Tag Archives: Constitution Watch

Uncategorized

1st Amendment Still Lives…at least for now

NY Federal Judge Strikes Down ‘Indefinite Detention’ Provision in NDAA

It’s nice to know that the Constitution still trumps Kafkaesque legislative acts of tyranny.

An anti-terrorism law was struck down Wednesday by a federal judge who said she saw legitimate fears in claims by journalists, scholars and political activists that they could face indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan ruled that the law, passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, was unconstitutional. She said the government has softened its position toward those who filed suit challenging the law, but she said the “shifting view” could not erase the threat of indefinite military detention. She urged Congress to make the law more specific or consider whether it is needed at all.

“First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away,” Forrest wrote. “This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.”

The Chief sees no other possible outcome for this…assuming that we still want to have constitutional government.

“That is no small question bandied about amongst lawyers and a judge steeped in arcane questions of constitutional law; it is a question of defining an individual’s core liberties,” she said.

She questioned in her 112-page opinion whether a news article perceived as favorable to the Taliban and garnering support for the Taliban could be considered to have “substantially supported” the Taliban?

“How about a YouTube video? Where is the line between what the government would consider “journalistic reporting” and “propaganda?” she asked. “Who will make such determinations? Will there be an office established to read articles, watch videos, and evaluate speeches in order to make judgments along a spectrum of where the support is ‘modest’ or ‘substantial?’”

Uncategorized

An “F” grade in MY H.S. class!

Obama warns ‘unelected’ Supreme Court against striking down health law

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld….The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress

The Supreme Court is merely “an unelected group of people”?! Well, yes, that’s the way the Constitution sets it up, the last time I looked. Article II Section 2, and Article III section 1. Of course if one has the view that anything that limits the grandiose sweep of executive power is a mere archaism that should be ignored at will, then this WOULD be annoying. (Tough rocks, B.O. – you’re not First General Party Secretary, or Reichsfuhrer…at least not yet!)

AS for the bit about “judicial activism”…there is also a fundamental error in that also.  “Judicial activism” is extending the Constitution to say or do something that is beyond the bounds of what is Constitutionally stated as being a part of the powers granted to the government.  It is NOT, as in the present case, applying the standard of the Constitution to determine whether an act at issue is constitutionally granted.  As the prez goes on with his pseudo-reasoning he then states:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

At BEST this is wildly disingenuous; at worst he’s totally immersed in some form of governmental psychosis where his view of the reality of constitutional review, established in the early days of the republic by Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 (1803). Laws have been overturned on average of about every 16 months or so since then…not QUITE unprecedented OR extraordinary.

…and Obama claims to have been a constitutional scholar? Really?

If he came up with today’s comment as a submission in a H.S. history or government class that I was teaching, it would earn an “F” grade, for having missed the whole main point that applies in this situation.

Uncategorized

From Russia with love…or something

The land of the no longer free

As terrorists struck New York on September 11th, the United States vowed to fight back and protect their country, their people and their freedom. But 10 years on, it seems that freedom is just an illusion, and the US is becoming an Orwellian state.

When George W Bush spoke about the necessity of “protecting the homeland of our country”, he probably thought that the homeland was literally just that – a land that one calls home. And while most people focused on the fact that the then US president had once again made a grammatical blunder, many saw a hidden danger in his statement – not only because of the Big Brother-type security changes ahead, but also because of the very nature of the word “homeland”.

Read on…the rest of this piece makes more sense than just about anything you can find in the US media for some time:

Merriam-Webster defines “homeland” as “a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin.” Now, that really doesn’t apply to one of the youngest countries in the world, which has no shared cultural or racial origin. Dig a little deeper and many linguists will tell you of the word’s decidedly Teutonic origin. A blend of two proto-Germanic words “kham” (home) and “landan” (land), a homeland does not unite people by ideas or beliefs. It ties them firmly to the land. It is a concept that has little to do with patriotism – despite the fact the words do share common Greek roots – and, ironically, it was used ad nauseam by the US government in the post-9/11 world. Ironic because it’s patriotism that is more applicable to the concept of the United States as a nation – one where people of all cultures and backgrounds come together for shared ideas, opportunities and beliefs. And one of the key ideas that most people chose to make the US their home was one much propagated by President Ronald Reagan. The idea of freedom.

Reagan once said that “above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.” But 20 years after Reagan was sworn in, the terrorist attacks of September 11th happened – and George W Bush decided that there are weapons more appropriate than freedom.

Because freedom – that greatly advertised American concept – was effectively taken away from the people, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Under the new Patriot Act, The Federal Bureau of Investigation began probing almost every second of every life in the country and when people wanted to leave the country, the Transport Security Administration probed them. The Big German-sounding Brother was fully established, the people living in the ‘land of the free’ under surveillance at all times.

This makes so much sense it’s scary.

It’s a sad commentary when one realizes that RUSSIA finds itself in a position to point out the corrosive erosion of our Constitutional system.

Uncategorized

FCC Regs Rejection Pending

First, the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee is acting to undo the FCC’s sidestep around the courts to impose so-called “net neutrality” rules.

House Panel to Vote on ‘Disapproving’ Net Neutrality

The congressional assault on network neutrality regulations adopted by the Democratic-led Federal Communications Commission in December continues Wednesday, when the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee votes on a “resolution of disapproval” designed to derail the requirements, which prohibit the blocking or degrading of online competitors.

So, what’s so bad about this? Imagine you build a railroad, so you can make some money delivering freight to the locations along your line. A would-be competitor decides this is unfair, since his delivery via truck is much more expensive, and not as efficient. So…should he be given the right to use YOUR line to deliver HIS freight, with exactly the same cost and priority as you do? That could be called “freight neutrality”…sort of reminds me of something out of Atlas Shrugged, when stated in those terms.’

When put in terms of the interned, it becomes “Net Neutrality”, additional regulation of the most free and open part of the economy, which will inevitably result in degradation of the net, as elaborated on by House Speaker Boehner commenting on the same issue, as well as the problem of the ballooning national debt:

Boehner rips bid to regulate Internet
Debt likened to Sputnik threat

House Speaker John A. Boehner lashed out against efforts to regulate Internet traffic before an audience of evangelical Christian media leaders and pointedly responded to President Obama by comparing the challenge of the burgeoning national debt to the Sputnik-era space race.

In a speech to religious broadcasters that received a sustained ovation at his conclusion, he said free expression is under attack by a power structure in Washington populated with regulators who have never set foot inside a radio station or a television studio.

“We see this threat in how the FCC is creeping further into the free market by trying to regulate the Internet,” Mr. Boehner said. “The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades,”

Sounds about right, as does this:

But, the Ohio Republican warned, one threat “dwarfs others in terms of the danger it poses to freedom and our children’s future.”

“You may recall President Obama, in his State of the Union address, talking about a ‘Sputnik moment,’ the moment that shocks our generation into getting serious. In my view, America’s ‘Sputnik moment’ is our shocking national debt,” he said.

Boehner also commented on another fundamental communication issue that has been under some discussion recently:

Mr. Boehner also inveighed against any effort to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” whose 1987 elimination led to the rise of a vibrant talk-radio industry.

“Our new majority is committed to seeing that the government does not reinstate the Fairness Doctrine,” he said.

Mr. Boehner said Rep. Greg Walden, Oregon Republican, “has teamed up with another former broadcaster, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, to introduce legislation to help keep the airwaves free. I expect the House to act on this measure as well.”

Uncategorized

S138 Tabled, Hopefully to R.I.P.

SB 138 is designed to implement something described as a method of selecting the President of the US by popular vote via a weirdly designed mechanism to by-pass amending  the Constitution.

The rationale for this is to be more “democratic”.   Humbug!

There were, and are sound reasons NOT to run our national system as a democracy.  I noted comments earlier on this from Madville Times, as well as on SD Politics, but was distracted from commenting byvarious  meteorological and mechanical events.  It is NOT fun to work on machines without a heated environment when the weather is what the weather was, but I digress.

My own feeling is that this sort of thing is not particularly of benefit.  The constitutional system was designed to be a non-democratic federal republic.  The stake-holders were the states, as well as the people.  The states had their place at the federal table by selecting the senators in the state legislators. (Personally, I think the 17th Amendment is well worth repealing, not that I expect to ever see it happen.)   The people had their input via the directly elected representatives.  The electoral college was a scheme to prevent the more populous states from automatically running rough-shod over the smaller states in the selection of the president.

The most frequently heard complaint about the current electoral college is that it can allow a failure in the Divine Commandment of Vox Populi, Vox Deus, as occurred most recently in 1980, and in a few cases before.  So what?  We survived the experience in good order.  The last time I checked last November the republic was still functional!

I have real trouble seeing how a popularization of the presidential vote can be of any benefit to small states.  I note that Cory cites an example of enabling concentration of funds in the large cities as being a possible GOP advantage, but frankly I don’t see it.  It doesn’t matter HOW much the GOP spends in L.A., Boston, New York, ‘Frisco, etc….they are probably not going to do very well, at least in the inner cities.  (The last time I visited the old home town of St. Louis, 24 of 28 city aldermen were of the Donkey persuasion.)  What would be more likely to happen with a popular vote scheme would be for the Donks to ignore the core cities, and rural areas, and pump THEIR funds into the suburbs to swing enough votes to make a difference.  The GOP would of necessity be forced into the same pattern to avoid being totally swamped.  In both cases, places like ND, SD, WY, MT, etc. would become virtually invisible in presidential elections if the prize automatically went to the pop-vote winner, which could be swung relatively easily by the larger urban areas.  (Farm vote?  We don’t need no steenkin’ farm vote!)

And the problem with that is…?  What is the guarantee to prevent a “democratic” majority for selecting an individual or party with a dedication to running rough over a minority’s interests, up to and including their right to do things like worship, or even live, to cite a couple of commonly denied things.  It behooves one who genuflects before the altar of democracy to recall that such luminaries of humanitarian civilization as Mussolini, Hitler, Ahmadinejad, or even Slobodan Milosevich were all elected!  Also, the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip more recently selected the wanna-be genocidalists of Hamas as their favored rulers.  But hey, that’s all OK if it’s “democratic”, right?

Wrong!  That’s why the designers of our republic’s constitution wisely (IMHO) hobbled the free-exercise of democracy.

(By the way, with the news as it’s been lately, it might be worth recalling just why they denied the vote to the District of Columbia.  It’s the same reason that D.C.’s street plot had all those circles with radiating streets:  cannon strategically placed could easily sweep the streets of rioters! (Look up the effects of the Roman and Byzantine mobs on their imperial politics.)

Uncategorized

Court Whacks Obamacare

Judge strikes down healthcare reform law

The 26 state suit against B.O.’s version of a National Health Service prevails in it’s initial court test presumably on the way to a SCOTUS hearing (sooner or later).

A federal judge in Florida struck down President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul as unconstitutional on Monday in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the reform law’s so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

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

Referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Vinson sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring the Obama healthcare reform unconstitutional.

What makes this even sweeter is the fact that the decision was based to some extent on B.O.’s own comments. Hoist on his own petard!

Judge uses Obama’s words against him

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Once the principle of forcing behavior (whether buying health insurance, or anything else) is established, there is, of necessity no remaining legal restraint on the power of the state to compel ANY behavior in any other areas that attract the attention of our would-be progressive masters.  Perhaps, for example, to satisfy the 1st Lady’s concern for proper nutrition there could be a federal law mandating that everyone eat their vegetables, or that pedestrians must wear crash-helmets for their own safety, or whatever else the nanny-state advocates can dream up to protect us from ourselves.

This sort of crap is NOT the proper role of  our Constitutional government.

Uncategorized

Back to Basics…

1 Comment

Bachmann wants Constitution class

For the Tea Party soldiers worried that the young upstarts they’re poised to send to Congress will lose their constitutional druthers once they get to Congress, Rep. Michele Bachmann has a message: Fear not, she’s going to set up constitutional classes.

Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor says, “It was something she’s always wanted to do. There’s so many folks that come to Capitol Hill to discuss obscure and mundane topics, but no one coming regularly to discuss bill of rights or the role of government.”

Bachmann won’t be teaching the classes, Gor says, but will help organize sessions with constitutional scholars, experts, and judges likely to be held in one of the committee rooms on the Capitol Hill complex. The classes will be open to any members — not just freshman — looking to continue their study of America’s founding documents. They will not be open, however, to staff or members of the press, and the list of speakers won’t be made public.

This is much needed in a day when the (hopefully soon to be ex-)House Speaker reacts with scorn to a reporter who had the temerity to ask her about the constitutionality of a proposed bill.

Uncategorized

Judge: Obamascare Lawsuit Continues

Judge disses Dems’ ‘Alice in Wonderland’ health defense

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday said he will allow some of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed — and criticized Democrats for making an “Alice in Wonderland” argument to defend the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson allowed two major counts to proceed: the states’ challenge to the controversial requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance and a required expansion of the Medicaid program.

In his ruling, Vinson criticized Democrats for seeking to have it both ways when it comes to defending the mandate to buy insurance. During the legislative debate, Republicans chastised the proposal as a new tax on the middle class. Obama defended the payment as a penalty and not a tax, but the Justice Department has argued that legally, it’s a tax.

“Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check,” he wrote.

Vinson ruled that it’s a penalty, not a tax, and must be defended under the Commerce Clause and not Congress’s taxing authority.

A Dec. 16 trial date is planned in the lawsuit, brought by 20 state attorneys general and governors. Many legal experts expect it to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This could be B.O.’s Schechter case [A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) that poked a stick in the spokes of the NRA (NOT the National Rifle Association!) and effectively gutted the early phase of the so-called New Deal of FDR.]

One can hope for an outcome that would clamp down of B.O.’s latest iteration of the progressive worship of bureaucracy and centralization of power as expressed by Obamascare.

Uncategorized

Orwellian Editing by B.O.

2 Comments

Revisionist Recitation: Obama Omits ‘Creator’ While Quoting Declaration

Towards the end of a speech on September 15 to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama began quoting the famous “rights” line from the founding document. But partway through, he omitted where those rights come from: a Creator.

The line is supposed to read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But Obama’s recitation left out an important part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal. [Long Pause] Endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

So what’s the big deal about? If our unalienable rights (as stated in the Declaration…not inalienable as stated by the alleged Constitutional scholar) do not come from the Creator, then they come from where? Inevitably from the organization of the state, and if that’s the case, amen to the rights, for what the state gives, the state can take away!

In the first 126 words of the Declaration, there are 5 fundamental principles that are the underpinnings of the American republic:
– there is a Creator
– He gives us unalienable rights
– there is a moral law that governs man
– government exist to protect the rights He gives
– below the God-given rights, rule is by the consent of the governed

All of those are dependent on the rights obtained from the Creator: what the Creator gives, no man, nor no human agency can take away. In the world of B.O. that would never do…then the transformational change we can {had better) believe in (or else!) could never happen.

Uncategorized

Federal Legal Precedence Dead?…or, Dixie’s Spirit Still Lives!

2 Comments

Oakland allows industrial-scale marijuana farms

Oakland’s City Council late Tuesday adopted regulations permitting industrial-scale marijuana farms, a plan that some small farmers argued would squeeze them out of the industry they helped to build.

It looks like the only argument in Oakland is whether or not the corporate dopers will crowd out the small-time family dopers. (I know that sounds weird, but there it is!)

I REALLY don’t get this one! (And no, I am not arguing here one way or the other about Bob Newland’s Favorite Issue. That’s a whole other discussion.)

As far as I know the Federal drug laws are still on the books, and are still (sort of?) being enforced…at least the DEA hasn’t been abolished yet, as far as I know.

SO…Arizona is sued by DoJ for having the unforgivable nerve to presume to pass a law on immigration that mirrors the Federal laws, and is slapped down for doing so. They are acting IN SUPPORT of the Federal legislation.

Meanwhile, Oakland, and other locations, are actively promoting the direct VIOLATION of Federal laws withing their jurisdiction, with no Federal action in response?

Can you say N-U-L-L-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N? Wasn’t there a rather sharpish discussion on that topic from the 1830’s until 1865 when the issue was supposed to have been disposed of? If not, perhaps the spirit of J.C. Calhoun and the other proto-Confederates of his day is truly alive and well and lurking under a hempen shroud.

Uncategorized

Possible States of War

Obama lawsuit invites fortified state militia
Constitution leaves room for Arizona to secure border

OK. The Feds are challenging Arizona’s mild attempt to reinstate some semblance of enforcement to laws put in place, but subsequently not enforced by them. This of course is on the grounds that the states cannot act to enforce Federal law. This proposition raises some points of interest.

Does this mean that states (and localities) then must also not enforce any state or local laws against illegal drug trafficking, possession, or use, all of which are against Federal law also? Also, what then about localities and states that have licensed and tolerate businesses whose entire existence is in violation of Federal laws–specifically the so-called “medical marijuana” trade? According to common law wouldn’t this de-facto administrative annulment of Federal law establish a precedent for similar de-facto state and/or local administrative annulment of other Federal laws?

If this is the case then there is no basis for the Federal suit opposing Arizona’s willingness to take on part of the neglected task of the Feds to enforce their own laws. If it is NOT the case, then the Federal government is directly violating the equal protection of the Constitution by arbitrarily choosing to selectively enforce SOME of its laws while simultaneously ignoring others! (Just wondering, you know?)

Meanwhile, to get back to the point of the above cited and linked op-ed is that even if Arizona is NOT upheld by the court system, it is far from helpless in the face of the ongoing Mexican invasion…Arizona still has some options, ones that are fully allowable under some rather specific terms of the Constitution:

(Uff da!  Here’s that pesky 2nd Amendment rearing it’s head again!)

…Arizona can form and expand its own state militia. Such forces were common when our nation was founded, and the Second Amendment recognizes that a “well-regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.”  In short, Arizona and other states can raise and arm their own military forces. But, for what purpose can such forces legally act?

(Ooops! Not JUST the 2nd Amendment at work.)

The Constitution is informative here. In Article IV, Section 4, the federal government is required to “protect each [state] against Invasion; and [on request of the state government] against domestic Violence.” As St. George Tucker noted, this provision guards against “the possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government,” for example a “sectional” president who might, for political reasons, decline to protect states in a certain region. Today the federal government, at the direction of the president, has declined to carry out its duty under Article IV. Leaving aside its other possible consequences, this intentional failure to protect Arizona raises the question of what action the state is now entitled to take under the Constitution.
[emphasis added]

Yes, what indeed CAN Arizona (and by extension any other state) do in this case?

This brings us to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Did you catch that? States MAY go to war under some circumstances WITHOUT “the Consent of Congress”!

“So, the militias organized and armed by a state may go to war when the state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. This is clear under Article I, and plainly justified when the federal government has deliberately failed to protect against invasion as required by Article IV. As Joseph Story explains in his treatise on the Constitution, the prohibition against states engaging in war is “wisely” limited by “exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and NOT justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union.”

So, the concluding summary from the piece:

At the time of our nation’s founding, the states surrendered certain limited powers to the federal government. Logically, foremost among the enumerated powers delegated to the new central authority were those relating to foreign affairs, including the war powers. But the states were prudent; they had a logical concern that if the federal government should fail in its duty to protect them from “invasion” or “imminent danger,” perhaps for reasons of political “partiality,” then the states should have a robust right to defend themselves, including by armed force. And so they do.

Hmmmm. Federal government “fails in its duty to protect”…for reasons of political “partiality”…? Sounds sort of familiar, somehow.

Uncategorized

Checks and balances at work

Obama and Supreme Court may be on collision course

The president’s agenda on healthcare and financial regulations sets the stage for a clash with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

There’s a lot more text in the article that amplifies the point…in the Chief’s humble opinion, the Constitution is functioning as designed – to slow down and limit the scope of what the government can and should be doing.

Perhaps B.O. will get the point that there is more to Constitutional governance than Executive Orders, rubber-stamp Congressional actions, and the proliferation of “Czars”.

Nah. Probably not.

Constitution Watch, Culture Wars

FDA Food Nazis at Work?

Here’s everybody’s favorite big government showing some of its true colors again.

Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes “defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods”, recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).

In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom.

Some of the statements in the FDA’s filing are absolutely amazing. Can you say “food NAZI”?

The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only “allowed” to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.

This is no exaggeration. It’s exactly what the FDA said in its own words.

Don’t take MY word for it, or even the words from the posting about this. Consider the following statements taken from the FDA’s court filing:

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]

There’s a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.

The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons — even just political reasons — all at their whim…

This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?

NOTE:  The principles apply whether or not one chooses to partake of raw milk, any particular food product.

But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don’t drink it?

Follow the money…(surprise, surprise, surprise!)

The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.

What’s next? Will all farmer’s markets be outlawed because the veggies haven’t all been irradiated or pasteurized?

As usual, it’s all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won’t let anything get in their way… not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.

There is a lot more detailed argument in the posting; you get the picture…but wait! As a finale the FDA outdoes itself again:
On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.
HUH?

Buying clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying that people don’t actually have this right. To enter into such a private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of federal law, the FDA now claims.

You are just a subject of the King, you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have no rights, no protections and no freedoms….
The “substantive due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” And being able to make personal food choices without having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included under this clause.

But the FDA — aw, heck, all of Washington for that matter — doesn’t honor the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform into flying elephants.

The hits just keeps on coming! (Or are the letters of the second word in the previous sentence in the wrong order? Whatever!)

Constitution Watch

A Thought at Easter

Christophobia
Anti-Christian bigotry is the last fashionable hatred

This week’s Good Friday idiocy at Davenport, Iowa illustrates the all-too prevailing trend of attempting to purge any form of Christianity from public view.
Obviously not everyone is Christian…but the Judeo-Christian view is still the underlying basis of our republic, going back to the Declaration of Independence’s attribution of the source of our rights in the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

The following cuts to the kernal of why this is a essential to the maintenance of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that the constitutional republic depended upon a vigorous religious society. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” said John Adams. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Founding Fathers were not secularists. On the contrary, they were devout Christians (with the exception of some Enlightenment deists like Thomas Jefferson), who feared an established church – especially, the Church of England – which persecuted dissenters. They would regard it as bizarre and repulsive were they to witness how the concept of the separation of church and state would be twisted in our time into a form of radical secularism and anti-Christian bias.

Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides the underpinnings to our constitutional government for one simple reason: It acknowledges the transcendental nature of man. Our fundamental liberties flow from God almighty – not the state. This is why individual rights – to life, liberty and property – are the essential bulwarks against government power: What God has given, no man – or regime – can take away. Once America loses its Christian identity, it will inevitably lose its freedoms.
Christophobia forms the basis of modern liberalism. Leftist progressives are determined to destroy traditional America and its seminal institutions – the Constitution, capitalism, national sovereignty and the family. This is why they have declared war on Christianity. If Christians do not rise from their apathy and man the ideological barricades, they will be driven into the catacombs once again. And with their defeat comes the end of our great republic.

Constitution Watch, Culture Wars

Lessons Unlearned

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. – Santayana

Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854, Redux

We are now beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of the socialist crisis of the Republic.

To get the significance of this, some history is in order:

At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery had been crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was enacted that prohibited the abomination north of 36/30 degrees latitude [southern boundary of Missouri, except for it’s SE “boot-heel”].

But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the “popular sovereignty” of each territory should decide whether they would be slave or free states. But then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle — with their bodily presence — for their respective causes. First there was politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then real violence ensued. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, most famously, applied unjustified, murderous violence for his righteous cause of ending slavery and was hanged, but the Civil War ensued…

NOT a pretty scene!

Now we enter our History’s second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly — and even in those programs (for the elderly) on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will later get (Medicare/ Social Security). Only the poor under Medicaid received benefit without premium payment.

But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 broke through the slave state limitation to the South, the Democratic Party’s 2010 health care law has broken socialism’s boundary of being so limited. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped on to the able-bodied middle class — not merely the already presumed helpless poor and old who have paid their insurance premiums.

An exaggeration you say? Not so fast, according to that (understatement alert!) not exactly right wing New York Times.

Even the New York Times — after the vote — admits what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday’s edition (“In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality” by David Leonhardt), they point out: ” Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. … Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would ‘mark a new season in America.’…. Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer — what is the proper balance between the market and the government? — remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.”

I thank The New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.

After citing some of the obnoxious aspects of what Congress and B.O. hath wrought, the piece goes on:
And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so, too, free middle-class America — if it still has its historic character — will not tolerate the yoke of socialism put upon our necks.

First, the unambiguous will of the majority has been defied by the vote of Congress last Sunday. Come November, we shall see whether the system can still turn the popular will into the constitutionally permissible legislative will of the majority. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period — people started migrating to Kansas to support their convictions.

But come November, if the majority still opposes the socializing of health care delivery and the other central government intrusions, and yet the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington deny that will its just expression — then, for the second time in our history, we enter that dangerous period where the House resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray –and commit to ourselves — that this time freedom shall be reacquired … peaceably.

…and then there’s THIS one to go along with the above:

Will America break up?
Abortion threatens to split the nation like slavery

President Obama is splintering America. The passage of Obamacare was a historic victory for liberal governance. Yet, its true cost may be that it triggers the eventual breakup of the country.

Mr. Obama has achieved what his liberal predecessor…could only dream of: nationalized health care. Obamacare signifies the government take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It has dealt a mortal blow to traditional America. We are now a European-style socialist welfare state. The inevitable permanent tax hikes, massive public bureaucracy and liberal ruling elites will stifle competition and initiative.

Republicans vow to repeal Obamacare. Their past record, however, leaves many conservatives rightly skeptical….The Republican Party has been unable to roll back the tide of statism. In fact, under Richard Nixon and both George Bushes, Great Society Republicans have been complicit in erecting a nanny state.

Socialism is the road to economic ruin and fiscal bankruptcy. It subverts democracy, threatening the very future of our constitutional republic. Socialist states degenerate into some form of autocracy or technocratic neo-feudalism, whereby the productive class is taxed and exploited to sustain a growing dependent class. Factions are pitted against each other; groups vie for handouts at the expense of their fellow citizens. The bonds of economic union and national solidarity slowly dissolve.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not,” warned Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was right: Redistributionist welfare policies are undermining our democracy. The resentments in America are growing. Tea Partiers believe that their government no longer represents their interests or values. The heartland is becoming dangerously alienated from the political class, whom it feels has betrayed them.

Obamacare may be the last straw. It strips away fundamental economic liberties, empowering the federal government to de facto nationalize everyone’s body by controlling our health. Americans are compelled – upon pain of penalty and eventual imprisonment – to purchase insurance.

Moreover, the law codifies the federal funding of abortion. Taxpayer dollars will be used to subsidize the murder of innocent life. Hence, Mr. Obama has violated the social compact: He has abrogated the conscience of pro-lifers, making them tacitly complicit in the slaughter of the unborn. Obamacare is a radical assault upon fundamental religious freedoms.

The Obama revolution threatens to tear America apart. This has happened before. Slavery eventually triggered the Civil War between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Abortion is the slavery of our time – the denying of basic human rights to an entire category of people.

You may well not like this. I don’t get a warm fuzzy from it myself…but I’m not at all sure it isn’t happening anyway.

…we are going the way our Founding Fathers warned us against: increasing balkanization and sectionalism. A constitutional republic – unlike an empire – is only as strong as its national cohesion. It is based not on imperial coercion but civic consent. Mr. Obama is recklessly pulling at the strings of unity, further polarizing us.

In confronting Obamacare, state sovereignty, states’ rights and state nullification of federal laws are being asserted. This is what happened in the 1830s and 1840s. They are the signs of growing political anarchy and social frustration – people can only be pushed so far. Mr. Obama’s drive for a socialist super-state threatens America’s very existence. As Jefferson warned about slavery, it is time we start ringing the “fire bell in the night.”

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold,” wrote William Butler Yeats. “Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

Conservatives will not be passive in this onslaught on all our core values. Mr. Obama’s true legacy may be that he divides us deeper than ever before – unless he abandons his revolutionary project.

Once again, that most usable Warren Zevon lyric: “It ain’t that pretty at all!”

Constitution Watch

Thoughts on Constitutional Rule

The Chief knows that most have their own particular church connections, affiliations, and/or beliefs, and that is fine. This posting in no way is presented to demean anyone’s particular religious beliefs unless you are preaching some sort of anti-Constitutional “social justice” doctrines, in which case this applies to you for sure!

After the events in Washington turned this Sabbath Day into a into what IMHO constitutes a virtual Black Sabbath of unrighteous dominion, I offer the following from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Section 98, for consideration:

5. That law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren…in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8. I, the Lord god make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. [emphases added]

Just think about it…IMHO something to remember in November.

Constitution Watch, Obamunism

Gov’t Threatens Rights? SHOCKING!

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights

A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree. [emphasis added]

Apparently all that change isn’t quite what was hoped for!

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken – though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed

…like, in November!

Constitution Watch, Uncategorized

Not Exactly Revolutionary…but…

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

By way of comparison, at the time of the American Revolution, it has been estimated that approximately 1/3 of the people were in favor of the revolution, and 1/3 were loyal to the British crown.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

The phrase “poor situational awareness” comes to mind for the case of our government “leaders”.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. [emphases added]

So much for change we can believe in!

Constitution Watch

Nullification Redivivus

The idea of nullification – states exercising their sovereignty to “opt out” of subjection to what they consider to be inappropriate, usurpatory, or improper acts or programs of the federal government – has been around since the late 1790’s (see: the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions).

The laws in Montana and Utah exempting intrastate manufacture, sale, and use of firearms from federal regulations, as well as the state authorizations for “medical” marijuana in contradiction to federal drug laws are current examples of the same principle being applied today.

59% Favor Letting States Opt Out of Federal Programs

Voters strongly believe that a state should have the right to avoid federal programs it doesn’t like, but they draw the line at states seceding from the union.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely voters say states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs they don’t agree with. Just 25% disagree, while another 15% are not sure.

Looks like a good part of the concern deals with the considerable financial burden that many federal programs shift to the states through imposition of administrative regulations and program requirements.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters also think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them. Seventeen percent (17%) say states should not have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs.

In this, there is a distinct partisan bias that pits a Republican and independent majority in support of the right to opt-out against a Democrat minority:

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party say states should have the right to opt out of federal programs with which they don’t agree. Just 37% of Democrats agree.

The 10th Amendment is still alive: 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.

Constitution Watch, SD Politics

HB1277 / 1278 Statement sans Explanation

There has been a running discussion lately in the SD blogosphere relating to support or opposition to HB 1277 and HB 1278, which relate to “obtaining certain information from online content providers in slander and libel actions. ”

There have been thoughtful and thorough comments from various SD blogs. I particularly liked Ken’s comment on SD Politics hearkening back to the “ancient” (to borrow a descriptive designation from the SCOTUS decision bouncing McCain-Feingold) traditions of our early republic, and its lively, invective-filled, and often anonymous debates.

I started on a somewhat lengthy commentary from my own point of view…and finally decided that to address everything I thought about this idea, I would be writing a major thesis.  I have enough writing to do for the history master’s program I’m in, so have to pass on that one for now.

So, it’ll just have to be enough to say that these bills are NOT a good idea for a number of reasons, both technical and philosophical, many of which have been discussed elsewhere by others. The long and short of it is that I don’t see a benefit in extending the police power down to the levels that would be necessary to even attempt to enforce this.  Besides,  based on what I know of history, who would say that sometime in the future it might be considered libelous to criticise officeholders, etc.   This HAS already happened elsewhere, and elsewhen.

I know, “It can’t happen here!”  Wanna bet?  (I don’t!)

It may well be the proverbial cold day in hell since I agree with the ACLU …hmmm…the Saints won the Superbowl…maybe it really is cold down there!

Constitution Watch

1st Amendment Upheld by Supremes

1 Comment

Something else this week for the so-called “progressives” to knash their teeth about! Oh dear!

High court voids curbs on political ad spending

In a decision with profound implications for the role of money in American campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave interest groups, unions and corporations the right to pour money into issue advertising in political races – reigniting the passionate battle over the influence of cash on the electoral process.

The 5-4 decision punched a hole in the complex web of federal campaign-finance laws and rules in finding that those groups should have the same rights to spend money on political ads as any person. Direct contributions by corporations and unions to individual candidates are still forbidden.

This does NOT just affect organizations. Having access to effective political speech means having access to mass media. This means paying for advertising. If one is not a George Soros with piles of cash at hand, there is no serious way for an individual on their own to make their voice heard in the political marketplace.

However, if a group of like-minded individuals gets together, pools their resources, and enters the political fray, according to the McCain-Feingold law this was rendered illegal, since all groups were prohibited from political speech at the time of an election. Never mind that the specific reason that the 1st Amendment was enacted was to especially protect political speech!

Supporters cheered the ruling, which they said returns the country to the core free-speech precept that political speech should be protected, no matter who or what is speaking.

Critics warned that the foundations of American democracy are at stake and that big businesses will be able to spend enough money to influence elections.

…also big unions, and political action groups of all sorts. Remember, in spite of the weeping and wailing of the left, a lot of corporations’ leaders are demonstrably biased to the left. Besides, many corporations will be reluctant to be too outspoken, since a sizable part of their customer base will be partisans of the party they might oppose (which ever side is favored).

In stark language, the court acknowledged that it was overturning its own precedents, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said the justices were now returning to “ancient First Amendment principles.”

Yes! This is critical! It’s past time to recognize once again the fundamental source of our “unalienable rights” obtained from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as immortally stated in the Declaration of Independence. If this reasoning is removed from consideration, as it the common practice of the day in the world of political science, there is no other principle to base rights on other than the Maoist justification that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” THAT’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place, to make SURE that those unalienable rights were spelled out in more detail than the original Constitutional text itself.

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion overturning a 1990 case and part of a separate 2003 case that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws, enacted in 2002.

This sounds about right, as far as it goes. The same principle now needs to be extended even further. The minority dissenting opinion accidentally highlights this need:

[Justice Stevens] said the ruling turns over power to corporations and unions at the expense of political parties, who will have a tough time fighting back because of the restrictions on their own fundraising and spending.

Use the same standards of disclosure and disclaimer for political parties as there will be for OTHER organizations…and turn THEM loose too! Here’s one Mao idea that would work, if ACTUALLY implemented: “Let 1000 flowers bloom.”

Constitution Watch

Interpol: B.O. Grants GESTAPO Powers in US

The Chief REALLY doesn’t want to post on this…the content and implications are extremely disturbing, at least to anyone concerned with maintaining the American Constitutional system.

Obama Gives Interpol Free Hand in U.S.

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

So, what’s the big deal about?

First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.

Search warrents, controls on wiretaps and surveillance? “We don’t need no steenking warrants, and we sneer at your foolish Yankee ‘Bill of Rights’.”

Second, Obama has exempted Interpol’s domestic facilities — including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice — from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens.

Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA. [emphasis added]

The Chief is still waiting to hear complaints from the left/lib claque that is always so quick to express their concern about some comparatively limited (albeit problematical in their own right) provisions of such laws as the Patriot Act. He suspects that this will be an infinitely long wait.

Constitution Watch

Constitution, B.O., & Nobel Prize

This is a point about B.O. being awarded the Nobel Prize that I had not thought of  before.

Keeping the Nobel Prize would violate the Constitution

Congratulations, Mr. President, but if you care about the rule of law, you’ll have to fork over the Nobel Peace Prize within 60 days of accepting it next week. Contrary to Mel Brooks’ pronouncement in “History of the World Part I,” it’s not always good to be the king. It’s impossible if you are an American president.

Article I of the Constitution states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

Clearly, the presidency is both an office of “profit” and of “trust” and the prize package (including 1.4 million clams) is included in the terms “present” or “emolument.” Therefore, a sitting president cannot accept it from a “King, Prince or foreign State” without the consent of Congress.

While the Prize comes from the private Nobel Foundaation, Alfred Nobel left instructions in his will that winners would be selected by a “committee of five” appointed by the Parliament of Norway. There is no question that the intent of Article I and a 1966 law passed by Congress is such that this prize is “from a foreign State.”

Anybody out there want to bet whether or not B.O. will do this little Constitutional thing?

No?  Me neither. Ain’t gonna happen, although it should.

Constitution Watch

“Ministry of Truth” Proposed by Donk Cong

Here’s the latest spew of California Donkey Party Congresscritter Henry Waxman.

Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

This is wrong in many ways.

Firstly, does anyone SERIOUSLY think that government is going to put itself in a position to “resolve the problems caused by a failing business model” without taking over management? The precedent is already out there with the banks, financials, and auto companies.

Diversity of opinion and free speech? Would any publication or writer dare to go against the acceptable “party line” of the government, knowing that their bread and butter comes off the government’s table? NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

Waxman, other U.S. lawmakers and regulators are looking into various options to help a newspaper industry hurt by the shift in advertising revenues to online platforms….”Eventually government is going to have to be responsible to help and resolve these issues,” Waxman told a conference hosted by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on the future of journalism.

WHY? Did the government feel it necessary to guarantee the continued survival of the telegraph, to protect and maintain the right of citizens to communicate freely? Not quite…as it turned out the telegraph services withered away due to other, faster, more direct, and cheaper technologies.

In the same way, THIS IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT! This is NOT part of the Constitution! The ONLY thing in the Constitution about the press is in Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…” There is NOTHING there that Congress has the obligation to MAINTAIN and PROVIDE a particular form of media, in this case the daily newsprint media.

In case you hadn’t noticed, there ARE other ways to get “news and views”…you’re looking at one right now!

Constitution Watch, Glowbull Warming

A Mixed Blessing

Federal program to help company that processes Black Hills wood chips

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has selected Western Biomass Energy LLC to participate in the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. Western Biomass Energy converts wood chips from the Black Hills into renewable fuels.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., authored BCAP, which was included in the 2008 Farm Bill.

The company will use the funding to offset the feedstock cost associated with its pilot biorefinery in Upton, Wyo., that refines cellulosic ethanol from South Dakota wood chips.

One supposes that this is supposed to be good news. It is for some.

Senator Thune can claim that he brought home the bacon for SD. Sure ’nuff! A Democrat couldn’t have done it better!

The Chief worked in a lab at the SD School of Mines for 5 weeks one summer a few years ago as a science teacher. This was very informative, and very enjoyable…the project of the lab was to devise methods of looking for techniques to increase the ethanol yield from wood chip cellulosic feedstocks.

I had a chance met the entrepreneurs of this project. I was impressed by them. They are highly competent engineers and businessmen, and are doing all they can to succeed with their enterprise. The School of Mines was also doing its job well…using their grants from the company for assisting the businesspeople to be able to make use of SD products (OK, by-products) to produce a value-added commodity that can help you get your car down the road at a cheaper price.

So what’s the rub?

Firstly, one could wonder if this enterprise could continue without the continued infusion of tax money (or should it be called printing-press money these days)? Hate to say so, but probably not…otherwise there would be no need for the subsidy. (Ooops! That also could apply to the corn-based ethanol too…but we won’t go THERE!)

Some might argue that the Glowbull Warming crisis forces us to use public funds to develop alternative renewable energy. Frankly, as noted in numerous previous postings on the category of “Glowbull Warming”, the Chief isn’t a member of the Orthodox Carboniferous Church of St. AlGore so that’s not a real impressive argument hereabouts. (If you really think man-made CO2 is causing a problem…stop exhaling it with every breath!)

So, what else?…oh, yeah…Senator, could you remind me again what article and section of the Constitution addresses cellulosic biomass ethanol? Must have missed that one in my PoliSci classes.

I guess if one thinks the constitution is “a flexible living document”, allowing stuff like this, then it’s all OK?…sort of like supporting McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Political Speech Limitation Act while you were still in the House. Don’t get me wrong…I REALLY DO like you Senator, and you’re generally way ahead of most of the Senate, but you really ought to bone up on the Constitution a bit, otherwise some might think that you have leanings towards Republocratic Demicanism.

It is realized that this may not give many readers a warm fuzzy glow, (with stuff to alienate both sides of the so-called spectrum) but what’s the point of trying to develop political principles if one’s not willing to at least make the effort to be consistent with them. Easy for ME to say…knowing I’ll never be elected…but hey, it feels right anyway.

Constitution Watch

We Will FORCE You…We know better than you do!

Constitutionality of health overhaul questioned

On top of all the other obstacles facing President Obama in his quest to pass health reform is this one: Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance or impose a tax penalty if they refuse?

Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.

DUH – d’ya think really? What’s the first clue.

The question of the mandate’s constitutionality “hasn’t been part of the public debate, but the legal community has been debating it. It’s been on all the legal blogs,” said Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He said “the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to force Americans to purchase health insurance.”

In 1994, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted that a “mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.”

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO said.

THINK about this: American citizens compelled at gunpoint (remember the B.O. Presidium Czar reminding us a la Lenin and Mao that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”) to purchase something in order to reside in the country without being penalized?

Hello? What is spelled by the letters: T-O-T-A-L-I-T-A-R-I-A-N?

Constitution Watch

B.O.: Who needs free speech? We don’t!

President Obama has something important in common with Edward I, aka “Longshanks”

What is this about?

It has received far less notice than it deserves, but last week the United States joined with Egypt in sponsoring a resolution appoved by the UN Human Rights Council that could blow a gaping hole in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and other civil liberties most of us take for granted.

The resolution encourages member nations to define as criminal “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Who defines what constitutes “national, racial or religious hatred?” Why, the government, of course. Who decides whether any given statement “constitutes incitement?” You guessed it.

In other words, if you live in a country that adopts this approach to freedom of speech, be very careful what you say about any other nation, racial group or religious faith. And you better not make anybody in power mad because you would be amazed what can be construed by governments as “incitement” to “hatred.”

If you are an American with the notion that the First Amendment will protect your right to say whatever you want whenever you want about whomever you want, be advised that this resolution embodies exactly the conceptual assumptions about law and rights that lead directly to those speech codes that restrict civil liberties on hundreds of U.S. college campuses at this very moment….

In other words, bunky, if you think the First Amendment will protect you from Obama and the UN, you’re still living in the 18th Century when people believed individual rights were theirs simply by virtue of being born under the U.S. Constitution, not as a dispensation of those in power.

So, what’s it have to do with Longshanks?

The UN resolution is quite literally medieval.

I guess this will make the Islamic world feel right at home…back to the 13th Century!

Consider the provision of Westminster I in 1275 under King Edward I in England (If you saw “Braveheart,” you will recognize him as the hated Longshanks. Trust me, he was every bit as bad as Randall Wallace’s wonderful screenplay made him). Westminster I banned the telling of “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander my grow between the King and his people, or the great men of the realm.” And who defined what tales tended to sow discord? Why, the King and great men of the realm, of course.

But Westminster I was no Longshankian exception to the rule in mediavel England. Roll forward several centuries and we find Henry VIII, he of the many wives. Nobody could print a book without Henry’s permission. A law passed in 1542 proclaimed that “nothing shall be taught or mainained contrary to the King’s instructions” concerning the Bible or other religious matters. Violate that law three times and you went to the stake to be burned to death.

A century later, a 1662 statute provided the death penalty for those selling “heretical, schimatical, blasphemous, seditious and trasonable books, pamphlets and papers.” Why? Because such publications allegedly were “endangering the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his most excellent Majesty and his government.”

That is the essential legal background from England that helped spark the English Reformation and ultimately led to the adoption of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Why on earth would anybody want to go back to that barbaric world in which you could lose your head for saying the wrong thing?

If you are interested in learning more about the bloody history that came before the First Amendment, see former University of Texas journalism professor Marvin Olasky’s “Telling the Truth” and the chapter on “a great cloud of witnesses.”

At this rate might it take the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 1st Amendment?  One can only hope not.

Constitution Watch

Church Leader Issues 1st Amendment Warning

Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened

It is not the usual run of affairs for higher leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) church to directly address political issues in their capacity as church leaders. When this does happen, it’s as though someone else is saying “Hey! You! Listen up! This is something REALLY serious!”

It may be worth noting that historically the LDS church knows deeply about possible problems with religious freedom, having been driven from Missouri at one point by an “Order of Extermination” issued by the state governor, and then being pushed out of Illinois after renegade militia vigilantes assassinated the Church president, Joseph Smith, and his brother. That was what led to the exodus to Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young, but I digress…

An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said religious freedom is being threatened by societal forces intimidating those with religious points of view from having a voice in the public square. [emphasis added] (See the full text of the speech here)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Elder Oaks has had a front-row seat in observing what he calls the “significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion” in public life. Prior to his appointment to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Oaks had an illustrious law career. He served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court, was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School and clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court.

These issues are well worth pondering;  one does not have to agree with the religious teachings of the LDS Church to be able to appreciate the civil and Constitutional issues addressed.

Anyone concerned with the maintenance of our Constitutional government in the face of continuous attacks from those who have another agenda, both inside and outside the Washington Beltway, should be concerned with this situation.

DISCLOSURE: The Chief is a active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Constitution Watch

Showdown in Arizona: DHS Blinks

Sheriff Joe Arpaio stood up straight, and essentially told the Department of Homeland Security to stuff it.

‘Toughest sheriff’ vows face-off with feds over illegals

The man who likes to call himself “America’s toughest sheriff,” Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., is planning a Friday showdown with the feds.

The sheriff has announced he will defy the U.S. Department of Homeland Security by doing a street sweep for illegal immigrants one day after the expiration of the agreement that has permitted him to conduct such operations for the past three years. The sheriff has said he expects the deal not to be extended, though federal officials have remained publicly noncommittal.

Homeland Security apparently sniffed the prevailing wind, and made their decision:

Law agencies make new pact on illegal deportation

Department of Homeland Security officials have signed new agreements authorizing nearly 70 state and local law enforcement agencies, including a contentious Arizona sheriff, to help arrest and deport illegal immigrants charged with violent or criminal acts.

Under the new agreements, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., who has come under fire for his immigration sweeps, will continue to work with federal authorities when illegal immigrants are booked into his jail. But Sheriff Arpaio’s office will not be given the power to arrest such people, as it previously had, federal officials said.

Sheriff Joe’s response?…business as usual:

As the new agreements were announced, Sheriff Arpaio launched a crime and immigration sweep Friday in northwestern metro Phoenix, according to the Associated Press.

The sheriff told the AP that he can still arrest immigrants under a state smuggling law and a federal law that gives all local police agencies more limited power to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

“It doesn’t bother me, because we are going to do the same thing,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “I am the elected sheriff. I don’t take orders from the federal government.”

That’s what the Chief considers a practical lesson to DHS in applied federalism.

Constitution Watch

Constitution? FCC Czar? Contradiction!

‘Diversity czar’ takes heat over remarks

President Obama’s diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to “step down” in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela “an incredible revolution.”

Mark Lloyd’s provocative comments – most made during a tenure at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank – are giving fodder to critics who say Mr. Obama has appointed too many “czars” to government positions that don’t require congressional approval. They are also worrying to some conservatives who fear the FCC might use its powers to remove their competitive advantage on talk radio and television.

This stuff is particularly critical due to the attack on the First Amendment that would result from these policies.

Many of the remarks have been unearthed by conservative-leaning writers and bloggers and discussed on cable television amid a broader critique of Mr. Obama’s penchant for czars that exploded with the ouster this month of “green jobs czar” Van Jones.

In one of his more eye-opening comments, Mr. Lloyd praised Mr. Chavez during a June 2008 conference on media reform, saying the authoritarian Venezuelan president had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.”

In a video clip of the conference that has been aired by Fox News personality Glenn Beck and others, Mr. Lloyd seems be siding with the anti-American leader against independent media outlets in his own country, some of which supported a short-lived coup against Mr. Chavez in 2002.

“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him,” Mr. Lloyd said. “But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Doesn’t ANYBODY in the White house pay any attention to the Constitution? Never mind. We already KNOW the sad answer to that one.