On the Butcher Block

Well; they are at it again.

Carter did it; Clinton did it and now Obama is doing it.

Read the US Constitution. It is written in pretty plain English, unlike some modern laws that seem to be written in Sanskrit. There is a direct charge to the Federal Government to pay for an Army and Navy. Defense of our borders is, in some respects, the ONLY charge to the Federal government.

Yet when money gets "tight" (yes I am using that word sarcastically) the first cuts are in Defense. There are so many things wrong with this announcement  i don't know where to start.

How about here: The cuts assume the United States no longer becomes involved in large, prolonged stability operations overseas on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Really? And what happens if that assumption is wrong? NO problem; call up more of the National Guard and Reserves. Except, damn the bad luck; they are getting cut too. So with less regular Army and less Guard and Reserve Units, what happens when the manure hits the fan? What happens when Iran and North Korea conspire to attack Israel and South Korea at the same time, plunging two areas of the globe into chaos at the same time?

I'll tell you what happens. Have you ever locked two feuding boys into a room without parental supervision? Then come back a hour later to the utter devastation? Without the US as a stabilizing force a Korean conflict will drag in Japan and China at least. An Iran- Israel war will drag in Iraq and Syria and probably Egypt as well. And maybe Russia, as a 'silent' partner. Which side of the world would we respond to? Where would the limited resources get allocated?

Which ally will we throw to the dogs? and don't mention the United Nations as a solution; without US firepower (both figurative and literal) they are a laughing stock.

Don't misinterpret me; I don't want the United States military to be used the world's policeman. I don't want out best young men dying between the fighting factions in a backwater Civil War. But like it or not, our country has international interests; both treaty and trade related.

Those interests need to be protected. We can no more abandon South Korea than we can, should she require our help, England.

But these cuts may force just such a decision. There is a reason we have not had a Army smaller than it now for the last 70 years; its because we need to be prepared to not just fight a war on two continents; we need to WIN both wars.

Have you ever watched a show on the nature channel? Have you ever watched a pride of lions chase after a herd of wildebeests? Have you ever seen them take on the biggest meanest one they could find? No, they are chasing the old, the sick, the weak. The vulnerable.

Have you ever watched a how on a wolf pack, or a wild horse hear or a any other group of wild animals? They all have A leader. When is that leader challenged? when he is at the height of his power? Or during his decline?

Like it or not it has been both the United States' power- and willingness to use that power- that has kept the world largely at peace since 1945. What happens when that power is no longer there?

Its not just our way of life we need to worry about (although I do see an increasing testing of US resolve in the last 4 years; and there will be more and more incidents to test 'President Bluster' in the coming year; watch carefully the response to his 'line' in the Ukraine), but also that of our allies. Yes Israel is a potent force, but it is the looming US Club that has helped keep the rest of the Middle East at bay. And yes; we have interests other than Israel in the Middle East; a conflict in that area would be disastrous to energy prices, not to mention the possibility of Moslem uprisings in any country in Europe that joined in on Israel's side. Yes; quite a few countries have sizable Moslem populations, like France, Belgium and England; enough that could swing a balance of power in a 2015 Mideast War.

The thing the Obama Regime doesn't think about when doing their figuring: Cutting Defense is easy.

Dealing with the results of those cuts will be hard. Hopefully not harder than we can cope with.

But I have my doubts. And the history of this Administration does nothing to ease those doubts.

What is Law Anymore?

Well isn't that special.

74% of the voters in the Commonwealth of Kentucky say one thing; ONE Federal Judge says another. Guess who's opinion matters?

Why is that?

I have talked many times about gay marriage, most recently here. I have also said that a state or a community should be able to make its own laws on morality. Things such as drinking, gambling and prostitution should all be local decisions. If Ohio wants to get rich off of sin, so be it. If Kentucky chooses not to, so be that as well.

Basically, here is what this judge has decided; He has decided that the will of the judiciary in Massachusetts has more weight than then the will of 74% of the voters of Kentucky.

Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution; any marriage license issue in one state is valid in all fifty; just like a driver's license.

So; if a single judge in Rhode Island can determine that it is legal for two men to marry, Kentucky has to recognize that marriage, no matter how illegal it is in Kentucky.

Why do the same rules not apply to Concealed Carry? Why isn't my CC permit valid in Illinois?

Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

If that can be construed to mean that something legal in one state must be recognized as legal in all states, then there should be no cherry-picking on what is allowed.

Smoking dope is now legal in Colorado and Washington; why isn't a citizen of Colorado allowed to light up in Kansas? Full Faith and Credit.

If where I come from has a speed limit of 80, how can another state say that is illegal? Liquor should be the same way; if the state I came from says an activity is legal, the state I go to shouldn't have any right to make that same activity illegal. Full Faith and Credit, right? Isn't that what this judge has said? The religion or morality of a given state can't control acts legal in another state?

Talk about the lowest common denominator; we are now stuck with, as a base, whatever state has the lowest laws in any given area. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Full Faith and Credit now says NO state can outlaw Prostitution.

Florida and Texas, among other states, have made not paying an income tax legal. I guess that means I shouldn't have to pay one either; Full Faith and Credit, right? 

What's that you say? It doesn't work like that? Only CERTAIN THINGS can be ruled as legal everywhere? Certain things that celebrate an aberrant minority and crucify the majority?

 Yes; I said aberrant. The sexual acts of consenting adults has one purpose; procreation. So, by definition, any sexual act that cannot lead to procreation is aberrant; just like any child born out of wedlock is a bastard. Words have meanings. Sometimes cruel meanings,

And just because a behavior is aberrant doesn't mean it should be illegal or even immoral. Neither should it be celebrated.

 All that aside, what happened to majority rule? More states have outlawed Gay marriage by popular vote than have approved it. More states have had gay marriage thrust upon them by judicial fiat than have voted it in by popular vote.

While I firmly believe in the rights of the minority to voice whatever opinion they hold, no minority has the right to enforce that opinion on the majority.

 What's next? I do believe I will keep a copy of Bourke V. Beshear in my holster. The next time I get stopped concealed carrying in Illinois, guess what the officer gets, along with my CCW license?

Yep; Full and Credit Friend; live with it.

Miranda Rights

Have you ever heard of a fellow called Ernesto Arturo Miranda?

Probably not. Ever heard of Miranda v. Arizona?

Again; probably not. But you have heard of Miranda Rights, or the Miranda Warning. Especially in the last week. But what are they, exactly, and why are they 'read' to a suspect? And why is the the fact they are read or not important to the Boston Bombing Case?

First; we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights (do those words sound familiar?) Those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some of us will never need to know about some of those rights; they only come into play when we become involved with the government in a possible discreditable nature.

In English? When we get busted.

If you have ever watched a cop show you know the drill: You have the Right to Remain Silent (anything you say can and WILL be used against you in court). You have the right to an attorney (one the state will pay for if you are broke enough). And of course, the first piece of advice from your mouthpiece is SHUT UP.

Here is where the Miranda Rights come in on Live Bomber (as with all mass murderers, I will not name either of them; for sake of difference they are Dead Bomber and Live Bomber). We want to know some things; things only he and Dead Bomber knew. Once we have Mirandized him, if he tells us how this action came about, and maybe admits to a few more crimes while he is at it, we can use that information in court. It is to his benefit to follow the sound (and expensive) advice of his mouthpiece and shut up.

If he isn't Mirandized, then we can act on the information in all cases but the defendant's. He hadn't been told that we could use the information against him, so we can't use it.

In practical application, let's say that Live Bomber says he was part of a larger conspiracy and names names. If he states that information before he is Mirandized, then we can find his conspirators and charge them, but not him, with the conspiracy. Same information after he has been read his Miranda Rights? Then we can round up the gang, AND add a conspiracy charge to Live Bomber.

This is why the decision to read him his Miranda Warning was a poor one, provided he has his right mind. Who in their right mind wouldn't lawyer up and shut up? Information we might have obtained if we couldn't have used it against him now can and will become a part of the case.

Granted, I think we have enough to fry Live Bomber and send him to where ever it is he has earned in his God's eyes. He couldn't incriminate himself anymore than the photos and other physical evidence has. We can't fry him twice; who cares what else he could incriminate himself in?

This is Massachusetts for crying out loud. They may not fry him for the murders and the maimings, but they will for not filing an Environmental Impact Statement before he set off the bomb and polluted the atmosphere.

Here is the other problem with our Constitutionally protected inalienable rights: Live Bomber is a United States Citizen and entitled to all of the rights every other citizen has. Considering that he has blown the oath he took into as many pieces as he has his pressure cooker, and considering what he is charged with, I'm not happy about it.

But I would rather have him acquitted than I would have a precedent set of trying him as a foreign national.

Sometimes Justice is not pretty. Sometimes the rights of the one must be seemingly misused in order to save the rights of the many.

I hope it doesn't happen in this case.

Repent! The End is Near!

Oh Crap.

I agree with John Kerry on something.

But, in my defense, I have been saying this for years; he has been living it for years.

And, I'm not sure we both mean the same thing.

Our Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, allows us freedom to be in charge of ourselves. We aren't wards of the State, to be cosseted and controlled.

We can, for fun and recreation, jump out of perfectly good aircraft. We can climb shear rock walls, depending solely on our fingertips and toes. We can jump off of cliffs, and hang suspended by 10 yards of fabric and an aluminum frame.

We have the ability to determine for ourselves what is fun and safe.

Do some of us make bad decisions when it comes to safe and fun?

Indubitably. The phrase "Hold my beer and watch this" comes to mind.

Some also make the wrong decision when it comes to what is recreation, or over indulge in that recreation. Drugs and alcohol in particular. A few beers every now and again isn't a problem. Staying drunk for weeks on end is. But we are allowed that stupidity. We may have family and friends who will work toward making us sober up, but the state cannot intervene without being asked to.

The symptoms can be addressed- public intoxication for example- but the state cannot forbid us from purchasing and consuming alcohol.

That is our right; the right to be stupid.

The Constitution created a limited Federal government, and the Bill of Rights further limited the reach and scope of that Federal Government. Why was that?

Look at two Amendments in particular; the Second and the Ninth.

Take a look at the Aurora, Colorado shootings. One person in that room had weapons. That person became the one in control. He alone determined who would leave that room unscathed, wounded or dead. Everyone else had been disarmed, by law and custom, and were, barring random chance, at the mercy of the armed shooter. He was in control, and it was the weapon (a weapon held illegally) that gave him that control.

The Second Amendment hands us the ability to be in control of our own destiny. We can use that weapon to hunt and feed ourselves. We can use that weapon to defend our lives and property. We can use that weapon to defend our liberties, just as the men who wrote the Constitution had done.

The choice is ours. We determine what is worthy of defense; which life, which property, which liberty.

We also have the choice not to arm ourselves. To choose not to defend our lives, our property, our liberty. To submit to the control of a cosseting government; to surrender our labor to the government for a doled out share of health and wealth. a share not determined by how hard we work, but by a far off bureaucrat, more interested in our political worth and reliability.

But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

The Ninth Amendment also limits the power of the Federal government; reserving to the individual all of the powers not reserved to the Federal government.

And believe it or not, not withstanding a lot of.... Well; most of the recent activity in Washington, the Federal government did not retain the right to act with acute stupidity.

I have no idea what Kerry meant by his statement, but I do know what I meant by mine. 

We may have used the same words, but I doubt we really had the same meaning.

January 20, 1973

A date that will live in infamy; at least in some circles.

A tortuous decision, Roe v. Wade, in which the decision was made, and then the law was found to enforce it. Or maybe found in certain 'emanations from penumbras'.

Ann Althouse, whose blog is a daily stop for me, has a post up on the decision. Ann is a law professor, so her opinion on Conlaw should carry some weight. But in this case she, and the court are wrong.

I won't fault their finding of a right to privacy, or their finding of a limitation on state action when it comes to the individual. Both correct.

But they incorrectly protect the wrong individual.

In his opinion Justice Blackmun seemed to have trouble determining when life actually begins. I don't have the same trouble.

Life begins at conception.

Unless you can prove to me that the product of human sperm and a human egg can somehow grow into a duck.

Why is that so hard? Why couldn't the esteemed Justices figure out that there is a second individual involved in every pregnancy, just as human as the mother, whose life has the same right to legal protection as the mothers?

Is that life worth as much as it's mother's? Absolutely. Once you start assigning comparative value to a human life you have started down a road toward lessening the value of every human life.

Certain things need a bright, white line; the protection of human life is absolutely THE prime one.

Once a society  has determined that a human life is worth less than a whim decision of another, where do you now draw the line?

Since a 20 week old fetus is not viable, based on its inability to live with out the support of another human, what about a 25 year-old comatose individual, also unable to survive without the care of another individual? Why is the 25 year-old 'worthy' of the care of another, and the 20 week old is not?

Or the 85 year-old grandmother with Alzheimer's;can we consider her viable? She needs constant care individual in order to survive. Can someone's whim decision end her life as well and the 20 week old's?

Ah; I know the response; ANY individual, with the proper training, can care for the comatose or the elderly; only ONE individual is capable of taking care of the fetus; its Mother.

When we say its her baby we don't mean its her possession, like an automobile; we mean its in her charge; her care. The child is a part of her.

Women have been given the most important job in the history of mankind; the production and nurturing of the next generation. Over 55 million mothers in the last 40 years have decided they don't want the job. which is fine.

As long as you haven't applied for the position and been granted the job. It's not one you can quit half way through the contract.

Next objection is always Rape/incest. I can understand why a woman would not want to carry the child of her rapist. The morning after pill exists, and I think this would be an excellent use of it. When a woman reports a rape, a part of the kit is a morning after pill. If the egg has been fertilized, it has not yet begun to grow, and has not become implanted on the uterine wall. It has not yet become life.

But the idea that 6 months later a woman suddenly decides to cry rape because of an inconvenient child... maybe I don't understand what it means to be raped. I can't imagine it would take a woman more than a few minutes to figure out she was, or had been raped.

Incest is another matter. Yes it happens, and yes, an unwanted child is the result. And yes, there should be an exception in the law for the victims of incest. Are they willing to put the father in jail?

As is pointed out in the Althouse comments, abortion was always legal, but not available on demand. Medical professionals needed to determine that the saving of the mother's life required the termination of the child's. As a father, that is a decision I would find impossible to make. Kill my wife or kill my child? A decision I pray I never face.

And yet, 55 million women have easily decided that the cost of having a child was more than they were willing to pay.

And they are free to decide not to have children. Its easy.

Just avoid the act that creates them.

But I suppose that would be too difficult, wouldn't it? Easier to have your fun and destroy the results than not enjoy the fun.

Maybe that is the part of the process I understand the least.

But apparently Justice Blackmun had no trouble.

The Issue is Basic

Who controls your life? You or the Government?

And when Government control becomes oppressive, what do you do about it?

You do your best to vote out the bums, and only the bums change, not the oppression.

Then we turn to the Second Amendment. Do we really plan on defeating the government with our little guns?

Uh, yes.

What were Lexington and Concord about? What was Paul Revere's ride about? Why were an ignorant bunch of Colonials taking on the most powerful military the world had ever known in 1776?

The men who had fought and won the Revolution then entrusted the newly formed government to be in charge, because as Jefferson said, government is a necessary evil. But the new Constitution failed to enshrine some of the basic rights the new country had just fought a 7 year long war for. One side in 1783 reminded us that these rights are God-given, and can't be infringed.

The other side we agree, but put it in writing. That's how we wound up with the first 10 Amendments, commonly called The Bill of Rights.

All of these Amendments are important, but let me call attention to 3 of them; the Second (of course); the Ninth and the Tenth. These rights were so important to the Founders that they were individually named; the same as our freedom of press and expression; freedom of worship, and freedom from illegal search and seizure.

The ability to own weapons is the Second Amendment. Not the last.

The Ninth and Tenth further limit the Federal Government to only the powers enumerated in the Constitution itself, further limiting the power of the government in our lives.

Reagan said it best; Government isn't the solution, Government is the problem.

Take Sandy Hook. It was a 'Gun Free Zone'. A place designated by the government to exclude guns. That sure stopped the shooter there, didn't it? So lets up the penalty for bringing a gun into the zone. The crazy bastard killed himself. What punishment can you craft into law worse than that?

Take a look at ALL of the mass shootings in the last 5 years. For arguments sake lets say there were 15; 3 a year. Say each one averaged 20 dead, and the shooter used 3 guns, each with a 30 round magazine. Damned evil guns.

So we have 45 guns used for evil in very attention grabbing incidents. In a county with over 300 million guns in it. and we have 300 dead; each death a tragedy, but again, in a country of over 310 million people; and these number are just off of the top of my head. The real numbers are considerably less.

But each incident makes headlines, and the folks who don't like guns in the hands of private citizens use each one to ram home there talking points. Never waste a good crisis, remember?

Instead, I maintain that incidents like Sandy Hook only serve to prove the old saying; When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Gun technology is a genii you can't stuff back into the bottle. Bans don't work, not just for guns but for anything. Prohibition worked real well back in the 1920's didn't it? The War on Drugs? How's that working out for you? Gun Free Zones?

Yeah, you see the point.

One way I use to make my point about self defense (it's easy for me, at 6-4 and around 300 pounds) is I invade personal space, and then ask what they intend to do about it. Call 911? Why? Because they have guns? Then why not have one yourself?

Me standing in front of you to make a point in an argument is one thing; What would it be like if I was truly hostile?

How long would you be willing to wait on a government response?

Who is in charge of your life?

You; or the government?

A note to Mitch McConnell

Here is a copy of the note I just emailed to Senator McConnell:

Senator McConnell:

Can you explain the logic behind not granting all forms of communication the same constitutional and Supreme Court reviewed protections? If US Mail and wired phone lines require a warrant, why shouldn't email and wireless phone conversations?

I have a 4th Amendment right to privacy in my papers and in my communications. The government does not, at any level, have a right to review those communications absent a warrant. PERIOD.

I have voted for you that last four times you ran for the Senate, but it has become increasingly clear that you are no longer a resident of Kentucky, but a resident of Washington, D.C.. It is time Kentuckians found a fellow citizen, like Senator Rand Paul, to represent us.

2014 can not come soon enough. 

If he reads the message, will he get it?

I doubt it.

John Roberts Did WHAT!?!?!?!

I'm not sure yet how I feel about yesterdays Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

One side of me is adamantly, virulently opposed to the very existence of a law that controls a very personal choice. That side says the court made a horrendous mistake yesterday. And just the fact that Roberts joined the Dark Side of Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer is kind of disturbing.

But, some of the legal commentators I have been reading say that Roberts' opinion has gutted the power of the Commerce Clause. If that is true, then maybe the whole fargin' Obama Presidency has been worth it.

Barely.

The Commerce Clause is probably the most bastardized clause in the entire Constitution. Second would be the 14th Amendment, which somehow manages to have 'emanations from a penumbra'. But, I digress.

In order to get the Constitution adopted by the several states back in 1787 several of its framers wrote a series of pieces, called, collectively, The Federalist Papers, to be published in the newspapers of the day to explain the reasoning behind the various parts of the new Constitution to aid in its adoption.

One thing not made clear to a lot of folks today is the power the states had at the time. The power of the Crown did not devolve to the Continental Congress; it devolved to the various states. Each state became its own Nation, and adopting the new Constitution would cede some of that power to the new Federal Government.

The European Common Market and the Euro are a modern example, with the exception that countries did not lose their autonomy and the ability to remove themselves from the Common Market. It is solely an economic confederation. The Constitution created an economic and a political country, out of once were independent states. Four score an seven years later it was conclusively proven that the states did not have the power to secede. But again, I digress.

I have a copy of The Federalist Papers. 648 pages in paperback, including the index, notes, a copy of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation and the Forward. This is the men who WROTE the Commerce Clause explaining what it meant. How many of the 600 pages deal with the Commerce Clause? 8.

Yep. EIGHT. The single most powerful (in modern interpretation) clause in the entire Constitution earns about 1% of the comments.

It goes back to the realities of the post- Revolutionary States. Each was a sovereign country, and each had the powers of a sovereign nation, including the authority to set tariffs and have its own Customs House. Virginia would have its own tariff on goods from Europe, as well as import restrictions on, say, corn from Maryland or North Carolina,

Obviously, if we became a single country there could not be import and export duties between the several states, and the new Federal Government would set the rules for trading with foreign partners.

Like the majority of the (original) Constitution, simple and logical. And it took 140 years for this simple, logical language to become twisted.

And yeah, a Democrat was responsible. In my opinion the second worst President in the history of the Union; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; FDR. (First is of course Obama. Third and Fourth are LBJ and JEC- James Earl Carter). During FDR's 12 years in office he managed to persuade the Supreme Court that a farmer growing grain on his own land to feed his own cattle- in which neither the cattle nor the grain crossed any state lines- had an effect on interstate commerce, and was therefore subject to Federal Regulation.

So much for the plain and simple language of the Constitution.

Well, apparently I have once again taken the long way around the barn.

So, to bring this home; if the commentators I have read are correct, and this is another Pyrrhic victory for Obama, then maybe I can live with this decision.

One blog I read this morning (which I of course found through Instapundit) Five Possible Silver linings in the Obamacare Decision also lists as a Silver Lining the idea that by keeping Obamacare alive will energize the Republican base this election season, and create the perfect climate for its total repeal in Congress.

I guess I am too multi-faceted, because there is one side of me that's wants Congress to do a total repeal. I am totally against the Courts legislating from the bench, so maybe Congress is where the death of Obamacare needs to happen.

Now all we need are the votes to make it happen come next January.

California's Prop. 8

You all probably know the basics; California passed a law banning same sex marriage; the gays had it overturned in the California Courts as against the California Constitution.

So the voters amended the California Constitution to ban same sex marriage.

And the gays went to the Federal Court, where a Federal Court in California just used ONE judge to over throw the votes of MILLIONS of Californians.

AS long as you are for Gay marriage and against state's rights this decision looks pretty good.

But for the other 95% percent of the country, we just got hammered.

I was reading this post over at Althouse and as usual the comments are great.

I especially liked this one:

dbp said...
Denying same-sex marriage is like denying blind people driver's licenses; it is just not fair since nobody chooses to be blind.

I don't see how blind drivers will have any impact on sighted motorist's ability to navigate our roads.

8/5/10 10:32 AM

Quipping aside, the basis of this judges decision- is the same as in the US Supreme Court case that made oral sex legal in Texas, the Lawrence decision. Basically, local morality has no place in law.

As a States Rights originalist, I have a problem with that.

But one point that keeps being made is that why is the state involved in promoting traditional marriage, but not same sex marriage?

Here I'll tie into my last post.

50,000 years- or more- of evolution has gotten us where we are. 90% of the world- and ALL of the Western World- traditionally has supported the One Man/One Woman concept of a nuclear family. Man and Wife join together and create a new generation. The children that have a mother to nurture them and a father to support them traditionally have done the best, and gone on to create the next generation.

Once again, the new age idiots, who know more than the 15,000 generations that have gone before us, are out to prove how smart they aren't.

Is it fair that Adam and Steve are in a committed relationship, but can't get married?

Eh; maybe not.

But life's not fair. Get over it. Either live in sin with your boyfriend or get with the program and find a nice girl to settle down with.

If you don't like that move to a country that will accept your version of morality and be happy there.

Ya Gotta Go With The Facts

A friend sent me a quote, allegedly from the Czech Republic, that nails exactly where this country is at.

But I am a responsible blogger. I verify my facts before I publish them.

That's where I found this.

As with most of life, the truth is stranger than the fiction.

This quote was actually from a Letter to the Editor from a Clarksville Tennessee newspaper.

And, as usual, the comments section is a hoot.

The quote?

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.

Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.

It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him our president, who continue to support him and who allow those in Congress who support him to remain in office.

STAN HAYES
CLARKSVILLE 37043

We have had the problem of ignorant voters for years. How else do you explain FDR's 4 terms?

But lately the problem has become endemic. Because now we have more voters who don’t pay to support the government the have chosen than voters who are forced to support to it.

Coupled with the rampant voter fraud, we are doomed.

Maybe it isn’t too late. Maybe we can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

But we’d better by God hurry.

The recent 2nd Amendment case decided by the US Supreme Court was 5-4. Yeah, the good guys won, but it was close. Stevens will be (God help the Republic) replaced by Kagan, a political hack of the first order, and lets all pray as hard as we can that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito stay healthy until 2012.

You do realize that the fate of the Constitution depends on none of those 4 getting hit by a bus for the next two years, right?

Yeah, it’s THAT damn close.

I almost forgot about the picture. The seal says Community Organizer of the United States.

That makes him COOTUS.

You just can't make this crap up.

Looking to The Future

Yesterday's post on Amending the Constitution got me to thinking about what else we can do when we take the government back over in 2011.

I wonder if we can just pass one bill that will repeal the entire 111th Congress?

Seriously; have the done anything since January of this year that you would not want to put in the dumpster?

Then in 2013 we can repeal the entire Obama Administration.

Well, it's a nice thought anyway.

Time For a Second Bill of Rights

I am beginning to wonder if the Republican Party knows what it’s doing.

I don’t think they understand what the TEA Party movement is all about. I was listening to Hannity the other day and he was being criticized for saying ‘We need to take back the Republican Party’ while being registered as a Conservative. I was listening to a local morning guy who was recommending conservatives become precinct captains in the Republican Party and control the outcome of the election that way.

See? They don’t understand. We’re not just fed up with Democrats; we’re fed up with Republicans too. We’re fed up with every time some dipstick in Washington has “A PLAN” we lose some more of our money and our liberty. We’re fed up with being told that Washington is the answer, when we know Washington is the flippin’ PROBLEM!

Have you read the Constitution lately? If you haven’t, I urge you to take a few minutes and do so. It’s written in plain English and takes maybe an hour to read. While you’re reading, make note of which clause it is that gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate Health Care. Or look for the one that authorizes Social Security; Medicaid; Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae or any other number of government programs. Unless your copy of the Constitution has Obama’s signature on it, you won’t find them.

The Constitution gives the Federal Government ONE internal power; the Interstate Commerce Clause. Article I; Section 8, Clause 3: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”. This one sentence has been bastardized to mean that the Federal Government has the ability to regulate a single farmer, growing grain for his own use, because that use will mean he will not need to purchase grain from another state, which invokes the Commerce Clause (US Supreme Court; Wickard v Filburn, 1942). A great discussion of the history of the Commerce Clause is here if you want the details.

Why have I drifted here? Because we need to reform not just Congress, but the Constitution, because the Supreme Court has way over stepped the original intent of the Commerce Clause and has aided and abetted in the destruction of our liberty, not as a safeguard to it.

The Constitution spells out four paths for amendment:
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures

We need to start working at the state level to amend the Constitution several ways. I would like to see these amendments:

Amendment 28: Balance Budget- Washington cannot deficit spend without the approval of 2/3 of the states.

Amendment 29: Congressional Term limits: two terms or max of 15 years for a senator; 3 terms or 7 years in the House Consecutive, may serve a second 7 year stint if out of office for 6 years; up to a total of 20 years in Washington in if you serve in both Houses.

Amendment 30: Outlaw Congressional pensions. Let the bums retire on their own dime, not mine.

Amendment 31: Repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to State legislature appointing the Senators.

Amendment 32: Federal Judge Term limits. 10 years in any given chair; 25 total service to the Federal bench, mandatory retirement at 70.

Amendment 33: Reform the Commerce Clause so Congress can only strike down items that prohibit commerce between the states, not pass laws to control it. And make it retroactive.

The political class will scream bloody murder when we try this; Democrats and Republicans alike. And that’s what I mean about Republicans not getting it.

They wanted to start a Revolution against the Democrats.

Instead, they started one against Federal power.

I hope.

Everyday I find it easier to get by without "News"

I am an edjamakated redneck, not a high tech one; I usually have trouble getting hypelinks to work; but I'll try agian:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jt3az5VG6IknYbPlaelNSr-SJblgD96M31OG0

This article (which I found via blake's blog, The Bit Maelstrom {http://bitmaelstrom.blogspot.com/}) is a hachet job if I've ever seen one. But the most egregious comment is from Richard Hesse, professor emeritus of constitutional law at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord (New Hampshire):

“When you think about this claim that if a state believes a federal law is unconstitutional it can just ignore it, then I presume if a county believed a state law was unconstitutional it could just ignore it," Hesse said. "Really what's implicit in this is an unwillingness to recognize a lawful authority."

This guy TAUGHT ConLaw?!?!?!?

I admittedly am no Conlaw expert, but if the 10th Amendment limits the power of the federal government to its enumerated powers, and the states are seeking to exercise their rights under the 10th Amendment;

FIRST: how can Hesse state that they states are ignoring what they consider to be unconstitutional? They aren’t ignoring anything- yet. The states are putting the federal government on notice that they seeking to enforce their 10th Amendment rights.

SECOND: the county/state comparison doesn’t fly, unless a state constitution has a similar clause, limiting the power of the state to its enumerated powers and reserving all others to the county.

No state I am aware of has such a clause; in fact, don’t most state constitutions start by claiming sovereignty?

THIRD: this is not an unwillingness to recognize lawful authority; it is a return of the lawful authority to the states and removing it from the federal government.

The whole article as a hack job, and the author probably had to search long and hard to find a senile old professor who would give him the quote he wanted.

And they wondered why nobody buys a newspaper anymore.