The Vanishing Constitution

From The American Thinker:

March 01, 2011


The Vanishing Constitution

By Bill Costello

The Obama administration plans to continue with implementation of ObamaCare despite recent rulings by two federal district judges that it is unconstitutional, despite lawsuits to block it by more than half of all states, and despite polls showing that 60 percent of Americans want it repealed.





This is the most recent example of the arrogant notion that elected representatives are not required to operate within the bounds established by the Constitution or act on behalf of the people who elected them.





The federal government has increasingly assumed unlimited powers and acted against the will of the people. When they can't legislate, they regulate.





The attitude is: We know you don't want it, but we are going to force it on you anyway. Who are you to know what is best for you? You are just a pesky voter. We are entitled to discount what you say because you cannot possibly grasp our progressive agenda.





Progressives began the gradual erosion of constitutional principles around the beginning of the 20th century. The goal? To impose their superior wisdom on the rest of us.





The way progressives measure progress is by moving up from the vision of the founding fathers. But the Constitution gets in the way with its restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. So it must be bypassed.





We the People have been undermined by all three branches of government, despite the words and intentions of the founding fathers. The legislative branch has been passing laws before anyone could learn what was in them. The executive branch has been sidestepping the confirmation process prescribed for Cabinet members in the Constitution by appointing "czars" who hold even more power than Cabinet members. And the judicial branch has been manipulating the letter and spirit of the law through constitutional misinterpretation.





Among the three branches, the judiciary has been the worst offender. It has enabled progressives to amass authority sheltered from election cycles and changing public attitudes. Through the judiciary, progressives have been able to read their own meaning into the words of the Constitution and proclaim their own version of the law.





President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words.





In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: "We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day."





Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution's meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday's law, then future generations will not be bound by today's law.





If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that "all men are created equal" is replaced by "some men are more equal than others." When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free.





When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people.





Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America's founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution.





When elected representatives take an oath, it is not to the country, Congress, or constituents; it is to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of America. It is the blueprint that made America the envy of the world.





It has become increasingly apparent that progressive judges, justices, and elected representatives do not represent the interests of most Americans. For too long, the will of the people has been ignored.





If we are to continue with the gloriously successful American experiment of self-governance, we must protect the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It cannot protect us unless we protect it. We can do that by voting out those who bypass or undermine the letter and spirit of the Constitution.





When asked where the Constitution authorizes Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"





Two federal district judges have since shown that they are serious. So have the majority of states and Americans.





It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court is also serious.





Bill Costello, M.Ed., is the president of U.S.-based Making Minds Matter, LLC and the author of Awaken Your Birdbrain: Using Creativity to Get What You Want. He can be reached at www.makingmindsmatter.com.

Courting Disaster

From The American Thinker:

March 01, 2011


Courting Disaster

By Fay Voshell

There is a malodorous wind wafting its way from the White House. It bodes ill for the fate of the US judiciary and the Republic of these United States.





The whiff of gunfire was obvious when President Obama publically dressed down the Justices of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address, saying to his captive audience, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections...I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."





The fight between Obama and the courts was on. Much more was to follow.





This would not be the first time an American president found himself at odds with the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. In fact, the august Supreme Court may be in jeopardy in a way it has not been since Franklin Roosevelt, whom Obama deeply admires and seeks to imitate, tried to pack the court in 1937.





At that time, angered over its decisions vitiating his favorite programs, FDR threatened to completely remake the Court's image and its constitutional mandate in order it become more amenable to his legislative agenda. The President's fireside chat on the subject left no doubt in his listeners mind he was impatient with the judiciary.





He said, "Last Thursday I described the American form of government as a three-horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government - the Congress, the executive, and the courts. Two of the horses, the Congress and the executive, are pulling in unison today; the third is not."





The howls of rage that met his attempt to get the "third horse" in tandem with the other two branches of government eventually forced FDR to back down.





A similar assault on the judiciary would wait until another day.





That day has come.





Obama has already indicated his hostility toward court decisions he doesn't like, but more than verbal hostility has transpired since Obama's State of the Union speech, which found an obviously roiled Judge Alito mouthing responses to the president's antagonistic and historically unprecedented dress down of the high court.





Indications are the high court, along with the entirety of the judicial branch of government, may be facing more than a verbal showdown as the Obama administration is determined by any and every means to salvage its end goals, particularly its health care plan, from the counterattacks of the judiciary.





As the whole world knows, recently Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled the individual mandate central to the implementation of Obama Care is illegal. If Justice Vinson's ruling stands, it would make the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill null and void.





Vinson wrote:





"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."





Vinson's ruling, along with one which was delivered by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, means it is probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will make the final decision about the constitutionality of ObamaCare. So far the auguries do not bode well for its fate.





Regardless, it has been noticeable that the Obama administration has paid no particular mind to the Vinson decision. On the contrary, the WH has ignored the ruling, proceeding as if it never happened, hell bent on continuing the implementation of Obama Care. As Mark Levin and others have noted, the president is in contempt of court by continuing to implement a law declared unconstitutional. In fact, while the rest of the real estate market languishes, the boom in Washington, D.C. continues unabated, due in a large part to the need for office space for the multitudinous agencies, some 159 in number, mandated by the health care bill.





It's worth noting the disregard for judicial rulings concerning the Health Care bill has been paralleled by the Obama administration's quiet ignoring of the judicial decisions overturning the moratoriums on drilling for oil.





But perhaps the most ominous sign the judicial branch of our government may be in danger of being entirely overridden by the executive branch of our government is the recent decision by the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that part of the act is unconstitutional.





In one fell swoop, the Obama administration has abrogated to itself the role of the judiciary and has thereby announced to the judiciary the executive branch will decide whether or not to uphold the decisions of the courts, including the Supreme Court.





The Obama administration has basically executed a coup against the judiciary and due process of law by taking to itself the duties of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. For if the administration can decree a given law as unconstitutional without the evaluation of its constitutionality or non-constitutionality residing in the hands of the judiciary, the process of judicial review is unnecessary. Worse, the entire system of governmental checks and balances is completely wrecked. The executive branch would reign as supreme arbiter of law. Law would be what the executive branch deems law: law by decree, by fiat.





Further, the administration's refusal to defend an established law which has not yet been decreed unconstitutional by the courts means it may also refuse to obey the courts when and if it upholds Judge Vinson's decision, declaring Obama Care unconstitutional. It is not hard to see an administration which has declared one law unconstitutional; regardless of the fact the courts have not ruled it to be so, declaring the Health Care bill as constitutional regardless of what the Supreme Court rules.





And that may be the end game. Declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and refusing to defend it may well be the presage for further defiance of the courts, as the Obama administration is determined not to allow its crowning achievement to be gutted by anyone or any entity, including the Supreme Court.





We have seen the Obama administration's defiance of the courts from the inception of his administration. From day one the president has ignored or openly opposed the restraints of the judiciary.





The ultimate battle will be enjoined should the Supreme Court declare Obama Care unconstitutional. When and if the administration chooses to defy the ruling of our most august judicial body, FDR's attempt to pack the court will seem a picayune maneuver compared to what will be an all out assault on the Republic, an assault which could conceivably send it to the graveyard of history.

States Seeking Compact To By-Pass ObamaCare

From The American Thinker:

February 28, 2011


States seeking compact to bypass Obamacare

Joseph Smith

The deeply-rooted opposition to ObamaCare has given rise to a movement to use "another tool in the Constitution to try to limit the law's reach - interstate compacts," as reported in the Washington Times.



The Health Care Compact (HCC) Alliance is an effort begun late last year to establish a "compact" among a number of states "that restores authority and responsibility for health care regulation to the member states... and provides the funds to the states to fulfill that responsibility," as described on the HCC web site.



The idea for a health care compact is based on Article 1, Section 10.3 of the Constitution:





No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...





The HCC web site further states that there are "over 200 interstate compacts in existence, 90 of which have been approved by Congress."



Recently approved compacts include an Interstate Forest Fire Protection Compact and an Emergency Management Compact, both signed by the President, although the Constitution specifies only Congressional approval.



According to Seth Lipsky's The Citizen's Constitution, An Annotated Guide 1, the courts have determined that certain compacts do not require Congressional approval, such as those concerned with disease prevention or creation of a bridge authority.



An example of a compact that raises Constitutional questions, according to Lipsky, is the recent agreement by a handful of states thus far to have the states' electoral votes based on the popular vote, rather than the winner-takes-all method currently used by most states.



The conservative activists leading the nascent effort on a health care compact also have broader goals in mind, according to a January column by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard:





They want to use compacts to return other areas of federal control-the environment, drug and medical device regulation, education, to name three possibilities-to the states or even local governments.





Critics of the interstate compact movement are quick to cast cold water on the attempt, with the Washington Times quoting a UCLA law professor saying





This is primarily political theater more than anything else... They need congressional consent, and it doesn't seem likely you can get a bill through the House and Senate and have it signed by President Obama that exempts states from what is President Obama's signature achievement.





However, the Times further notes that





the effort alone signals a growing movement to think about how government power is divided in the U.S.



All sides generally agree that the compact represents another sign of frustration among voters over the scope of federal powers as well as a belief that states are closer to their constituents and are better able to craft policies that fit.





The Times column discusses legislation introduced this month in the Missouri state legislature authorizing a health care compact, noting that last year a referendum opposing ObamaCare was supported by 71 percent of Missouri voters.



With Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, who voted for ObamaCare, up for reelection in 2012, passage of a state compact could bring further pressure on McCaskill, as well as on others among the 23 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2012.



The health care compact is one more iron in the fire, and as the Weekly Standard notes, "the compact drive is likely to aid Republicans and conservatives by keeping the health care issue alive."



The President may not want to "re-litigate" the past two years, but the movement to stop ObamaCare is growing roots as deeply as the law itself will over the course of time.





1. Seth Lipsky, The Citizen's Constitution, An Annotated Guide, 2009, pp.114-115.









Posted at 08:51 AM

The Constitution In Ninety Days--28 February

From Constituting America:

February 28, 2011 - Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, Section 3, Clause 1




5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.



Section 3



1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, 3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Employee Union Files Unfair Labor Complaint Against State Of Wisconsin

From Biztimes.com and ADF:

Employee union files unfair labor complaint against state


Published February 28, 2011 - BizTimes Daily



1 of 11
Next



The Wisconsin State Employees Union (WSEU), representing thousands of public employees, has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the state and Gov. Scott Walker.

The complaint was filed by the WSEU, a unit of the AFSCME Council 24, AFL-CIO, with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) today on behalf of the members of the union.

According to the complaint, the state and union have entered into collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) for more than 30 years. Historically, those agreements are two years in length. In years in which an agreement was expired and a new agreement was not yet reached, the parties entered into extension agreements to continue the status quo until an agreement was reached.

The union’s last CBA with the state expired June 30, 2009. The state and the union agreed to continue the status quo of the previous CBA.

Tentative CBAs were reached in mid-December 2010, subject to the approval of the Wisconsin Legislature.

Walker, who was the governor-elect at the time, asked that the previous legislature refrain from signing new CBAs.

On Feb. 11, Walker, as governor, introduced legislation in special session that would eliminate most collective bargaining rights for members of the union, according to the complaint. The complaint alleges the state violated its own State Employment Labor Relations Act (SELRA).

“The interference with or restraining of employees in the exercise of these rights is an unfair labor practice…Refusal to bargain collectively is an unfair labor practice,” the complaint stated.

The complaint requests that the state be required to bargain collectively with the union.

The union is being represented in the case by Peggy Lautenschlager, former Democratic attorney general who is now an attorney at Bauer & Bach LLC.

The complaint will be served to Walker by the WERC. If the case goes forward, it will be heard by a WERC hearing examiner.

“If this agency concludes that the state violated that law, then we have the authority to require that the state remedy their unfair labor practices,” Peter Davis, general counsel at the WERC, told BizTimes.

Ultimately, a ruling could be appealed to the WERC commissioners, who serve staggered six-year terms.

WERC Chairperson Judy Neumann, who was appointed by former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, has two years remaining on her term. Commissioner Susan Bauman’s term will expire Tuesday. She can serve until Walker, a Republican, selects her successor.

The third seat on the commission is vacant and could be filled by a Walker appointee at governor’s discretion, Davis said.

“There’s one vacant position. The governor could appoint someone, and they could be here tomorrow,” Davis said.

In effect, Walker could appoint – and control – two of the three commissioners who could decide the case.

If either party asks for an expedited hearing, it could be completed within 40 days, Davis said.

Obama's Risky Move In Florida

From Politico and ADF:


Obama's 'risky move' in Florida



This week the administration may receive another blow from U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.
AP Photo

CloseBy DAVID NATHER
2/27/11 6:26 PM EST

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has already dealt the Obama administration a staggering blow on health reform, and this week the administration may get another one from the fiery Florida judge.



The Justice Department asked Vinson to clarify his ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional. Justice must file its brief on the motion by Monday, and Vinson has said he would rule quickly after that. At issue is whether Vinson meant to stop reform implementation in the 26 states that brought the suit.



Continue Reading Text Size

-+reset Listen VIDEO: Pols react to Florida ruling - Early Feb. '11

Latest on POLITICO

February's Monthly Senate 10

DOJ to Vinson: Clear up confusion

Thomas speech draws new criticism

W.H. seeks full month for stopgap

At Hoover, Christie goes after Obama

Ross warns Israel: Look at Egypt

POLITICO 44

The smart money says Vinson will halt implementation, and legal observers are wondering why Justice would take that risk.



“Having lost one game of chicken when it came to the severability of the mandate, the government is now challenging the same judge to back down on whether his decision is binding. Seems like a risky move,” said Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University.



Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at The George Washington University, said he was surprised by the Justice Department’s move, given that it could have gotten a lot of support for its view that Vinson’s ruling wasn’t clear enough to shut down state implementation.



“I’ve really thought hard about what’s the tactical reason,” Turley said.



A Justice Department spokeswoman would not comment.



In his original ruling, Vinson stopped just short of issuing an injunction. He cited a court case that said a declaratory judgment is usually assumed to be “the functional equivalent of an injunction” when the executive branch is involved, because administration officials “will adhere to the law as declared by the court.”



“There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here,” Vinson wrote.



But even if Vinson were to rule that implementation should stop, that wouldn’t totally upend the law. Most legal experts think the administration would go straight to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and ask for a stay of Vinson’s ruling. And they predict that the court would grant it — probably quickly.



The court, which is about evenly balanced between Republican and Democratic appointees, would act sooner rather than later because it would get “sticker shock” at the idea of such disruption happening before the judges had a chance to review the overall case, Turley said.



But the stay would be a reluctant, because by asking for a clarification of a point that was already pretty clear, the Justice Department request was an “insulting motion” that was “disrespectful to the legal system and disrespectful to a judge in their circuit,” said Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.



“They knew there was nothing in Judge Vinson’s ruling that needed to be clarified. They’re not stupid,” Gaziano said.



The 26 states in the lawsuit have already filed a brief calling the Justice Department request “a transparent attempt to obtain a stay” and saying it shouldn’t get one.



Other legal experts, however, don’t think the Justice Department had a choice. “They just need clarity,” said Orin Kerr of The George Washington University, because Vinson’s decision “left it unclear what the Justice Department was supposed to do.”



“If the judge wants to enjoin the states, that’s fine from the Justice Department’s point of view. They just seek a stay” from the 11th Circuit, Kerr said.




Even a short-term disruption of implementation would encourage the states that have taken the hardest line against moving ahead. Already, the governors of states such as Alaska and Florida have said they won’t proceed with implementation.



But the main impact, in states that put their health law activities on hold, would be that the federal government might have to step in to run the health insurance exchanges all states are supposed to launch in 2014, according to Jon Kingsdale, a health care consultant who used to run the Massachusetts exchange.



Continue Reading Text Size

-+reset Listen

The ironic result of this might be that states with Republican leadership and free-market ideals could be the ones that end up with health insurance exchanges designed by the federal government.



Under the law, the exchanges are supposed to be set up by and run by the states, but the Department of Health and Human Services can step in and create them in states that aren’t far enough along by January 2013.



“I’m guessing that’s not a very attractive option for a lot of states,” said Joan Alker, co-executive director of the Georgetown Center for Children and Families.



The exchanges and the Medicaid expansion that are also to start in 2014 are the states’ two main roles in implementing the law, but “setting up the exchange is probably a more significant task because they have Medicaid programs already,” Alker said.



Some states are complaining that the Medicaid expansion will strain their resources and their budgets, a subject the House Energy and Commerce Committee will explore at a hearing on Tuesday. Even so, Virginia and other states that are challenging the law in the courts are still working on implementing it while the lawsuits are being heard, Alker said.



“I would imagine we will see a range of responses” from the states if Vinson says they should stop working on the law, Alker suggested. “This is really a political choice for states to make."







Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50290.html#ixzz1FK3OuFfB



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50290.html#ixzz1FK2zVQzl

Boehner: House Likely To Defend DOMA In Court

From The Patriot Update and CBS News:

February 28, 2011 11:51 AM


Boehner: House likely to defend DOMA in court

Posted by Stephanie Condon 41 comments .

0diggsdigg

ShareE-mailPrintFont . (Credit: CBS/ AP) The Republican-led House of Representatives is likely to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Calif.) said in a newly-published interview. The move would come in the wake of the decision by the Obama administration to no longer defend the law.





"I'd be very surprised if the House didn't decide that they were going to defend law," Boehner said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. (Watch below)





The Justice Department announced last week that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the legal prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.





The decision prompted both those in favor and those opposed to the law to call on Congress to make the next move. Liberals are calling for Congress to fully repeal the law -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is introducing legislation to do so -- while conservatives want Congress to intervene in court and defend the law.





The early statements by many prominent Republicans following the administration's DOMA decision were muted, prompting questions over whether opposition to gay marriage had faded as an issue for the GOP base. However, Boehner told CBN that House members have been discussing their options and will make a decision on how to proceed by the end of the week.





"If the president won't lead, if the president won't defend DOMA, then you'll see the House of Representatives defend our actions in passing a bill that frankly passed overwhelmingly," he said. "There are a lot of options on the table."





The House could consider appointing counsel to represent it in court, Boehner said, an option floated by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), a potential 2012 presidential contender.





Last week, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, "It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty."





Meanwhile, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said that "Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law."


http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/Video-Embeds/2011/February/Boehner4/?WT.mc_id=EmbedNewsPlayer

Obama: ObamaCare Is Too Important To Be Un-Constitutional

From Floyd Reports:



Obama: ObamaCare is too Important to be Unconstitutional




Posted on February 28, 2011 by Guest Writer





by Doug Book, CoachIsRight.com



Imagine asking the judge who just revoked your driver’s license if you’ll still be allowed to drive. Last month, Northern Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson declared the individual mandate–the centerpiece of ObamaCare, also known as the Affordable Care Act–to be unconstitutional. And as Vinson ruled that the mandate could not be separated from the rest of the Act, the entire law was struck down.



Now never having attended law school means that, unlike attorneys, when it comes to thinking and decision making I’ve been reduced to a reliance upon common sense, common decency and a simple understanding of the difference between right and wrong. Of course, lawyers aren’t limited by such pedestrian restraints. So the same people who maintain that the Constitution is far too complex to be deciphered by anyone but a lawyer, are now claiming to not understand the meaning and consequences of the word “unconstitutional.”



”Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void”, writes Judge Vinson in his opinion. And if this were not a plain enough declaration of his intent, Vinson tells interested parties why he considers injunctive relief unnecessary, stating “…there has been a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction…There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”



So how does the Obama Regime respond? By having the Centers for Medicine and Medicare Services begin adding 650 employees to implement the plan; by continuing to issue waivers to select businesses and groups; by having the IRS go forward with the hiring of 1,000 new auditors and staffers and by including 465 million dollars in the White House budget submitted to Congress for the implementation of the law.



And to provide some slim measure of cover for the breathtaking exhibition of arrogance required to ignore the ruling of a federal court, on February 17th White House attorneys filed a “Motion to Clarify.” As the Heritage Foundation explains this remarkable bit of Democrat stagecraft, “the Administration has now stated officially that, notwithstanding the Judge’s declaration of the…Act…as unconstitutional, the Administration does not interpret the Judge’s order as REQUIRING the Administration to cease carrying out the unconstitutional ACA.” In the Motion, Obama’s attorneys write, “Given the wide-ranging and indeterminate consequences that would occur if the declaratory judgment were assumed to have immediate injunction-like effect…defendants do not interpret the Court’s order as requiring them to immediately cease operating programs…and enforcing duties by the ACA with regard to the plaintiff states…”



In short, Judge Vinson, you know not what you do. Your ruling will screw up some really big kickbacks and rob us on the Left of the extraordinary power grab we’ve worked decades to achieve. So yeah…you’ve taken our drivers license, but we’re gonna be on the highway, anyway. Just try to stop us!



To read more on this issue use these links:



http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905955/Vinson-opinion



http://patterico.com/2011/02/18/obama-administration-tries-to-mislead-judge-vinson-and-scattered-legal-updates/



http://quite-rightly.blogspot.com/2011/02/obama-administration-to-judge-vinson-we.html



http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/18/the-president-thumbs-his-nose-at-vinson’s-obamacare-ruling-doj-seems-to-concede-it-can’t-win-in-court



This article originally appeared on CoachIsRight.com and is reprinted with permission.

The Constitution In Ninety Days--25 February

From Constituting America:

February 25, 2011 - Article I, Section 2, Clause 4




4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

Two Solutions To The Wisconsin Stalemate

From The American Thinker:

February 28, 2011


Two Solutions to the Wisconsin Stalemate

By Cliff Thier

The Republican majority of the Wisconsin State Senate has at hand the tools to end its stalemate now.





The Wisconsin Constitution requires that to vote on a law dealing with taxing or spending or borrowing, a "quorum" is needed, and the minimum number to constitute a "quorum" is sixty percent of the elected members of the legislature:





ARTICLE VIII FINANCE





Vote on fiscal bills; quorum. SECTION 8. On the passage in either house of the legislature of any law which imposes, continues or renews a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues or renews an appropriation of public or trust money, or releases, discharges or commutes a claim or demand of the state, the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shall be duly entered on the journal; and three-fifths of all the members elected to such house shall in all such cases be required to constitute a quorum therein.





A "money-related" quorum in the current legislative session is 20 (19.8) senators of the 33 senators elected. The current party breakdown in the Wisconsin Senate is 19 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Each one of the 14 Democratic senators has refused to appear in the Senate chamber in Madison, leaving 19 Republicans alone at their desks and, seemingly, unable to have a vote until at least one Democrat shows up for work. lam





[It is widely believed that those lying-low legislators have gone so far as to leave Wisconsin entirely, hiding out in a hotel in Illinois.]





The common understanding is that unless at least one of those 14 decides to return to the Senate chamber, a money bill cannot be voted on. That does not have to be the case.





Excluding the Table of Contents, the word "quorum" appears only six times in the entire Wisconsin Constitution: Once (Article VII, Section 4) having to do with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and once (Article X, Section 7) having to do with a special commission (made up of the Secretary of State, the state Treasurer, and the state Attorney General) tasked with such matters such as selling state land. And, "quorum" appears twice in Article VIII, Section 8 (above).





The remaining two times that "quorum" appears, it has to do with the fundamentals of operation of the legislature:





ARTICLE IV LEGISLATIVE





Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. SECTION 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.





That's it. The only definitions provided in the Wisconsin Constitution for what is a quorum are the very limited ones setting the number of legislators needed in order for a vote to pass. The constitution is written so that a majority cannot gather in secret or too quickly for members to have a chance to arrive. The quorum requirement is not a right in itself, but rather a safeguard against trickery. It protects the rights of citizens to be represented. It is not a power granted to a minority to block a vote of a majority. The Wisconsin Constitution does not require an affirmative vote by three-fifths of the elected legislators, but only the opportunity for at least three-fifths of its members to vote. Contrast this with the sixty-vote filibuster-ending requirement in the U.S. Senate.





Consider this, too: the Wisconsin Constitution authorizes passage of money-legislation by an affirmative vote of as few as 11 senators, or only one-third of the entire state senate. That is, a majority of the 20 Senators needed for a quorum. Yet, all 19 legislatures showing up for work have said that they will vote for the pending legislation.





What is unambiguously not in the Wisconsin Constitution is a statement as to where those legislators must be in order to be counted towards a quorum.





The Wisconsin Constitution assigns the state legislature the responsibility of crafting rules and definitions governing how voting is to be conducted, i.e., the mechanics of voting. Article IV, Section 7 empowers 51% of the elected legislators in each house of the Wisconsin legislature to do the following:





•1) Define a quorum to include those legislators who have the ability -- if they choose -- to vote absently, either by electronic means or proxy. This would ensure that no citizens are ever deprived of representation in the state legislature even if their representative is in the hospital or out of town; and/or

•2) Pass a statute (or legislative rules) that any legislator who refuses or fails to represent his constituents by participating in the deliberations of that body for more than 30 days is to be regarded as having resigned his office. Once again, this would ensure that no citizens are ever deprived of representation in the state legislature even if their representative is in the hospital or out of town or just refuses to show up for work.





Every state permits absentee voting, and more and more are permitting electronic voting from locales other than town halls and school gymnasiums. Extended times for voting (between Day X and Day Y) are also being enacted in a number of states.





Such a statute or rule for Wisconsin's legislature would state that so long as a member can reach a telephone and is able to record a vote, that member should be counted as part of a quorum. The act of not voting, that is abstaining, has never been counted against a quorum. It's the ability to cast a vote that is all that has mattered.





[Alternatively, the 19 Republicans can all charter a bus and travel to Illinois to the hotel where the Democrats are holed up. The risk is that when the bus arrives at the hotel, Democrats will jump out of their windows in their underwear. It's still winter, after all.]





If the 19 Senators who have shown up for work wish to do the people's business, they have the power to do it. It is very plainly given to them in Article IV, Section 7 of their state's constitution. There is nothing in the Wisconsin Constitution to prevent them from doing that immediately.

Repealing The Seventeenth Amendment: Dealing With Politicians And Special Interests

From Repeal The 17th Amendment:

Feb 22, 2011 (5 days ago)Guest Blogger: Repealing The 17th Amendment: Dealing With Politicians And Special Interestsfrom Repeal the 17th Amendment by BrianRepealing The 17th Amendment: Dealing With Politicians And Special Interests


Daniel R. Quintiliani

February 21, 2011

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication



Probably one of the toughest obstacles to repealing the 17th amendment is the fact that the careers of senators are put in jeopardy. Many people believe that a constitutional convention by the states is the only possible way to repeal the 17th amendment, which can also be viewed as too risky due to the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights might be tampered with. However, there is a very easy way to have a 17th repeal pass Congress.



The 17th amendment, as ratified in 1913, concludes with:



"This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."







Since 1913, however, the structure of political power has changed quite a bit (which the 17th amendment helped alter). Within the past decade especially, it seems that Congress is heading more and more into a parliamentary system, in which the party rather than the politician has the vote. This is very apparent in the fact that some recent bills are hundreds or even thousands of pages, as was true of the Patriot Act and Obamacare, and are not being read by the politicians despite being passed into law.



While the 17th may have guaranteed senators a safe end to their career, a repeal of the 17th will leave the political parties and lobbyists scrambling to find a new strategy for levying their agenda.



It is for this reason that a repeal of the 17th amendment in the 21st century should take effect upon the death, resignation, or election loss of a senator rather than the end of the senator's current term. In other words, Senator X and Senator Y will remain senators so long as they continue to participate in and win popular elections.




This may be viewed as controversial, as depending on the voters' political views it could lead to a near infinite amount of terms guaranteed to senators. However, there are several benefits which are not

obvious:



1. Increased voter turnout. As long as Senator X and Senator Y continue to win elections, the people will be happy that their “right to vote for senators” still exists so long as they continue to vote for their current senators. As a variety of elections and referendums take place on election years, people would vote for other candidates as well, and thus voter turnout would be greater.



2. Increased attention to state and local politics. State and local candidates are often ignored. If more people participate in these elections, they can learn not only about how their state's politics work, but also how their vote affects the state's choice in senators. Perhaps more will learn why their vote for senator isn't "counting" and senators will lose elections faster. Increased public involvement in state politics would discourage corruption at the state level, including corruption in Senate choices after the 17th is repealed. It would also help educate the public about their state government, its importance and necessity, and its role in our federalist system.



3. Professional and academic comparisons between elected and appointed senators. The effects of a repeal could be seen as it is happening. If California is still holding senate races, while Montana is not, the two states could be compared with regard to the influence of special interests, the size of the federal government, the focus on state politics, the durations of senators in office, and anything else a think tank, college, or pollster can come up with.



4. Special interests will inevitably push for resignations. As Lord Acton stated, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. State politics are no exception, and special interests will corrupt the choice in senators as they had before the 17th. Once lobbyists have come up with ways to deal with the individual states, organizations and talking heads will slowly endorse resignations of senators once they are ready to attack.




While this proposal is radical and will leave many voters unhappy, such a transition will encourage ratification of a 17th repeal at the federal level, leaving the remainder of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, safe and intact.

Failure To Honor Washington: A Triumph Of The Left

From The American Thinker:

February 22, 2011


Failure to honor Washington: a triumph of the Left

Greg Halvorson

On this, what would have been George Washington's 278th birthday, Americans will go about their business, a free people, without acknowledging -- nor celebrating -- the man whose toil on their behalf was measureless. I say "free people," sadly aware that we're becoming less free, and that diminution of Washington symbolizes the design to "alter" history to make this so.





This, of course, derives from the Left, which spreads tales -- false ones -- of racism amongst the Founders, and which recently had members of the NAACP hide the General from public view. Indeed, they boxed him in, shielding the Offender, even as they praised the author of the line, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"





A month later, "President's Day" shuttered George again. The equivalent of "every leader gets a prize," it mocked history, inspired no one, and displayed the lengths to which fools go to be foolish. There is no par between George Washington and James Polk, between Thomas Jefferson and Millard Fillmore, and to assert otherwise says: 1) that no president is different from any other; 2) that individuals must bow to the Collective; and 3) that history is a dull, generic ride.





False on each count. When you honor everyone, you honor no one, and honor becomes meaningless. The name of the law which created President's Day -- The Uniform Monday Holiday Act -- is absurd, much like the mush it eventually inspired. Debating the bill, Dan Kuykendall (R-TN), foresaw the outcome:





"If we do this - change the date of the Washington holiday -- ten years from now our children will not know what February 22 means. They will not know or care when George Washington was born. They will know only that in the middle of February, they will have a three-day weekend for some reason.... This will come."





It has. The progressive effort to rewrite history and to demonize -- and erase -- the Founders has succeeded. General Washington is now less revered than Lady GaGa. Obscurer still is the honor President Coolidge bestowed on him:





"Wherever men love liberty, wherever they believe in patriotism, wherever they exalt high character, by universal consent they invoke the name of George Washington. No occasion could be conceived more worthy, more comprehensibly American, than that which is chosen to commemorate this divinely appointed captain."





Divinely appointed captain.





Makes one wish His Excellency were alive. And that somehow, through Providence, he could lead us again.





Greg Halvorson is the founder of Soldiers Without Boots , and hosts Freedom Warrior Radio on Blog TalkRadio.

Posted at 09:07 AM

Mississippi governor Haley Barbour Trumps Trumpka On Collective Bargaining Rights

From Freedom's Lighthouse:

2:24 PM (4 hours ago)Gov. Haley Barbour Trumps Trumpka on Collective Bargaining “Rights” – Video 2/27/11from Freedom's Lighthouse by Brian


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here is video of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour responding to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka’s assertion that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is trying to take away the “rights” of the state’s public sector workers.



Barbour very correctly responded to Trumpka by saying “there is no right to this (collective bargaining) under the Constitution.” He also pointed out that Federal Workers have no collective bargaining rights for wages or retirement benefits.

What Makes A Nation The Economic Leader Of The World

From American Vision:

Feb 23, 2011 (4 days ago)

What Makes a Nation the Economic Leader of the World

from American Vision » Featured by Bojidar Marinov

 

 

A Samizdat political cartoon distributed illegally in the early 1980s in Eastern Europe showed the Soviet Politburo staring in astonishment at John Kenneth Galbraith’s assessment that the Soviet economy was thriving and that it was two-thirds the size of the US economy, and in a few years the USSR would out-do the US economically. Hardly anyone could have been surprised by Galbraith’s estimate except the Soviet leaders who knew the truth. The conservatives in the US knew Galbraith’s profound incompetence despite his fame as an economist, so they weren’t too surprised when he said what he said. The liberals – just like today – didn’t care for facts and truth, as long as they heard what they wanted to hear. The educated readers in Eastern Europe – provided they had access to Western sources – knowing the gullibility of alleged “economists” like Galbraith and Samuelson, weren’t surprised either. But the Politburo knew the truth very well, that the Soviet economy was indeed two-thirds, but of the Belgian economy, not of the US economy; and they must have been quite surprised to discover that a man who passed for knowledgeable in the US could make such gigantic blunders in his economic studies.



The fall of the Soviet Union effectively removed from the market of economic thought the names of Galbraith and Samuelson. One would think that this story of failed economic predictions and blunders of men with great reputation would teach the leftists to be more careful next time they spew their propaganda.



Nope. Leftists don’t learn from either facts or experience. These days George Soros is committed to show the world that leftists never learn. He keeps telling the whole world that Communist China is growing economically and that its grip on the global economy is getting tighter. He also invests in China, a few dozen millions of US Dollars (strangely small numbers for a man like him, given the great expectations he has of the Chinese economy).



Again, just like before with the Soviet Union, the only people surprised at Soros’s statements are probably the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party. They know the truth. They are aware that most of what is registered as “growth” in China is either distortion of books on massive scale, or “Potemkin’s villages” built by local provincial governments to present “growth figures” to the central government in Beijing. Government bureaucrats are always obsessed with statistics that show how much good they are doing. When the economy is under the control of the government bureaucrats, there is no end to what statistics can show and prove. When this is coupled with a Communist ideology focused on proving the “superiority” of the Communist system, statistics is no longer a tool for obtaining information but a weapon for suppressing discontent at home and criticism from abroad. Communist leaders know very well their statistics are lying; they must be very surprised Soros with all his economic and financial savvy cannot see through the haze of government lies.




But the more important question here is: What exactly makes a nation the economic leader of the world? Are there predictable trends that can help us forecast a change in the economic balance in the world? How does Soros determine which nation is or will become the world’s economic leader?



Soros, of course, is blinded by his leftist ideology. His only focus is the actions of the central government. He bases his assessments and predictions on whether the central government of a nation has the power to do impose certain policies on its population; policies that agree Soros’s ideology. So the Chinese government, being as socialistic and tyrannical over its people as Soros wants it, looks promising in his eyes, since somehow the government policies will produce the productivity and the economic growth he wants. And since the Federal government in the US doesn’t have the same power over America, its businesses, and its citizens, and since apparently Obama and the other marionettes of Soros have failed in creating the same socialist central power in the US, he has only bad things to say and expect about the American economy. Just like Galbraith and Samuelson before him, Soros’s view of reality is seriously distorted because of his false ideology.



Can government actions and policies really turn a nation into a world economic leader? Amazingly, not only Soros, many conservative commentators seem to believe such a thing. In such a view, individual participants on the market as just the same everywhere, China or America, and all that matters is what policies a government will enact to control, regulate, or direct economic output, and therefore achieve or lose economic hegemony over the globe.



There is a problem with that approach: Before a government can regulate, control, or direct economic output, someone has to produce it. Governments don’t produce anything. Even businesses don’t produce anything. Both governments and businesses are dependent for both production and control of production on the individual workers, managers, and entrepreneurs. If these individual people don’t produce, there is nothing to sell, buy, or regulate. And therefore a nation can not become economic leader unless it has a majority of producers, at the lowest level.




But individual people can be conscientious and productive, and they can be immoral and lazy. No government, and no business can achieve economic output beyond the limits of the personal self-control and industry of their individual workers. It is work ethics that matters, not government control. Government control can only destroy what is created. Only work ethics can actually produce more and better things. Without it, no nation can become economic leader.



But in the long-term, work ethics is not an isolated phenomenon; it depends on the faith of the population, on the beliefs of the people in certain truths. People won’t normally spend long hours faithfully working unless they have a specific view of God, man, law, profits, and time. People are not automatons, driven by hidden motive for profit. Even profit is a religious motive – one must believe profit is possible and desirable and moral before they go for it. On every stage of the economic development of a nation, every action of every individual – and of the majority of the market participants – must be driven by their faith in a higher principle that allows for economic efforts, commands economic efforts, and rewards – materially and spiritually – economic efforts.



There is only one set of higher principles that can create such spiritual commitment to economic efforts: Christianity. America didn’t become the world’s economic leader by chance. It was the Reformed faith of the Founders, remaining as a legacy throughout the nation long after their faith was lost, is what made America what it is today. That faith in the God of the Bible, in His commandments to man to be “fruitful” (including economically), in His Law that controlled men better than any government will ever be able to do, in His promises to reward the faithful, and in time as the process of redeeming the creation. No other religion could create such economic commitment and activity in the majority of the individual people, and therefore America’s rise to the position of world leader is based on its Christian heritage.



Smaller nations like Korea or Japan were able to rise to position of economic leaders only by imitating America’s work ethics, which is Christian-based. On the other hand, Europe has lost its position exactly because the loss of the Christian culture that once defined Europe has created new attitudes, very similar to those of the inhabitants of the poorer regions of the world – envy, laziness, and entitlement mentality, which destroy productivity and produce economic backwardness.




So before China can become the world’s economic leader Soros wants it to be, it must go the same way as America: (1) widespread conversion to Christianity first; (2) generational building of Christian culture conducive to economic productivity and effort; (3) as a result of that Christian culture, a change from socialist oppressive government to government obedient to Jesus Christ and therefore valuing and protecting the freedom of its citizens; and (4) Christian missionary influence on other nations that will facilitate free trade and spread of economic growth without compulsion or government intervention. Such a program will take generations; any short-term “growth” that is not generated by widespread conversion is illusory.



Ironically for Soros, for China to become a true economic leader, it will have to become everything he hates about America: a Christian, conservative, freedom-loving nation. Anything less than that will keep China in the same spiral of poverty as it has been for centuries. Economy is based on a foundational faith, not on government policies; anything else is delusions and false statistics.



Bojidar Marinov

Federal Judge: Now The Commerce Clause Covers Mental Activity

From The American Thinker:

February 23, 2011


Fed Judge: Now the Commerce Clause covers 'mental activity'

Thomas Lifson

According to federal Judge Gladys Kessler of the DC US District Court, the powers granted to the federal government on the Commerce Clause extend to regulating "mental activity." Ruling on an ObamaCare challenge brought by 2 individuals, the good Judge made the leap from "physical activity" to "mental activity" in extending the reach of the federal government. This is not a joke. Read the 64 page decision here. According to Judge Kessler:





As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress's power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not "acting," especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.





Philip Klein of The American Spectator writes:





The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler's ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.





I look forward to liberals trying to defend the notion that feds have the right to regulate mental activity. As the political fires have intensified, more and more liberals are letting the slip the full extent of their ambitions for power.

Posted at 09:33 AM
Email

Obama Completes His Trifecta

From The American Thinker:

February 24, 2011


Obama Completes His Trifecta

By Richard N. Weltz

With a bold political announcement, President Barack Obama has completed the trifecta -- de facto coups which bring into his White House the powers and functions of the other two branches, as outlined in our Constitution.



That document assigns the legislative function to Congress, but the Executive Branch blithely and routinely co-opts that power by run-arounds and choosing to enforce or not enforce duly passed laws of the Legislature. Notable examples in the scant couple of years The One has been in office include: refusal to enforce voting laws against intimidation at the polls in Chicago, efforts to use the regulatory functions of the EPA to circumvent the specific legislation of Congress to ban cap-and-trade, refusal to enforce immigration laws, and attempts by the FCC to regulate matters banned from its jurisdiction by law.



We need not even mention the undemocratic parliamentary tactics and outright bribery used by Obama and his allies to ram through the unpopular and clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare bill -- without it even having been read by most Congress members.



On the judiciary side, we witness the executive ignoring a Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare's unconstitutionality, the refusal -- to the point where an order of compliance had to be issued from the bench -- to refrain from imposing an illegal moratorium on oil drilling; and, now the clearest and most blatant power grab of all. Obama has arrogated to himself, in the matter of DOMA, the power to declare that law unconstitutional and order his Justice Department not to contest lawsuits challenging it.



In the meantime, while usurping and/or undercutting the legitimate powers and functions of the other two branches, in the three areas for which the Executive does have power and responsibility -- faithfully executing the laws, conducting foreign policy, and commanding the armed forces -- this megalomaniacal narcissist has proven a spectacular failure.



What have we allowed to happen to the American concept of separation of powers? Are we abandoning this unique and hallowed concept for a tinpot dictatorship dressed up in a fancy suit and fancy oratory? Where and how do we stop this train to ruination?

Abolish All Federal Education Spending

From Liberty Maven:

Feb 24, 2011 (2 days ago)Abolish All Federal Education Spendingfrom Liberty Maven» Liberty Maven: For Liberty, One Individual At A Time by Mike MillerQuote of the Day: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America




The Federal State has no constitutional authority for involvement in education. This alone should be sufficient reason to abolish the Department of Education and all federal education spending. But there are also two other powerful reasons . . .



* Federal education programs don’t work. Instead, they actually cause harm.

* The Federal State is headed toward bankruptcy and needs to cut spending.



Statist schools don’t work because they have no incentive to perform adequately. Unlike businesses in the Voluntary Sector of the economy, Statist schools can’t be fired or replaced by the people they supposedly serve.



This is the nature of Statism. It constantly compels the masters (citizens) to serve the servants (politicians and bureaucrats). As a result . . .



You’re now spending more than twice as much for the Feds to meddle with education as taxpayers did in the 1970′s, but student performance hasn’t improved.



Instead, costs have soared. For instance . . .

College tuition has increased at twice the rate of inflation. Federal grants and guaranteed loans that were supposed to make education more affordable, have actually increased costs by enabling colleges to raise their prices. The result is that students are now tens of thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate.



This is par for the course for Statist programs. Consider just two other examples of this phenomenon . .

* Federal politicians create lots of schemes. Take Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These boondoggles were intended to make housing more affordable. The result was housing prices that skyrocketed, then burst, leaving millions of people poorer, and even bankrupt.


* Other federal schemes like Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to make sick-care more affordable too, but here again the costs have risen far faster than the rate of inflation.



The same thing has happened with education.



We can derive a principle from this . . .



Every time the politicians promise they can make something cheaper by spending more, that “something” becomes more expensive, not less, and we have to carry more debt and pay more taxes on top of it.



This makes the comparison between the Coercive State and the Voluntary Sector very stark.



The Voluntary Sector constantly does more with less, while the Coercive State constantly does less with more. The incentives dictate that it must be this way . . .



* The Coercive State rewards itself for failure — the worse schools perform the more money the politicians spend on them. This gives Statist institutions an incentive for INcompetence.

* But businesses and institutions in the Voluntary Sector have to perform well, or consumers reject them. This gives the Voluntary Sector a powerful bias towards competence.



The conclusion we should draw from this is equally stark . . .



The education of children is too important to be trusted to politicians and bureaucrats.



We should abolish all federal involvement in schooling.



The Constitution got it right when it failed to authorize a federal role for education. Schools should be managed at the local level, NOT from the top down. Better yet, schools should work for parents, NOT for teachers unions and the local Statist school board. We need consumer centered education, just like we need consumer centered sick-care.


If you agree, send Congress a letter telling them to abolish all federal education spending. You can use the new campaign we’ve created for this purpose in our Educate the Powerful System.




I included the following points in the personal comments section of my letter to Congress . . .



There is no Constitutional authority for federal involvement in education.



We’re now spending more than twice as much for federal intervention in education as taxpayers did in the 1970′s, but student performance hasn’t improved. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12734



College tuition has increased at twice the rate of inflation. Federal grants and guaranteed loans were supposed to make education more affordable. Instead, they’ve enabled colleges to raise their prices. The result is that students are now tens of thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate. http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml



The Constitution got it right when it failed to authorize a federal role for education. Schools should be managed at the local level, NOT from the top down.



Abolishing all federal education spending would cost us nothing and gain us much. It would bring us in compliance with the Constitution, restore a certain amount of local control to education, and save us about $120 billion a year. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12734



END LETTER



You can help generate thousands of letters to Congress.



If you know others who feel the same way you do about federal intervention in education, or might benefit from the arguments made here, please forward this message to them.



Jim Babka

President

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.



P.S. ATTENTION Phoenix area DC Downsizers. There’s a major Tea Party convention happening from Friday, February 25 at Noon, until Sunday, February 27 at 3 PM. DC Downsizer, Will Wohler is organizing an outreach booth at the event where he will be signing up more DC Downsizers. If you’re available to volunteer at the booth, please contact Will directly at VolunteerAZ@DownsizeDC.org

Throwing In The Towel On The Constitution

From AEI:

Throwing in the Towel on the Constitution By Jonah Goldberg

National Review Online

Friday, February 25, 2011











Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that each new president take the following oath:



I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.



President Obama announced this week that he will violate that oath.



In a decision hailed by gay-rights activists, the White House announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the grounds that it has suddenly dawned on the president and attorney general that the law is unconstitutional.



DOMA, signed into law by President Clinton, bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Obama has always opposed the law, but as president his administration has enforced it and defended it in court. Although it should be noted that Obama's Justice Department has not defended DOMA vigorously, as Justice Department guidelines require.



As Ed Whelan, a legal scholar and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has detailed at some length, the DOJ has been, in effect, tanking the fight in court for the last two years by tailoring its arguments in ways beneficial to gay-marriage activists. Now Obama's lawyers are simply taking a dive by flatly declaring the unconstitutionality of the law.



Obama, who fancies himself a scholar of the Constitution, never said a peep about the law being unconstitutional until this week.



Why the public change of heart?



There's a myth out there that only the Supreme Court determines what is, or is not, constitutional. It's a bipartisan myth.There's good reason to believe that Obama has always been lying--yes, lying--about opposing gay marriage. For example, in 1996, he told the Windy City Times, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." But by 2004, Obama very much wanted to be president, and he understood that supporting gay marriage would be a political liability. So he opted for something other than honesty. And in a 2004 interview with a gay publication, Obama strongly hinted his opposition was strategic, not philosophical.



"Everything we know and admire about President Obama makes the claim that he doesn't support the freedom to marry very unconvincing," Evan Wolfson, the director of the gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, told the Huffington Post last August.



White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insists that the president still opposes same-sex marriage. But Carney was quick to note that the president has said his views on the matter are "evolving." Translation: He could completely change his mind at any moment.



And you know what? That's fine. Lots of people change their minds about issues like these. Support for gay marriage and gay rights generally has been on the rise for years. My own views have been evolving as well.



But that is all irrelevant. The politics are irrelevant too. I don't know if this is a politically smart move on Obama's part or a dumb one, though I have my theories.



Either way, what Obama is doing is flatly outrageous. Carney says that "the president is constitutionally bound to enforce the laws and enforcement of the DOMA will continue."



No, he is not.



There's a myth out there that only the Supreme Court determines what is, or is not, constitutional. It's a bipartisan myth. "We can't have presidents deciding what laws are constitutional and what laws are not," Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) said in a statement. "That is a function of the judicial branch, not the executive."



President Bush made a similar, indefensible error when he signed the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill, even though he believed portions of it were unconstitutional (and he was right; the Supreme Court overturned it in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission last year).



The problem is that the Constitution doesn't say any such thing (and, no, it's not in Marbury v. Madison either). The president doesn't take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Supreme Court. He takes an oath to defend the Constitution.



Imagine if Congress passed--hopefully over a presidential veto--a law that brought back slavery. Such a law would be plainly unconstitutional, and no president worthy of the job would wait for the Supreme Court to tell him as much. More to the point, once the president concluded that the law was unconstitutional, he would be bound by his oath to ignore it, and challenge it in every way possible.



President Obama says DOMA is unconstitutional, and yet the "law professor" says he will continue to enforce it.



In a properly ordered constitutional republic, this would be a scandal. But in America today, it's cause for eye-rolling, shrugs, and platitudes about the demands of politics.



Jonah Goldberg is a visiting fellow at AEI.

Obama May Be In Deep Trouble With Chief Justice John Roberts And The U.S. Supreme Court

from A Charging Elephant:

Feb 25, 2011 (yesterday)Obama may be in deep trouble with Chief Justice John Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Courtfrom Charging Elephant by divingnews@gmail.comBy Rebel Rouser from Texas




Right Time News





According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable. Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.



Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government


 
Chief Justice John Roberts




Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.



The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.





As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.



Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.



And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’



Apparently, the Court has had enough.



The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.



A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.



Such a thing would be long overdue.



First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.



And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.




The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.



In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’



Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.



The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.



And that is only the tip of the iceberg.



Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.



Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.



Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.



In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona.



That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.



And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.



The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.




A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.



This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling — that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

The Impeachable Crimes Of President Barack Hussein Obama

From A Charging Elephant:

Feb 25, 2011 (yesterday)The impeachable crimes of President Barack Hussein Obamafrom Charging Elephant by divingnews@gmail.com




The article below this one which I wrote for the Examiner goes into serious detail about how this may very well become a reality. I’ve made my case the one below is about 6 days more current and must have the administrations blood boiling.



The Constitution deals with the subject of impeachment and conviction. The scope of the power is set out in Article II, Section 4:



“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”



Have the actions of President Barack Hussein Obama reached theses standards? Possibly a more appropriate question would be which of his actions haven’t reached the level and why isn’t he gone?



Contrast the actions of President Richard Nixon with those of the current President. Nixon was in command during the Watergate scandal. Watergate was third-rate break in to Democrat’s campaign offices.




The Republican power brokers said Mr. President, it’s time to step down or you will be impeached, President Nixon did so.





Richard Nixon made Obama look like an Eagle Scout. Impeaching President Obama would have another upside; his appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan, to the Supreme Court would be nullified. Executive orders would be reversed.



Now here’s the problem, it would be a slam dunk in the House, but it’s unlikely the House would consider this as they have way to much on their plate and plan to un fund the majority of his schemes. Thus making Obama a lame duck for the next two years.



Would this President even care? Currently he is in contempt of court over his refusal to allow oil drilling off the US coastline. His Department of the Interior refuses to release new drilling permits.



Obama’s administration has broken new ground in its defiance of any other authority than its own. By checking the White House website, and the only statement on Judge Vinson’s ruling. It’s quite clear, from the statement, “Implementation will continue.”



The White House statement implies that Judge Vinson did not bar implementation of the law, which is false. He declared it void. But the administration is acting as if they don’t even have to appeal it.



In reality, Judge Roger Vinson issued his ruling voiding Obamacare in its entirety as unconstitutional. On page 79, he indicated that he expected the Federal Government to honor the ruling, which would mean that it ceases implementation.



President Obama’s refusal to release his long form birth certificate, which would show conclusively that he is a dual citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as President.




Obama’s college records, which have also not been released, would also contain information regarding his dual citizenship status.



Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election. How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination.



Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) has stated on tape that he was offered a high-level post in Barack Obama’s administration to keep him from running against turncoat Senator Arlen Specter in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary election.



Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.



Obama’s executive order signed in Dec. 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in US territory with impunity and without oversight by Congress, the courts, FBI or local law enforcement.



No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site was the Dec. 17, 2009. In a one-paragraph text of President Obama’s Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: “Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities. “In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it.



The State Department using $23 million in taxpayer money to help transform Kenya into a constitutionally communist nation where the freedom of speech is limited and private property rights are subservient to “social justice”. In addition, the recently adopted Kenyan constitution allows for the practice of Sharia Law in some regions, ensuring women will not be guaranteed basic human rights

Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s plans to take control of millions of acres of public and private land in Western states by designating them national monuments. These efforts are being carried out in secret and without input from Congress, state and local officials and current landowners.




The Department confiscated public lands, 1.7 billion acres. These resources are vital to the Nation’s energy security and provide economic returns to the Nation. How might that be? This is a ruse to make sure private oil companies can’t secure permits to drill for oil and natural gas.



Department of Justice illegal race based policies regarding voter fraud as exposed by former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams. This includes the dropping of voter intimidation charges against 2 Black Panthers brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia and the stated intention by political appointees to ignore voter crimes committed by African Americans, Latinos and other minorities.



Obama’s State Department included a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration law into a United Nations human rights report to show how U.S. rule of law can be an example to the world,



The president had no legal authority to create the escrow fund and no authority to compel BP to contribute to the fund. Forcing BP to agree to the terms of the escrow is ultra vires (i.e., illegal), beyond the powers of his office. Rep. Barton (R-TX) accurately described the slush fund as a “shakedown” (i.e., blackmail), a felony. If so, Pres. Obama has committed an impeachable offense.



The number one reason President Obama must be impeached is he has failed repeatedly to uphold the office of the President and protect the Constitution and America. Can there be any better examples than his failed Middle East policy making sure Iran would not develop the capability of having a nuclear weapon. His dealings with North Korea are not far behind.







The Constitution deals with the subject of impeachment and conviction. The scope of the power is set out in Article II, Section 4:



“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”




Have the actions of President Barack Hussein Obama reached theses standards? Possibly a more appropriate question would be which of his actions haven’t reached the level and why isn’t he gone?



Contrast the actions of President Richard Nixon with those of the current President. Nixon was in command during the Watergate scandal. Watergate was third-rate break in to Democrat’s campaign offices.



The Republican power brokers said Mr. President, it’s time to step down or you will be impeached, President Nixon did so.



Richard Nixon made Obama look like an Eagle Scout. Impeaching President Obama would have another upside; his appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan, to the Supreme Court would be nullified. Executive orders would be reversed.



Now here’s the problem, it would be a slam dunk in the House, but it’s unlikely the House would consider this as they have way to much on their plate and plan to un fund the majority of his schemes. Thus making Obama a lame duck for the next two years.



Would this President even care? Currently he is in contempt of court over his refusal to allow oil drilling off the US coastline. His Department of the Interior refuses to release new drilling permits.



Obama’s administration has broken new ground in its defiance of any other authority than its own. By checking the White House website, and the only statement on Judge Vinson’s ruling. It’s quite clear, from the statement, “Implementation will continue.”



The White House statement implies that Judge Vinson did not bar implementation of the law, which is false. He declared it void. But the administration is acting as if they don’t even have to appeal it.



In reality, Judge Roger Vinson issued his ruling voiding Obamacare in its entirety as unconstitutional. On page 79, he indicated that he expected the Federal Government to honor the ruling, which would mean that it ceases implementation.



President Obama’s refusal to release his long form birth certificate, which would show conclusively that he is a dual citizen and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as President.




Obama’s college records, which have also not been released, would also contain information regarding his dual citizenship status.



Widespread voter fraud including voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, falsified documents, and threats of violence against Hillary Clinton supporters committed by the Obama campaign and ACORN during the 2008 Democrat primary election. How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination.



Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) has stated on tape that he was offered a high-level post in Barack Obama’s administration to keep him from running against turncoat Senator Arlen Specter in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary election.



Purchase of Congressional support for the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill including the “Cornhusker Kickback”, “Louisiana Purchase” and having the Department of Interior increase water allocations to the Central Valley of California to secure the votes of Democrat Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa.



Obama’s executive order signed in Dec. 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in US territory with impunity and without oversight by Congress, the courts, FBI or local law enforcement.



No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site was the Dec. 17, 2009. In a one-paragraph text of President Obama’s Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: “Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities. “In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it.



The State Department using $23 million in taxpayer money to help transform Kenya into a constitutionally communist nation where the freedom of speech is limited and private property rights are subservient to “social justice”. In addition, the recently adopted Kenyan constitution allows for the practice of Sharia Law in some regions, ensuring women will not be guaranteed basic human rights.




Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s plans to take control of millions of acres of public and private land in Western states by designating them national monuments. These efforts are being carried out in secret and without input from Congress, state and local officials and current landowners.



The Department confiscated public lands, 1.7 billion acres. These resources are vital to the Nation’s energy security and provide economic returns to the Nation. How might that be? This is a ruse to make sure private oil companies can’t secure permits to drill for oil and natural gas.



Department of Justice illegal race based policies regarding voter fraud as exposed by former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams. This includes the dropping of voter intimidation charges against 2 Black Panthers brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia and the stated intention by political appointees to ignore voter crimes committed by African Americans, Latinos and other minorities.



Obama’s State Department included a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration law into a United Nations human rights report to show how U.S. rule of law can be an example to the world,



The president had no legal authority to create the escrow fund and no authority to compel BP to contribute to the fund. Forcing BP to agree to the terms of the escrow is ultra vires (i.e., illegal), beyond the powers of his office. Rep. Barton (R-TX) accurately described the slush fund as a “shakedown” (i.e., blackmail), a felony. If so, Pres. Obama has committed an impeachable offense.



The number one reason President Obama must be impeached is he has failed repeatedly to uphold the office of the President and protect the Constitution and America. Can there be any better examples than his failed Middle East policy making sure Iran would not develop the capability of having a nuclear weapon. His dealings with North Korea are not far behind.