Constitution

Watching the circus that was the announcement of the "historic" Pelosi Health Care Reform Bill yesterday, I kept thinking about one thing:

All those people standing up there trumpeting the latest power grab by the Federal Government and not one of them could point to where Congress gets the authority to even write the bill, let alone pass it.

That's right, not ONE person there could do that because the plain and simple truth is that the authority doesn't exist in the Constitution. I've looked.  It's not in there.  Furthermore, I've read specific quotations from the Constitution's primary author, James Madison, and from his good friend, Thomas Jefferson, and you'd be hard-pressed to find where either of them even remotely hinted at the Federal Government having this kind of power over individuals.  You'd find quote after quote, essay after essay arguing how the Federal Government couldn't do something like take over the Health Care system, but nothing supporting the idea.  Not a word.

It is at this point in a conversation with a Progressive / Statist that we'd get into all the Judicial precedent, etc. where SCOTUS or lower courts ruled that the Federal Government was within its bounds under the Welfare or Commerce clauses to do this or that.  But you know what? That's their trick.  They think you're too dumb to know that those rulings were made by stacked or intimidated courts.  They fall back on the "well, we're already doing it" defense as if that makes it right.  It doesn't. Our founding document has been hijacked.

The debate we should be having is simple: Is Congress even authorized to do this?  And we, as conservatives, need to make the case over and over that they do not have this authority and pull the debate back to where it belongs.  This is about the expansion of government.  It is not about providing Health Care for all (since this bill STILL doesn't cover everyone).

It’s driven me CRAZY for years…these clowns talk such a great game seeking our votes and then they go back to WASHVILLE…which was once a swamp…I’ll let you fill in the blanks. Maybe the British were trying to do us a favor when they burnt it down in 1814. It must be that moist, dank, swampy air that causes brain lesions in politicians as soon as they check into the Beltway. The Republican brand in particular is suffering from severe disillusionment, stemming from years of rank and file abuse by the party “leadership” which isn’t. You’d think the boneheads would get the message that’s been coming from the people ever since George Bush started taking America down the wrong fiscal path. Centrism and reaching across the ‘aisle’ has proven to be worse than a red herring time after time. Accommodation with the Democrats is like dropping into a den of rattlesnakes and blithely saying,  ‘ Why howdy neighbor” – and then being genuinely surprised at getting bit. If the base wanted you to make deals we would have said so. But then, you guys develop extremely severe hearing loss, along with your tunnel vision which comes with your SWAMP FEVER. And you wonder why you shed voters and support like needles on a month old Christmas tree. (Notice the non-use of the term holiday tree?). If this party is to re-emerge as the right-of-center party, capable of saving America from the voracious maw of Marxist tyranny threatening to overwhelm the Constitution and the rule of law as laid out in that Constitution and in our Bill of Rights, then it had best stand on its feet and proclaim to America and the world that, “WE STAND FOR AMERICA…this shall not be!” Say it loud. Say it clearly, without the usual mealy mouthed equivocation a la Lindsey Graham and the pathetic turncoats like him. Stand up and stand for something, or die for nothing. Stand up and America will follow. You can’t have it both ways.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

ARRA News - The story out of Honduras is that the people of that stalwart little country have now taken it into their own hands to preserve their democracy in the most courageous action since they established their constitutional republic nearly three decades ago. Just as former Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales prepared to seize full power in direct violation of the nation’s Constitution, the military leadership – with the backing of the people – removed him from power.

Unfortunately, Barak Obama, after encouraging the Zelaya coup with his complicit silence, has now condemned the people’s move to uphold their Constitution and preserve their freedom. And, as expected, the mainstream media has joined Mr. Obama in censuring the restoration of democracy by censoring the full story. Yet, what actually occurred in Honduras is a case study in the survival of freedom against the most oppressive odds.

Earlier this year, in the face of strong public opposition, Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales declared that he would stage a referendum to have the country’s constitutional term limits law overturned, thereby allowing him to remain indefinitely in power. The people of Honduras had adopted the single, four-year--term limit as part of their Constitution in January of 1982. Significantly, the term limits provision is one of only eight “firm articles,” out of 375. By law, cannot be amended.

The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the Zelaya referendum unconstitutional, his own Liberal Party came out in strong opposition, and the public overwhelmingly opposed his power grab. Despite this, Zelaya, a leftwing politician with strong ties to Cuba’s Castro and Venezuela’s Chavez, scheduled the referendum for Sunday, June 28. At midnight, Wednesday, June 24, the strong-arm president gave a televised speech accusing his opposition of promoting “destabilization and chaos” by attempting to thwart his unconstitutional referendum.

As the situation in Honduras continued to deteriorate, the Zelaya’s attorney general called for his ouster; his Defense Minister resigned; he fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for stating that he would refuse to send out troops to put down public protests; the chiefs of the army, navy, and air force resigned; and the country’s Supreme Court ordered the nation’s army and police not to support the unconstitutional referendum.

Through all of this, Barack Obama abetted the Zelaya power grab through his calculated silence. Yet, the brave people of Honduras – enduring almost unfathomable duress – stood firm in support of their Constitution and the term limits embodied in it. Now that the will of the people has triumphed over tragedy, we believe the time has come for Mr. Obama to concede the defeat of his partner and policy, and for the U.S. media to support those who, putting principle above personal safety, have let freedom ring. We applaud the Freedom Fighters of neighboring Honduras. [Source by ALG News]

Since the founding fathers quotes with respect to their views on our country, and reasons for many of the provisions in our Constitution can be ascertained from historical records which are in the public domain for all to see, publish or expound on at will, below are some of James Madison's comments with respect to Congressional legislation (such as the recent stimulus), war and citizen's property rights.

Mr. Madison is credited with being the father of the Constitution actually, so felt his thoughts in light of the challenges America is now facing might be of interest to those of you who believe still in the America of the founders rather than the America it has become:

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right."

"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted."

"War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits."

"Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done."

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." 

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation.  All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions.  And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted?  It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it? 

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense?  Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is a contract between the federal and state government and it's people, and the defacto Law of the Land. 

As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is  based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." 

The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:

Section 256. Generally. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]

A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]

The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]

An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]

The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.

Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification."