Remember This On November 2nd!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Hat tip to Crusader Rabbit




Remember their words, their actions on November 2nd and vote them out!

Constitution Day Too Political: Judge Overturns Andover Ohio City Fathers

The Andover, Ohio Tea Party will have a celebration of U.S. Constitution today - on Constitution Day - in the town square, after all. After the Andover Township city fathers refused to allow the rally on grounds that Constitution Day is" too political," and affiliated with one political party, a District Court Judge stopped the Township from blocking the event.

Apparently, the city fathers do not appreciate the fact that the Constitution allows all political parties a vote, and without the Constitution, we would not have a two-party system - we would have a royalty or a dictator. Did any of these city fathers make it to Middle School. Good grief! Source.

Constitution Day Too Political (video)
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Mosque Supporter Curses Holocaust Survivor: Calls him Unpatriotic Douchebag Treasonous Piece of Garbage

Is this vile-mouthed attacker today's Democrat? The event is a protest rally of the Ground Zero mosque in New York City. Strong language alert.

Mosque Supporter Curses Holocaust Survivor (video)
Linked by Blue Collar Philosophy - Thank you Todd.

Move Act US Military Votes: DOJ Allows States to Opt Out of Timely Ballots to Troops

The MOVE Act ensures the votes of service men and woman serving overseas will receive their ballots in ample time to return their vote to their precinct (which did not always happen in the 2008 presidential election). Senator John Cornyn has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing his concern for the lack of action, and at issue is the DOJ allowing states to opt out of the mandate for timely ballots getting to the troops. Cornyn's letter says "the statute does not create any discretion for the Executive Branch to decide whether or not to enforce its legal requirements."

The MOVE Act

The result of the DOJ's alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys or the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers' ballots will arrive too late to be counted.

"It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted," said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. "The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws." 

The MOVE act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific "undue hardship" in enforcing it.

Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law

From Cornyn's letter to Holder [pdf]:

The MOVE Act requires states to mail unmarked absentee ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days before an election. This 45-day standard was statutorily mandated based on extensive Congressional evidence that any shorter period of time significantly burdens military and overseas voting rights. The bill allows states to apply for a waiver from the 45-day requirement, but only if at least one of three specific situations arises that renders the state "unable" to comply with that time frane. The waiver language is very narrow and very clear, just as it was intended to be.

How sick is this? How obscene is it that our DOJ would purposefully allow states to avoid getting ballots to our troops - and worse that we allow it to happen? Our DOJ is completely corrupt and our Republic is so broken.

The 14th Amendment Gone Wrong: Note to Congress: Fix the 14th Amendment

It is estimated that some 300,000 babies are born in the U.S. to illegal alien mothers. When birth is given in the U.S., the child is automatically granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment - kinda/sorta.  The problem equates to far more than a mother and child. The number of babies birthed here each year add more to the U.S. population than all other migrant categories. Families flow over the border once a child is U.S. born - and the baby, proudly known as an "anchor baby," or a "jackpot baby," is then able to sponsor the rest of his/her family from somewhere other than the U.S. From that, congressional districts grow, which are then redrawn, sending a Liberal's heart soaring. Nevermind the fact that illegals are routinely counted in our Census.

Revisiting the 14th Amendment shows where the Courts went wrong, in 1898 and again in 1982, making the assumption that citizenship is determined by "physical presence" rather than the "legal status of the parent." It is important to remember that at the ratification of the 14th, there was no such thing as immigration, illegal or not, so could not have been a part of original intent.

Finally, some Republicans are looking at the 14th Amendment and considering initiating hearings on ending the onslaught of illegal newborns. I feel this will go nowhere with this Congress, but if we are successful in taking back the Chambers, this should definitely be on the agenda. The Washington Post chalks this interest up to "election-year-bizarreness," but I believe it comes from the necessity to get Constitutional and do it now. Had we been "Constitutional," throughout the years, think of the problems we would not have.

One question few ask, is how many Muslim children are born here with illegal migrant parents? It's an interesting question because our Census laws forbid counting people who identify as a religion - which Muslims do, and we apparently do not consider the fact that the religion is also government, with allegiance to Islam - pick any Islamic country.

The question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for that?" asked Senator Jon Kyl on Face the Nation. Another way to ask that question is, should citizenship be determined by a newborn's physical presence here, or by the status of the parents, meaning if the parents are here illegally from Mexico, the child is considered a citizen of Mexico.

The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9th, 1868, was intended to assure native-born Black Americans citizenship. In 1868 our country had no immigration laws, and thus the legislation was never intended to include children born of illegal migrants inside our borders. The Amendment reads:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Through 1897 various lawsuits upheld that the status of the parent determines the status of the child. However, in 1898, Wong Kim Ark brought the decision that plagues us today.

The question was put before the Supreme Court in 1898 in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, Mr. Ark was the child of Chinese immigrants who themselves were subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act then in force (that law prohibited Chinese nationals from immigrating to the United States and from seeking naturalization). Lawyers representing Ark argued that the language of the 14th Amendment granted automatic and irrevocable citizenship to Ark as he did not fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the Amendment.

Lawyers for the United States, on the other hand, asserted that babies born to immigrants did not deserve the status of citizen merely through the accident of the location of their birth — a concept known as jus soli.

The Court held in Wong Kim Ark that under the 14th Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of immigrant parents who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who are living permanently in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

It is relevant to note that the parents of Ark were not illegal aliens, but legally present non-citizen residents of the United States.

In 1982 came the most recent challenge to the 14th Amendment, known as Plyler v. Doe. The Supreme Court struck down a state statute denying funding for education to the children of illegals, asserting the  "jurisdiction" of the parents was a "physical presence," rather than the status of the parents determining the status of the child. Three hundred babies later, and likely triple to quadruple the 300,000 in other family flowing into the country, here we are. And where we are includes Muslims doing everything they can to have their children born on U.S. soil.

Pete Stark says Fed Can Do Most Anything in this Country Video

Another classic liberal moment caught on camera. Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA) says there are" very few Constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life." The woman questioning Stark in this Townhall brings up an issue connected to healthcare seldom talked about - the issue of slavery. Stark, who never fails to shock, eventually says "The federal Government...yes, can do most anything in this country." See the video below.

Fortney "Pete" Stark Feds Can Do Almost Anything (video)

Ten Buck Friday Blogs Send their Bucks to Patricia Sullivan Week 6

At 12:01 a.m. RightKlik announced Patricia Sullivan the winner of Ten Buck Fridays Week 6. Patricia is running for the U.S. House for Florida's 8th District. She won the poll with 38% of the vote, with a close second by John Faulk with 33%, vying for the House from Texas' District 18. Patricia hopes to unseat bad-mannered Democrat, Alan Grayson. Update: Sullivan lost the primary race to Republican Daniel Webster.

Patricia Sullivan

Patricia says she is a patriot and not a politician. She founded the North Lake TEA Party and more than a year after the beginning rally, 1,000 or so has continued to show up for North Lake's July 4th get-together. She has been a 4-H leader at both the local and the state levels. She was named 4-H Volunteer of the Year in 2007. She is also a Precept Bible Study leader. If you are not aware of the Precept method of Bible study, it is an in-depth look at a specific Biblical topic. It takes a real commitment to time and devotion to study to successfully complete these insightful studies. From my experience, Precept teachers are impressive individuals.

Read Sullivan on the issues here. She is pro free market and small government. She is a constitutional and fiscal conservative. Patricia is pro-life. She believes in a strong National Defense, secure borders and legal immigration. She believes every family should have the right to choose their children's schools. She is a strong advocate of the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, and she believes in the sovereignty of states.

Patricia has lived in Seminole County, Florida since 1973. She and Scott Sullivan have been married for 18 years. They have four children. Sullivan is a long-time homeschooler.

The Patricia Sullivan for Congress website has a very interesting page titled Chain of the Constitution:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with thechains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

“In questions of power…let no more be heard of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”– Thomas Jefferson

For every $20.10 contribution to Patricia Sullivan for Congress, we will hammer a steel link on the Chain of the Constitution!

I'm not sure how hammering a steel link works, and it's too late to find out tonight, but the quotations from Jefferson are explanatory. Sullivan is pledging to stop criminality in Washington, D.C. with the U.S. Constitution. I like it!

On Sullivan's donation page, there is a box titled "memo." In that space, please note: donated with Ten Buck Friday Bloggers, or something similar.

Ten Buck Friday Winner Week 6

Patricia Sullivan

Florida U.S. House 8th District 

Donate to Patricia's Campaign

Meet the Sullivan family in this video:




Patricia Sullivan - Meet the Sullivans (video)
View a new election video, and grab it for your website (just give an attribution to RightKlik, please, which will keep the attention on Ten Buck Fridays.

Conscientiously Conservative is the birth mother of Ten Buck Fridays. She has a great patriotic blog. Give her a visit.
Ten Buck Friday Bloggers

The Other McCain

Stop the ACLU 

Proof Positive 

just a conservative girl 

JBlog Central 

Maggie's Notebook 

Polemicon

The Conservative Lady 

Right Truth 

The Camp of The Saints 

AmericanNation 

GeeeeeZ!

Randy's Roundtable 

Left Coast Rebel

Mind Numbed Robot

Hack Wilson

The War Planner

Libertarian Advocate 

Lady Cincinnatus

RightKlik 

Conscientiously Conservative 

Old Line Elephant

Spartanburg Tea Party

Anthropocon

MerrieMarie

Conservative Scalawag

20/10 Blog

Fuzzy Logic

Before it's News

Action for Liberty

Adrienne's Corner

Reaganite Republican

Lonely Conservative

Michigan Blogger

Nice Deb

Pirate's Cove

That's Right

Potluck

Rightosphere

Caught Him With a Corndog

The Resistance

IOwntheWorld.com

Gulag Blog

MoreMonmouthMusings

Right, Wing-Nut!

World Daily News

Lilac Sunday

At The Point Of A Gun

WyBlog

Red Virginia Conservative Railroad

Thirteen Stars

America! Oh How We'll Miss You!

Salisbury News

Liberty at Stake

No Sheeples Here

Wizbang

Auldarrow's Blog

Letters from Glome

Allied Liberty News

Obi's Sister

Ruby Slippers

EIB Enthusiasts

Being an American Mom

Conservative Hideout 2.0

The Save Jersey Blog

Jeff Sessions Opening Remarks at Kagan Hearing Video

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) listed an astounding number of violations of Federal law committed by Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. I am at a loss to understand how Democrats will find this woman, who has spent her professional life in activism, with complete disdain for the U.S. Constitution, qualified for this life-time position. The fact that she will end up on the Supreme Court and my children and grandchildren will live with her lack of integrity and contempt for the Rule of Law is heartbreaking. See the video below.

Elena Kagan

Here are a few of Sessions comments (paraphrased):

Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years.

Not only has she not been a judge, she has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration that I think real legal understanding occurs.

Kagan has never tried a case before a jury

She argued her first appellate case just 9 months ago. There is no substitute of being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of law.

Kagan has spent her career in policy and politics, mixed with law.

Her college thesis, Socialism in New York, bemoan socialism's demise.

Her Master's thesis noted the activist tendencies of the Earl Warren court - but said it could have done a better job justifying their activism.

Kagan left law for 5 years for politics.

Kagan was central figure in the White House Clinton-Gore effort to restrict gun rights.

She was the point person for the Clinton Administration effort to block Congressional restriction on partial birth abortions - the key person to convince Clinton to change his mind from supporting restrictions to opposing legislation that would ban it.

While at Harvarvd as the Dean, she reversed existing policy, and kicked military out of recruiting offices in violation of federal law. She punished our Military and demeaned our soldiers as they fought in two wars overseas.

Kagan joined 3 other law school Deans to write a letter in response to Senator Grahams legislation to establish procedures to determine who was an enemy combatant in the war on terror. She compared this legislation, which passed 84 to 14 as fundamentally the same as the lawless actions of a dictatorship. Gr

As Solicitor General for 1 year, her short tenure was not without controversy. In her first appellate argument that speech and press guarantees of First Amendment would allow Federal Gov't to ban publications and pamphlets discussing political issues before an election. [Session reminds her of Thomas Paines Common Sense]

As Solicitor General, Kagan approved filing of a brief  to SCOTUS asking that it strike down provisions of the legal Arizona Workers Act which suspends or revokes the businesses licenses of corporations which knowingly hire illegal aliens, even though Federal law expressly prohibits such hiring. She did this even after the liberal 9th Circuit upheld the law.

There is much more. I hope you will listen to the video. If you believe Kagan should be confirmed, please ask yourself why you want a judge who will attempt to change, at least the First and Second Amendments, refuse to define an enemy combatant and abort late-term babies?


Senator Sessions Opening Remarks at Kagan Confirmation (video)

The Next Generation The Constitution and The Second Amendment: Charlton Heston A Torch with No Flame

This is an outstanding video looking at how the Second Amendment and the Constitution are viewed by coming generations - the keepers of the flame.

Charlton Heston: A Torch with No Flame (video)

H/T to David Lemon, Master of Bronze.

Obamas Immigration is My Illegal Aliens

In this video, listen as the inelegantly arrogant Barack Obama speaks of the new "misguided" law in Arizona to curb illegal aliens. He says his administration plans to keep a close watch on the state to make certain the "basic notions of fairness that we cherish" are not violated. He says Americans demand responsible action. With all due respect, America is demanding the Rule of Law be respected.

Graphic Courtesy Chicago Ray

Well, here's the thing. When it comes to illegal aliens, not immigrants - an immigrant comes legally to the U.S. - so let's get it straight, we should not be talking about "immigration" when we mean illegal aliens, and we certainly should not be using the term "immigration" from the floor of the House or Senate, when it  is clearly a lie.

Obama talks about acting responsibly, which does not include following the Rule of Law. How irresponsible and disrespectful is that? Let's make it clear: if we followed our existing laws, we would be acting responsibly and respectfully for, and of, We the People.

I call on every legislator to deny the use of "immigration" from the House and Senate floor if referring to illegal aliens. If the word "immigration" goes into the House and Senate records to identify those in this country illegally, it's a lie. I call on every Representative and Senator to stand up and object to the word "immigration" or "immigrant" when it is used to misrepresent those in this country illegally.

We can change the laws, but in the meantime, don't lie to the people and make the lies a part of the permanent record. And by the way, I blame George W. Bush for all this and more when it comes to illegal aliens.



Obama Slams Arizona Illegal Alien Law (video)

Linked by The Reaganite Republican - Thank you James!

Linked by ChicagoRay's Conservative Chronicles - Thank you Ray!

Rush Caller Clean and Articulate: Evokes the Constitution: They are Coming for my Way of Life

In a rare segment, Rush Limbaugh let "Jan," a caller, push past the hard-break. She evokes the Constitution  and says "they are coming for my way of life." There are many of us like Jan out here. She spoke for us today.

Rush Limbuagh Caller: They are Coming for My Way of Life (video)

Phil Hare US Constitution: Adam Sharp - St Louis Tea Party Grills Hare who Doesn't Worry about the Constitution Video

Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) crossed paths with Adam Sharp from the St. Louis Tea Party. It was not Hare's lucky day. It was not Hare's best day. The Congressman made the mistake of saying when it comes to health care, he "doesn't worry about the Constitution." See two videos below.

Phil Hare

Over and over Hare is asked "Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to... [pass health care mandates].

Adam Sharp with the St. Louis Tea Party grilled Hare, who claimed he read the complete health care bill three times. Unfortunate for him, because Sharp (or perhaps someone with him) knew exactly how long it takes to read the monstrosity - 8100 pages at 1 minute per page, multiplied by 3 comes out to 405 hours spent on reading the bill by Hare. Hare asks if he is calling him a liar, and Sharp or whomever, says "I am."

The first video is a snippet of the "I don't care about the Constitution." The second video begins at the same venue in a townhall setting. Up front he tells the audience some people want him to kill the bill, and he says" that's not going to happen." THEN a young woman in the audience asks "where in the constitution does it say you can make me buy health care?" His answer is pathetic, and it certainly does not address the constitutionality of the law. Finally, he tries to tell the audience he "hears them." "Anyone can take the easy way out," he says. Someone says: "you did." The crowd reminds him that his constitutents did not want the bill. This crowd doesn't let him get away with that rhetoric. They also remind him that the government has no money. His answer is "Well...."

Then a man asks: "When in the hell are you people in Congress going to start acting like Americans - instead of traitors and communist pimps...."

He is pushed even more to tell them how the Constitution allows for the health care mandate. Hare's answer:  I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sharp (I believe it is Adam Sharp speaking) says, "so, my pursuit of happiness is being forced to buy your product? Some woman is telling Sharp to "shut up."

The young woman who first asked the question about where the Constitution allows the mandates, has a quiet chat with Hare about abortion. Hare says he is Catholic, and he believes abortion is a mortal sin...but as a legislator he has a different job to do."



Rep. Phil Hare: Doesn't Worry about the Constitution (video)
Rep. Phil Hare and Adam Sharp - St. Louis Tea Party (video)

Republican Platform and the Constitution

I looked through the Republican platform today searching for references to the U.S. Constitution, and I found quite a few. I was hoping to find a declaration in the Platform that specifically says it will adhere, at all times, to the U.S. Constitution and all of the founding documents. Senators and Representatives individually swear to uphold the Constitution at the time they take office, but we know that means little in some parts of Congress, and both sides of the aisles.

Republicans and the U.S. Constitution

Wouldn't it be amazing if we could require Congress - Democrats and Republicans, to swear their oath of office again, before each and every vote?

Take a look Below at the references to the Constitution in the  Republican platform  below, and then

 read the new Republican resolution saying the GOP will deny support to any pretender-Republicans (RINOs). If you followed the Dede Scozzafava race in the NY23rd, you will love this new resolution and know from "whence" it came.

Republican Platform 2008:

Category: Government Reform:

Reforming Government to Serve the People:

Republicans will uphold and defend our party’s core principles: Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions.

The Budget Process - A Fraud that Guarantees Runaway Spending:

We call for a constitutionally sound presidential line-item veto. 

Empowering the States, Improving Public Services:

Congress must respect the limits imposed upon it by the Tenth Amendment: “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.”

We look to the model of Republican welfare reform, which, since its enactment in 1996, has accomplished a major transfer of resources and responsibility from the federal government back to the states – with an accompanying improvement in the program itself.  Applying that approach to other programs will steer Congress back into line with the Constitution, reversing both its intrusion into state matters and its neglect of its central duties.   

Appointing Constitutionalist Judges for the Nation's Courts

Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public. This must stop.

Republicans will insist on the appointment of constitutionalist judges, men and women who will not distort our founding documents to deny the people's right to self-government, sanction federal powers that violate our liberties, or inject foreign law into American jurisprudence. 

We oppose stealth nominations to the federal bench, and especially to the Supreme Court, whose lack of a clear and distinguished record leaves doubt about their respect for the constitution or their intellectual fortitude. Nominees must have a record of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

In affirming Article VI of the Constitution - that no religious test shall ever be required for an office - we insist that the Senate should never inquire into a noninee's religious conviction and we condemn the opposition, by some members of the Democratic Party, to recent judicial nominees because of their ethnicity or religion.

Protecting the Right to Vote in Fair Elections:

We oppose any restrictions or conditions upon those activities that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals. 

Guaranteeing a Constitutional Census in 2010

We urge all who are legally eligible to participate in the census count to do so; at the same time, we urge Congress to specify -- and to constitutionally justify - which census questions require a response.

Working with Americans in the Territories:

We appreciate the extraordinary sacrifices the men and women of the territories are making to protect our freedom through their service in the U.S. Armed Forces....We affirm their right to seek the full extension of the Constitution, with all the political rights and responsibilities it entails.

Category - Education: 

Education:

Although the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education, Washington’s authority over the nation’s schools has increased dramatically....We call for a review of Department of Education programs and administration to identify and eliminate ineffective programs, to respect the role of states, and to better meet state needs.

Category - Crime:

Protecting the Victims of Crime:

Twenty-six years ago, President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, calling the neglect of crime victims a “national disgrace,” proposed a constitutional amendment to secure their formal rights...Today, that disgrace persists...We call on Congress to correct this imbalance by sending to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of crime victims. 

Securing our Civil Liberties:

 Because our Constitution is based on the principles of individual liberty and limited government, we must always ensure that law enforcement respects the civil and constitutional rights of the people.  While we wage war on terrorism in foreign lands, it is sometimes necessary for intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials to pursue terrorist threats at home.  However, no expansion of governmental powers should occur at the expense of our constitutional liberties.

Category - Values:

Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment....We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution... 

We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women.

Ensuring Equal Treatment for All: 

As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life: 

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

Preserving Traditional Marriage: 

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.

Safeguarding Religious Liberties: 

Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed.

The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country. We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards.

Constitution Restoration Project: Restore the Constitution Video

While most of America is distressed that the new health care law will break the bank and diminish America to a Banana Republic (and I agree), the first consideration, in my opinion, should be that the law is unconstitutional. This is an important video, with real suggestions for restoring our Constitution. Listen close to the end, as Professor Barnett says some of the projects coming up will lend comfort to Supreme Court Justices by acknowledging Americans want the Constitution restored. I hope you will watch the video, and be refreshed and enthused that this isn't over yet.

Restore the U.S. Constitution

Professor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit and Pajama's TV, and Randy Barnett of Volokh Conspiracy, and a professor at Georgetown University, talk about why the health care law will be deemed unconstitutional, and talk about coming projects that we can can all get involved in. Check out Barnett's  The Constitution Restoration Project.

Visit The Lonely Conservative for information on an Article V symposium. 

Glenn Reynolds and Randy Barnett Constitution Restoration Project

Congress Exempt from Health Care Should be Illegal under a 28th Amendment

Barack Obama, a Constitutional attorney, signed health care into law despite the 28th Amendment. Some Congressional staffers are exempted from health care as well. Health care is illegal under the 28th Amendment, OR SHOULD BE.

You've seen the emails all over the place to adopt a 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens  of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

This is a perfect day to start talking about a 28th Amendment. Thanks to Snooper, visit him at The Snooper Report.

Robert Gibbs Jason Mattera on Constitutionality: Steny Hoyer and Jason Mattera on Tax Cheats

Two videos. In the first, Robert Gibbs has an encounter with a young conservative reporter, Jason Mattera at Jason Mattera.com. Gibbs tries to compare approval of Bush tax cuts with passing the mammoth health care monstrosity. Great example of Liberal math: Give people more money in their pay checks, help businesses make their payroll, and it's the equivalent of snatching liberty and privacy out of the hands of parents and grandparents,  and hijacking the futures of coming generations with health care mandates, against the will of the people

[Gibbs] The spending in health care is less than the $1.3 trillion Bush health cut.

[Mattera] Do you ever feel dirty inside defending this administration's deceits and deceptions?

In the second video Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Majority Leader meets Jason Mattera. A snippet:

"How do you have the stones to tax Americans for not purchasing healh care when you have tax cheat Charlie Rangel writing legislation and tax cheat Tim Geithner enforcing it? You left-wingers have made hypocrisy an art form."

Great job Jason. Talk about stones! Jason has written a book: Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed my Generation. Buy it at JasonMattera.com

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Thank you Karen!






Robert Gibbs Meets Jason Mattera on Health Care (video)
Steny Hoyer meets Jason Mattera on Tax Cheats (video)

Health Care: Stopping at the Constitution - Not the White House - Not Congress

Lawsuits are in the works for filing against the Senate health care bill passed by the House on March 22,  and by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009. Forget the staggering costs of the legislation that will drive this country to its knees and diminish the care Americans receive. The buck stops at the U.S. Constitution. If the person(s) sworn to the official oath fail to uphold it, citizens must act, and to do so, we must understand why we have a challenge, and be able to voice it to the Liberals in our midst - if any.

Stopping at the Constitution, not the White House, not Congress

I first wrote about this in December, before the Senate bill was passed. This minute, Brit Hume is on O'Reilly discussing the Commerce Clause. Why wasn't this shouted everywhere - early and often? Why wait until today, after the bill is passed? Now Bernie Goldberg is on the factor, patiently explaining that health care for Liberals is a moral issue, but is an economic issue with Conservatives. How about starting with the Constitution and working our down to the economics? Drives me crazy.

The consequences if this law is upheld by the Supreme Court, are daunting:

Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people.

Pelosi, et al claims the power to mandate our health care through the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the power to:

"[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

The Congressional Research Service has acknowledged that the mandate to individuals to buy health insurance may not be constitutional, because it is a "novel issue," meaning "unprecedented." This country has never before mandated individuals to purchase a thing, under penalty of imprisonment or fine if you choose to do nothing.

The argument often used that we are mandated to buy auto insurance does not address the new health care law being signed on Tuesday, March 23rd. You can choose to drive, or not. If you choose to drive, you buy auto insurance or you pay the penalty when you have an accident.

Mandated health insurance is different. There is no choice. We buy it, or we pay a penalty accessed through the IRS. If we choose not to purchase health care, and we are penalized with imprisonment or a monetary fine, it will be the first time citizens have been punished for taking no action, whatsoever.

Think about that. We do nothing, and yet we can be imprisoned or fined. We are mandated to buy health care because that is the only way the Obama administration can raise the money to cover everyone in the United States. Think again. You will be imprisoned or fined for taking no action.

Extraordinary.

The powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause, according to the U.S. Supreme Court are:

(1) Congress may regulate the "channels of interstate or foreign commence". This includes the regulation of steamship, railroad, highway or aircraft transportation.

(2) Congress may regulate and protect "the destruction of aircraft, or persons or things in commerce. An example is "thefts from interstate shipments."

(3) Congress may regulate economic activities that "substantially affect interstate commerce.

Mandating individual health insurance must fall into one of the three categories of regulation above. The first two are not a possible fit: we are not steamships, railroad, highways or aircraft transportation. We don't even have the power to buy insurance across state lines. Health care has nothing to do with No. 1.

Mandating individual health insurance has nothing to do with No. 2.

Congress is relying on No. 3 to make it constitutional to issue the mandate.

But, when Congress wishes to apply the Commerce Clause, they must answer this question: "what class of activity is Congress seeking to regulate?" In this case, their answer is No. 3, but:

...the health care mandate does not purpose to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to "regulate" inactivity.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the Senate bill that just passed the House says:

"the individual responsibility requirement...is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce...

and further:

...the statute purports to convert inactivity into a class of activity. By its own plain terms, the individual mandate provision regulates the absence of action. 

We choose not to buy health insurance, and by that choice Congress says we have participated in an activity that affects interstate commerce. A court must conclude that our failure to buy is economic in nature.


Congress can choose to regulate the health insurance industry, but the Heritage Foundation, and other attorneys say the mandate to buy cannot be regulated...without creating a new Constitutional Doctrine. If that is true, it won't be easy to do so.

If court challenges make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and SCOTUS upholds Congress, and we must accept a mandate, then we have been subjected to "federal control by virtue of the fact that the individual merely resides within the borders of the United States. It will be the first time in the history of the Nation that the Commerce Clause has yielded an action on every single person in the country. Congress will have gained unlimited power.

Unprecedented!

Once again: Congress will have gained unlimited power.

Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people.


The Heritage Foundation gives the following examples of how interestate commerce has not been used in the past, and we should ask why we should allow Congress to perpetrate this power grab now - and understand, if we do give them power of the health care mandate, the can do all of the following:

Even in wartime, when the production of materiel is crucial to national survival, Congress has never claimed such a power.

For example, during World War II, no farmer was forced to grow food for the troops; no worker was forced to build tanks.

While the federal government encouraged the public to buy its bonds to finance the war effort, it never mandated they do so.

While Congress levied a military draft, it did so as necessary and proper to its enumerated power in Article I, sec. 8 "to raise and support armies," not its commerce power.

What Congress did not and cannot do during a wartime emergency, with national survival at stake, it cannot do in peacetime simply to avoid the political cost of raising taxes to pay for new government programs.... 

Simply because Congress can regulate wheat production under the Agricultural Adjustment Act does not entail that Congress can require every American to buy boxes of Shredded Wheat cereal on the grounds that, by not buying wheat cereal, non-consumers were adversely affecting the regulated wheat market.

For more on mandating individuals to buy auto insurance, read this but skip to (D)