers argued in Florida that Congress does not have the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance or face penalties.

Attorneys also told the judge Obama care is a bank buster and if cash strapped states are forced to pay more to expand Medicaid programs, they will go broke.

Earlier this week a federal judge in Virginia ruled that citizens can not be forced to buy health insurance. Supporters of the Florida lawsuit want the judge to go further and stop the federal government from enacting health care reform. But so far, two other federal judges have upheld the law.

President Barack Obama's administration says all Americans should have health insurance because everyone requires medical care sometimes to cover catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.

Follow-up From Our AG on Healthcare Ruling

Our Attorney General ROCKS THE HOUSE!!!!!!

Dear Defender of Liberty,

As I told you earlier today, Virginia won the first round of the constitutional fight over the federal health care law. I also told you I'd get back to you with more details later in the day, and I'm keeping my promise.

I will tell you up front that I will also go into still more detail later this week - when time allows.


Arguments and Outcomes

There were two basic arguments in this case.

First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance.

The judge ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel you to buy health insurance as part of its attempt to regulate the entire field of health care and health insurance. Thus, Virginia won this argument.

Second, the federal government advanced a 'fallback' argument in case it lost on its commerce clause argument. The feds' fallback argument was that the financial penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government mandated health insurance is a tax.

This may sound like an odd argument from a political standpoint - usually they say everything is NOT a tax (in fact, they argued the penalty was not a tax while they were trying to get the bill passed); however, they changed position after the bill became law to try and save the bill. What they were trying to do was to get the courts to agree that because the penalty would presumably raise some revenue, it was therefore a 'tax' under the taxing and spending for the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

No judge in the country has bought this argument, and Judge Hudson was no exception. He ruled that the taxing power of Congress does not save the bill, because the penalty for not buying the mandated health insurance is not a tax.

The federal government only had to win on either of these two arguments, while Virginia needed to win both to prevail, and we won both!

What's Next?

Certainly the federal government will appeal their loss in the district court to the 4th circuit court of appeals within the next 30 days. And whichever side loses in the 4th circuit will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. And no one has any serious doubts that ultimately the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That could take approximately (very rough approximation) two years. We are discussing with the Department of Justice accelerating the case, and those discussions have been very cordial thus far. More on that later.


Conclusion

Today is a great day for the Constitution. Today the Constitution has been protected from the federal government, and remember, an important reason for the constitution in the first place was to limit the power of the federal government.

Today is also a day of a small degree of vindication. When we first filed suit, the screeching of the liberals was deafening. Everything from accusing us of playing politics instead of practicing law, to filing what they called a 'frivolous' lawsuit.

I want you to know, that our team makes decisions based on the Constitution and the laws. Period. We deal with the consequences of our decisions separately, but first and foremost we have been and will continue to be true to the Constitution and laws of the United States and Virginia, regardless of whether it's easy or hard in any particular case.

Thank you for your continuing support!

Virginia Could Be the First to Reinforce Original Intent

and that would only be fitting. We are the birthplace of individual freedom and limited government. From the Religious Freedom Act to Patrick Henry's speech, Viriginians have stood against intrusive and restrictive actions by government.

Ruling expected Monday on Virginia health care suit

Many observers believe that U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, who sits in Richmond, may be the first judge to strike down the law.

If he does, he would rule that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce with a requirement in that law that individuals obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.

The suit was filed in March by Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken T. Cuccinelli II (R), who said he was defending a new state statute that made it illegal to require individuals to have health insurance. It is separate from a case filed jointly by 20 other states in Florida. A judge will hear oral arguments in that case on Thursday.

Hudson's staff says he is expected to file his ruling on the case midday Monday. His decision will almost certainly be appealed. The constitutionality of the law will ultimately be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Honorable Henry Hudson should write a very short brief, saying, in essence:
"The Healthcare Law is trash. You boys have to scrap it now and start over."

Obamacare Heads to Court

While the new Congress deliberates over ways to repeal or defund the Obama Administration’s “healthcare reform” law, twenty states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have filed suit in federal court arguing that the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down immediately. This is the largest of several legal challenges to Obamacare across the country.

snip/

The Constitution does not allow Congress to force Americans to purchase a product solely because they are alive and the federal government’s claim of such authority contradicts more than two hundred years of Supreme Court precedent. Yet the individual mandate, which would obligate private citizens to obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, does just that.

Constitutional Impact Study

Resolution to be introduced demanding all legislation cite Constitutional authorization
By Caroline May -
The Daily Caller Published: 4:43 AM 12/07/2010

New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett plans to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives Tuesday that would require all legislation to cite an enumerated power in the Constitution that grants authority for the bill’s mandate.
Garrett, founder and chairman of the House Constitution Caucus, told The Daily Caller that the resolution is the direct result of the American people’s expressed desire for Congress to return to its Constitutional roots.

“This bill grows out of ‘The Pledge with America,’ going across the country prior to the campaign and hearing what was important to the American public and what they have told us is that we need to — as they and we put it — restore the preeminence of the Constitution in law-making and we do that by, as the rule would say, passing a non-waivable rule that would require every bill and amendment to have a citation of the specific authority in the Constitution.”

Read more:

Every representative better be prepared to sponsor this legislation and Cantor needs to be first in line.

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:

Morning Bell - Undermining the Rule of Law

As Meese and Barr so eloquently state, the citizens of this Nation are paying attention and we are concerned about the direction the current Congress and administration is taking. I have faith that the citizens woud never knowingly submit to socialist rule, but I also have enough cynicism built up to know that incremental implementation of socialist programs will ultimately result in a total and complete takeover of American society and we will no longer be the United States of America; and that will be the end of western civilization.

This Process is Undermining the Rule of Law

This week, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released poll results that are disturbing but by no means surprising. The March 11th - 14th poll of 1000 American adults showed that only 17% of respondents approve of the job Congress is doing in Washington. And as bad as that number is, the reason why Congress' approval rating is so low is even more disturbing: a full 76% of Americans simply do not trust the U.S. Congress.

This was the lowest level of trust for any representative entity tested by NBC/WSJ. It is no coincidence that these record low ratings come amid current debate over health care in Congress. Yesterday, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and William P. Barr released the following statement:

The convoluted and questionable method under discussion by both Houses of Congress for final passage of the long-debated health care legislation raises serious constitutional concerns, which, at best, will lead to protracted and wholly avoidable litigation and continued doubt about the bill’s validity.

Members of Congress from both parties have criticized the use of such sleights of hand, and The Washington Post has rightly editorialized against such “unseemly” and “dodgy” maneuvers for the health care bill. Beyond the obvious practical concerns shared by all citizens, the use of such obscure “rules” for final passage is even harder to justify in light of the real constitutional doubt and the erosion of public confidence in government that it will cause.

Contrary to what President Obama and some congressional leaders have been repeating of late, the American people do care passionately that the process for consideration of health care reform be both constitutional and fair.

At a bare minimum, article I, sec. 7, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before it becomes law “(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).

The “deem and pass” and similar options under consideration in the House of Representatives plainly violate at least the spirit of the Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements. Those constitutional requirements were intended to
ensure democratic transparency with a straightforward up-or-down vote in each house on all bills that become law. More importantly, these requirements were designed to ensure that the new national government actually followed “the consent of the governed,” which the Declaration of Independence had declared to the world was the only basis of legitimate government.

The “deem and pass” options under consideration in the House and the subsequent use of a “reconciliation” process that is reserved for budget issues in acts already signed into law further erode confidence in the rule of law. Some past uses of the “deem and pass” or “self-executing” rules raise similar concerns, but none was as convoluted as the proposed use, and significantly, there may have been no one with legal standing to challenge prior uses in court. Many individuals will have standing to challenge any health reform legislation that restructures one-sixth of the American economy, and the contemplated use of the “deem and pass” maneuver in this instance may be combined with questionable procedural steps in the Senate that render it much more subject to challenge.

There is no need to engage in such procedural machinations, and no asserted reason for doing so exists other than to avoid the traditional legislative safeguards in the
Senate and to obscure the appearance that Members of the House actually voted for the Senate bill, which is a prerequisite for genuine reconciliation. The constitutional requirement of bicameralism should not be jettisoned under any circumstances—and certainly not for such trivial and partisan reasons.

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Members should violate neither the letter nor spirit of the Constitution, especially when there is so much at stake, not only as a policy matter, but when the very legitimacy of the
legislative process is in question. Given that many parts of the underlying legislation itself raise substantial constitutional concerns, these “unseemly” and “dodgy” procedures underscore the justified concern the American people have that their elected representatives are blatantly disregarding the Constitution, and as a result, undermining the rule of law.

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.

No One Questions Our Authority

CNSNews.com asked members of Congress where the Constitution gave them the authority to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. They had a variety of answers.

Watch the video here.