Showing posts with label US CONSTITUTION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US CONSTITUTION. Show all posts

Democrats Attempt to Sidestep Constitution AGAIN!

>> April 20, 2010

Here's an idea, Let's PRETEND D.C. is a State! Yea, you know, like we were going to pretend we passed a Health care bill? Only this time let's add two Congress people to the roll call! FROM D.C. which is not a state. or congressional district!

To become a state, you need a constitutional amendment and a two thirds majority vote in favor.

They plan to vote on this Thursday!

When will these treasonous SOB's quit?

Read on - from Julie in my local TEA Party:

House Attempts to Invent DC Congressmen this Thursday!
The D.C. House Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Tell your Representative to vote NO on H.R. 157!

April 19, 2010
After casting a career-defining vote in favor of Big Government Obamacare, congressional liberals know that they have little time left as the majority party in Congress, so they are pushing hard for all the little-known leftist bills that have been sitting in dusty desk drawers for decades.  One such piece of legislation is the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.  Just last week, President Obama called on Congress to get this bill passed and to his desk before November 2010 rolls around. 
Sponsored by DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (H.R. 157) would establish full House of Representatives voting rights for the District of Columbia while adding an additional seat to Utah, a traditionally Republican stronghold and the next state in line to pick up a Congressional seat in reapportionment. However, there is one minor problem:  D.C. is NOT a congressional district or a state!
The D.C. House Voting Rights Act aims to accomplish the following:
  • Subvert the District Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 17 - which makes clear that D.C. is a federal city, not a state, with final governing authority resting with Congress. The U.S. Constitution states that the House shall be composed of "Members chosen...by the People of the several States," not delegates representing non-state territories.
  • Silence critics of D.C. voting rights by buying them off with a "sure Republican" seat because they know the D.C. seat will be a solid Democrat. In the last 12 elections since D.C. was granted the right to cast presidential electoral votes, it has never cast less than 74.8 percent of its popular vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. This move is simply a partisan trade-off by the congressional liberal Majority wanting to add a permanent Democrat vote to their tallies.
  • Bribe Republicans to favor the idea by including a provision to increase the number of House Members from 435 to 437 and give the extra Representative to Utah.
  • Lay the initial groundwork for achieving the ultimate goal of establishing two permanent Democrat Senate seats for the District. If the initial inclination is for DC to be "considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives," then the idea for DC to be "considered a state for the purposes of representation in the U.S. Senate," will not be far down the road.
Simply introducing a bill such as this is unconstitutional!  DC cannot be "treated as though it were a congressional district," unless it were formally made a congressional district via a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress as well as three-fourths of the states to ratify it.
This is nothing new from the Left.  Congressional liberals have been trying to grant full voting rights to the District of Columbia since the 1980s.  The maiden attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution through the "D.C. Representation" Amendment was unsuccessful, after it passed Congress but was rejected by the American people and died on August 22, 1985 after a decisive majority of 34 of the 50 states refused to ratify it.  Now, Members of Congress are attempting to forgo the constitutional process and slip one past the American people in order to accommodate their political agenda!
Remember, the Senate passed its version of the DC Voting bill (S. 160) by a vote of 61 to 37 (Roll Call 73) in February 2009.  However, that bill stalled in the House because it contained a Senate Republican-offered amendment which repealed strict DC gun laws.  Although the language of H.R. 157 has not yet been made public, the bill is expected to contain either the same or similar gun provisions, and although many House liberals favor DC gun control laws, it is likely that the liberal House leadership will approach this legislation in much the same way it did Obamacare:  Pass it now, fix it later
TAKE ACTION!
The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 157 on Thursday, April 22, 2010!  Please call and email your representatives and tell them to vote NO on this unconstitutional bill!
Be sure to focus your calls on Republicans and Democrats alike, as various Republican "moderates" have been known to support this attempted scheme in the past and some Democrat "moderates" have opposed it.
 Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
 


Further Reading:

Read more...

To the Republicans - It's The Constitution Stupid!

>> April 3, 2010

I'm in complete agreement with General Robert "Bob" Belvedere on this one. The Republicans just don't get it. Not only are they dropping the ball on immigration, they have lost their minds on the Health Care issue and the direction this country should be headed in particular.

It's the Constitution Stupid!
There is only one path to saving this country. Half measures are just distractions. The person that demonstrates to me that they are for REPEALING the HC Legislation, is for ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS already on the books and is for LOWERING TAXES will get my vote. I don't care if that person is purple and hails from Pluto!

A progressive Republican is just as dangerous if not more so than a Democrat progressive who spits on the Constitution in the streets.
 
One more point on the Health Care Takeover to one of my Senators:
Senator Cornyn, with all due respect, you are wrong. To shift focus from the constitutionality of the Health Care takeover at this time is disastrous. This issue needs to be the rallying cry for the next 4 years! The Supreme Court should understand our outrage at the callous, underhanded, malicious audacious attack on our rights and individual freedoms that is the HC monstrosity. To back away now is to admit defeat.

I will not lay down for it and you shouldn't either. Make the point of job creation in tandem with the effects on the Constitution if you must, but do not lay the Constitutional issues off to the side. I would wager that a large number of your constituents agree with me. Ask them.

What say you readers?

UPDATE:
Looks like Doc ZERO at HotAir casts his vote for Repeal.

Read more...

I Don’t Worry About the Constitution - Dem Congressman Phil Hare

>> April 2, 2010

Amazing. Why am I not surprised? - GatorDoug has the story.
This guy needs to quit and then change his name. He's giving Phils all over the world a bad name. How about Judas? Or Benedict Arnold? When does the word treason begin to have meaning? Should we wait until they drag the shredded, ratty, tattered remains of the worn out POS that is the Constitution into the streets and burn the effing thing? Would that be enough to wake Americans up?!

Read more...

CNSNews.com House Judiciary Chairman Says Constitution's Non-Existent ‘Good and Welfare Clause’ Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance

>> March 23, 2010

So we got that going for us...
(CNSNews.com) -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the "good and welfare clause" gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill. However, there is no "good and welfare clause" in the U.S. Constitution.

Read on...
 
HT Tabitha Hale via Twitter

Read more...

Aristocracy and Oligarchy - How We Got Here

>> March 15, 2010

Bear with me here; I believe this to be the most critical point in American history besides the Civil War and I haven't seen anyone else address it. Of course, I'm no scholar. I could be wrong, off my meds or just plain freaking wacko, but I seriously doubt it.

The United States began as a Democratic Republic, meaning the citizens grant power to their representatives through democratic elections and the representatives are then the voice of their constituents in the halls of Congress.

But that is an oversimplification. When the Constitution was ratified, the only legislators elected by popular vote were in the House of Representatives.

The Senators were in fact selected and appointed to the federal level from their respective State Legislatures. This was done intentionally so that, hopefully, Senators would be faithful, or beholden to their home State and not the Federal Government. This procedure worked in concert with the Tenth Amendment in protecting the States from federal overreaching meddling and intrusions into State affairs.

The founders saw the mechanics of the Senate/House relationship being rightly contentious in that

Unlike the lower House, where fleeting and often emotionally charged issues could lead to the passage of unconstitutional laws, it is the role of the Senate to slow the process of inquiry and foster longer and more analytical debate on important issues. Source

Sound familiar?

In other words, Senators, with their six-year terms were regarded as the elder statesmen, Constitutional experts and simply wiser and thus less apt to jump on a bandwagon of some shiny, sparkly new scheme. They were, after all, betrothed to their State and not the people per se.

That was then.

In 1913 President Woodrow Wilson and the Congress passed the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution which made the election of Senators by popular vote resulting in the States losing representation and removing some of the States' power to defend themselves against Federal usurpation.

That, along with Wilson's radical new interpretation of the Constitution, set the country on the reckless path we are on today.
Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States...More than anyone, Woodrow Wilson advanced the new Progressive theory of human nature and human institutions and the corresponding Progressive critique of the principles of the American Founding and the Founders' Constitution. Wilson... [snip] ...was the first American national chief executive to openly criticize the U.S. Constitution, once comparing it to "political witchcraft." So hostile was he to the self evident truths of the Founding that, in a 1911 address, he remarked, "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface." (emphasis added)
The Seventeenth Amendment was one of Wilson's first acts as President for a reason.

The difference between before and after the 17th Amendment is enormous. The impact it has had cannot be understated. The 17th was a pivotal moment in American history because it is the point where America became less of a Democratic Republic and more of a Democracy; people living in democracies are more easily manipulated. Everybody wants more stuff. If your representative keeps giving you more stuff then why wouldn't you keep voting for them, right?

Wrong.

What's good for you may not be good for your state or for the country as a whole. The Senate has ceased being the wise grandfather or patriarch of the family, calmly and rationally advising a hormonal teenager who is looking for guidance and has unfortunately become something entirely different. The Senator of today is like any other Congressman, seeking to grab whatever morsels he can to bring back to the nest to distribute among the hungry chicks.

The moment the 17th Amendment was enacted, we traded our elder statesmen for American Idol. We might as well have combined the House and the Senate and made them one parliament. They are, for all intents and purposes in modern times, just about equal. The 17th Amendment weakened the State and in doing so it moved the Federal government closer to the people. Need I say this is not good?

I suppose by now you could guess that the 17th Amendment would be on my "repeal" list. And you would be correct.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.- Unknown
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. Author unknown. Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. Unverified.

Beware the gifts of a compassionate government, lest it engulf you in a fog of deceit, for one day the fog will lift and you will find that all that you have been given has morphed into chains of slavery and you are now the provider for someone else who is no more deserving than you once were.



For my list of the 20 most damaging events in the history of the Constitution see the History of Constitutional Decline.

******************************

Health Care Update!
Don't forget to fax Congress and oppose Obamacare this week. Free faxes can be sent from here.

You can donate 20 dollars and fax 30+ Congress-critters here.

Thanks Russ! 

Read more...

Lessons From The Losing Side...

>> January 12, 2010

 ...of the constitutional debate over 200 years ago. - from Imperfect America

The United States under the Articles of Confederation was a disaster. The federal government was weak and heavily indebted, state governments carried massive debts, printed money like it was newspaper and imposed confiscatory taxes on their citizens. Inflation raged, veterans went unpaid and farmers across the country were being thrown off of their farms and into jails because of debts and taxes. This was the climate in which the Anti-Federalists were decrying the Constitution. They suggested the federal government would become too powerful, that citizens would lose their freedoms and states would become beholden to it. What they didn’t suggest however was a coherent or compelling alternative. When faced with a choice between the Federalist’s imperfect Constitution and the Anti-Federalist’s nothing, the citizens chose the Constitution.
  read the rest here.

Read more...

Recommended Reading

>> January 1, 2010

Found from the followers section of this blog... What, you're not following this blog? What a pity.
Goomba News Network: Serfdom vs. Liberty in 2010


So shameless are corruption's practitioners and their enablers that their behavior is rationalized through euphemisms. Bribery of the sort that would land those in the private sector in the pokey for 10 years is called "legislating" in Washington. It is rewarded with tenure by voters either too enamored with the supposed windfall to understand that the depth of the pickpocketing reaches to their ankles or with memories far too short to effect change in the next election.

Is there an echo in here? I like the way GNN thinks.
Into the blogroll mateys!

Read more...

Health Care Bill Update

>> December 22, 2009

It's the Constitution stupid...

H/T LMA

Read more...

Boldly Going Where Government Has Never Gone Before

>> December 13, 2009

From The Heritage Foundation:
Senator Orrin Hatch plays the Constitution card. As I've been saying, this is historically unprecedented and unconstitutional.

Make no mistake, requiring individuals to purchase a particular good or service, as these bills would do, would be boldly going where Congress has never gone before. Congress has regulated interstate commerce, but has not required that people engage in it. The Supreme Court has expanded Congress’ power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, but not the requirement that people engage in those activities.



There is an arrogance of power here [in Congress] that is beyond belief...

Read more...

History of Constitutional Decline

>> October 14, 2009

The U.S. Treasury building, Washington D.C.Image via Wikipedia
I've been working on an American history time line this week. A work sheet for myself really.  I thought it would be interesting to see the evolution of the constitution, in a format that puts the changes in context with historical events. Along the way, I've noticed the ebb and flow of freedoms and rights given and taken away. What follows is my top twenty list of losses of liberty. (Sorry to say, I couldn't keep it to ten).
In chronological order...
  • Early 1900's - Karl Marx's "Capital" taught in college in lieu of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" - The only one on the list that doesn't involve government. It is on the list to mark a beginning of a train of thought.
  • 4/8/1913 - Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote, States lose representation
  • 1917 - Wilson creates Food Administration, Grain Corporation, War Trade Board & Committee on Public Information by Executive Order begins World War 1 phase of extending government into virtually every phase of American life
  • 1933 - US ends Gold Standard
  • 1933 - FDR Launches New Deal - collectivism in full swing (One Generation)
  • 1934 - National Firearms Act
  • 1935 - Social Security enacted (Wrongly upheld by Supreme Court in 1937 misinterpreting "General Welfare")
  • 1938 - Federal Firearms Act greatly expands firearms restrictions.
  • 1965 - Social Security Act of 1935 amended to create Medicare
  • 1973 - Abortion legalized - giving way to more Social engineering
  • 1991 - Civil Rights Act of 1991 further expanding affirmative action
  • 1994 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Assault Weapons Ban)
  • 2001 - Patriot Act - encroaching on privacy issues galore
  • 2006 - AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon / National Security Agency - possible illegal wiretapping scandal - still no investigation
  • 2007 - The official number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. reaches 11 million
  • 2008 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship for $300 billion taxpayer  dollars.
  • 2008 - ACORN - politically biased community activist organization given $500 million in earmarks with FNMA bailout
  • 2008 - Bush signs TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) $700 billion bank bailout bill
  • 2008 - General Motors becomes Government Motors for $40 billion taxpayer dollars
  • 2008 - Chrysler bailout costs $30 billion taxpayer dollars
If you would like to see the whole spreadsheet, it's here. (just click free user.)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Read more...

Can the County Sheriff Save the Constitution?

>> October 1, 2009

From Patrick Krey at the The New American comes this story: "Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, is not afraid to ruffle some feathers in order to halt what he considers violations of the U.S. Constitution.
In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (commonly referred to as the Brady Bill), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and went into effect on February 28, 1994. A provision of the Brady Bill compelled state and local law-enforcement officials to perform mandatory background checks. Mack, then a Graham County sheriff, was outraged. In response, Mack gained distinction by being the first sheriff in the nation to file a lawsuit against the Brady Bill. The lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the provision was indeed unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment principles of federalism."
Read the rest of the article here
More about Sheriff Mack at http://www.sheriffmack.com/

Read more...

September 17 Constitution Day

>> September 17, 2009

From The Heritage Foundation: Celebrate Constitution Day by reading former-Attorney General Ed Meese’s The Meaning Of The Constitution essay.

Read more...
Related Posts with Thumbnails

USO

USO
Donate!
Powered By Blogger

Congratulations!

You win the "I scrolled to the bottom of the blog award". Which is an empty paper bag of hot air. But then, if you made it this far, that is exactly what you've received. Glad you stopped by.
Please, while you're here, hit he USO tip jar. Thanks.

  © Blogger templates Inspiration by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP