The Commerce Clause and the 9th Amendment

When the Constitution was originally drafted the anti-federalists opposed the document because it didn't list protections for the individuals.  The federalists who supported ratification didn't think a bill of rights was necessary because the powers of the government were specified.  They saw no reason to specify what would be protected when there was nothing in the Constitution that stated the government could regulate it.  The federalists feared that a Bill of Rights would specify only some rights and leave others with the interpretation that it was not a right and open to government influence.  In this debate, both sides have been proven to have valid points.

Alexander Hamilton stated that there was no need to specify a freedom of the press because there was no power given to regulate the press, but is there any doubt in anybody's mind that Congress wouldn't hesitate to invoke the commerce clause to regulate the press?  There's no doubt in mine.  Congress uses the commerce clause to justify absolutely everything they do.  Considering that newspapers are purchased in states other than where they are printed, Congress would view this as interstate commerce and available for regulation.  In this case the anti-federalists demands for a list of protected rights was absolutely justified.

However, we are also seeing where the government and the judges are interpreting the Bill of Rights to only grant those rights specified, so the federalists were right as well.  The 9th amendment was supposed to protect all rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights by stating "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The intent of this amendment was to ensure that Congress or the president did not take one of their powers and interpret it to cover absolutely everything, but the courts pay little to no attention to the amendment because it doesn't specify certain rights. 

The courts, unable to determine what human rights are or should be, disregard the Constitutional amendment which is supposed to further restrain our government from infringing on our rights through expansions of their own power.  This is sad considering that the information on the intent of the amendment is easily found and interpreted, but then again, what influence does the intent of our Constitution actually have on our judicial system?  Not much.

So what are some of the unenumerated rights that the 9th amendment is supposed to protect?  The right to privacy is one that has been determined via this amendment, but how about the right to spend your own money how you want and on what you would like?  A government mandate on the purchase of insurance is a clear violation of the 9th amendment in that situation.

Isn't it funny how we have an amendment specifically designed to protect us from Congress' belief that they can regulate absolutely everything about our lives, and nobody pays attention to it?

Constitution to Move From Naitonal Archives to Smithsonian

In the face of those pesky questions about the constitutionality of current legislation, Congressional leaders will proposing legislation to put the Consitution where it belongs.

Along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the Constitution will be removed from the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives and placed in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

"With it's negative liberties," Nancy Pelosi was heard to say, "It places too firm a restriction on what we would like to do.  It hasn't been truly relevant for years so it's relegation to the Smithsonian is appropriate."  When asked about the Constitutionality of removing the Constitution, all she could say was, "You're kidding, right?"

There is no current information on what will replace the founding documents in the Rotunda for Freedom, but Harry Reid was heard to suggest that the New Deals could take it's place.  The plural usages of the new deal has us questioning just what will be in the new documents placed in the rotunda.  Another Congressman suggested that it be turned into a gift shop / Starbucks, and yet another suggested that it house Obama's birth certificate and college entrance forms; if they could be located that is.

The Smithsonian spokesperson stated that they are glad to have another priceless piece of American memorabelia under their care.

Fearing for my Nation

On the campaign trail Michele Obama said that for the first time in her life, she was proud of her country.  Well Shelly, for the first time in my life I am afraid for my country.  Though in the past I have worried over the direction we were headed and concerned over actions that were taken, I am now truly afraid of what is going to happen, not just in, but to my country.

In the past I could always console myself with the belief that we could vote the bums out of office, but that no longer grants me solace.  I find no peace in that belief when the politicians will tell people what they want to hear during the campaign, vote against the people to advance their own agenda, and then retire before facing the wrath of the people during the next voting process.  When the politicians waste money that we don't have on things we don't need in order to advance their own purposes.  When those who are supposed to represent the people put the advancement of their own power over the advancement of the people they represent or the nation as a whole.  When the shiny new candidate to represent you is nothing but a whitewashed version of the politician you're desperate to remove.  When politicians laugh when asked about the constitutionality of their legislation; something that should not be funny to anybody.  When politicians interpret The Constitution to support their legislation instead of writing their legislation to support The Constitution.

How can I take comfort in a right to vote when the vast majority of those who run to replace the current bums are naught but bums themselves?

My America is being fundamentally transformed around me and what can I do to stop it when my voice -- the one tool I have and what was supposed to be the final check of government -- falls on deaf ears?

As I research the founding of this great nation I find so many similarities between what drove the colonists to revolution and what our government is doing to us now and I fear that soon the only option we will have open to us is a new revolution.  I am afraid of what will happen to this nation in either case.

Now the only solace I find is that God has a plan that I don't yet understand and that His plan will save us.  I pray for this every day.

Is it any wonder that for the first time in my life I am truly, deeply and legitimately afraid for the fate of my nation?

He's Remaking America All Right

Obama has used the phrase "remaking America" in several of his speeches and it always gave me pause.  We as a nation do not need to be remade.  Restored perhaps, but not remade.  I couldn't help but wonder what he meant by this.  Now I know.

Our government was set up so that the majority of the power over domestic policy lies with the legislative branch.  What our founding fathers absolutely did not want was a single person in charge of everything.  A voted monarche as the case may be.  They created the balance of power to ensure that the bulk of that power was in the hands of many, and with a check and balance system.  So what is Obama remaking us into? 

With the appointment of Czar upon Czar Obama created positions of power not answerable to Congress and not voted on by the people.  This was an unprecedented growth in power of the executive branch but not anything to get our knickers in a twist over, right?  Well my knickers are officially twisted.  With the EPA now giving themselves the authority to regulate green house gases if Congress does not, imposing onerous requirements on businesses all to fix....nothing and in spite of the will of the people, we saw another huge power grab by the executive branch of the government.  Hot on the heels of that announcement we have Obama working behind the scenes to institute his plans for universal healthcare without a vote on the actual plan by Congress.  He and his cronies plan to go in through the back door by moving the responsibility for the Social Security Act from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.

This administrations answer to get what he wants in spite of the will of the people is to move control over the issue from the legislative to the executive branch thereby defiling our founding principle to have the power in the hands of many and NOT the hands of one.

Consider that the Executive Branch was such up with so little power in the first drafting of a Constitution - The Articles of Confederation - that the branch didn't even exist.  Now that branch is snatching power from other branches with a disgusting disregard and disrespect for our entire form of government.

The ""Yes We Can" Slogan has now been revealed to translate into "Yes I can and if you don't like it I'll find a way around you."

Months ago, as a joke, I wrote a blog about Obama appointing himself King.  It doesn't seem like such a joke now.

Schoolhouse Rock!

If you're like me and of a certain age, you remember well the short clips that made up Schoolhouse Rock.  Most people around my age can still sing the preamble to the Constitution as a result of this educational tool.  Watching it again now, I think what I like most about it is the way it shows the progression of time and how those principles still apply.  The times may change but the principles of our government should not. 

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Educate and inform the whole masses.... They are the only sure reliance of the preservation of our liberty."

What are we teaching as far as American History in our classrooms today?

Powers Not Delegated

I'm a Constitutionalist and I make no apologies for bieng so.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Before any party affiliation I might claim, my first loyalty is always to the Constitution of the United States of America.  As such, the growth and expansion of the federal government not only frightens me, it angers me.  It is a blatant violation of an amendment that the Supreme Court and Congress have evidently forgotten about.

The 10th amendment is one of the most important and least regarded amendments to the Constitution.  So important that it had to be included in the Bill of Rights.  I've read the Constitution several times of course, but I could remember the exact words of the 10th amendment so I went back and checked today.  Something leapt out and smacked me in my face. 

The amendment itself is only 28 words long, but its intent can be summarized in a single word of the 28.  The text reads, "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."

The writers of our Constitution were very careful about the words they used so the use of the word "delegated" in that amendment is not an accident of chance or a misunderstanding.  It was deliberate.

According to Mirriam-Webster, to delegate means to assign responsibility or authority.  This means that all rights first belonged to the states and a very fair few were "delegated" to the federal government.  What the states did not agree to let them have through ratification of the document is in no way under the authority of the federal government.

I know that for the few people who actually read my blogs that I am most likely preaching to the choir, but I continue to be baffled by the misinterpretation of an amendment made so obvious by the use of that single, very powerful word.

Wouldn't it be fun to have an organization of lawyers the size and power of the ACLU whose sole function was to pull every law passed by Congress into the Supreme Court as a violation of the tenth amendment?  Maybe then we could get the two branches of government who should pay it the highest respect to remember it actually exists.

The united States of America

The little u in the title is not a mistake. Nor was it a mistake when it was written with a little u in the Declaration of Independence. The beginning of the Declaration is what most people remember, but the end really shows where we planned to go.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

It wasn't that we were a fee and independent nation, but the colonies were free and independent states. If you have any question at all over the issue of the rights of the states vs the rights of the federal government, this paragraph from the Declaration of Independence should tell you what you need to know. The federal government was established to make interstate commerce easier, and to ensure the same basic principles for each, but the states were still Free and Independent. At least that was the plan.

Think the EU (European Union) and you have what the federal government was supposed to be. It was the federal government because it was a federation of the states. And what is a federation? One definition I found was this; the act of constituting a political unity out of a number of separate states or colonies or provinces so that each member retains the management of its internal affairs This is basically what the EU is also supposed to be. The European Union was created to help the European nations work together and improve commerce. They have developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the freedom of movement of people, goods and capital. This defined from their treaty. So the EU actually mirrors what our federal government was supposed to be.

The EU is also strongly suggesting that North America follow in it's footsteps and create a similar union of our nations. And we're resisting, because we know that these federations or unions will eventually usurp the power of the independent member states in the union. Gee, why would we think that? Maybe because we have seen our federal government take more and more power from it's own member states, and we're watching the EU attempt to do the same thing.

The Constitution protected the right of the states in the Bill of Rights with the 10th amendment. That amendment is very straightforward in saying that anything not specified in the Constitution reverted to the power of the states. It preserved the states Independence and power over their own internal workings. But somehow, the 4,000 words of our Constitution manages to include everything that ever was or ever could be. At least that's how it's interpreted, because fewer and fewer issues are believed to be the right of the state to decide.

I don't believe that we should be 50 nations instead of 1, but I do believe that the rights of the individual states should be protected, and that we need to know what we were supposed to be and compare it to what we've become.

As we celebrate our nations Independence, more important the the fireworks, friends and food, is the memory and the understanding of our own history as a nation. Perhaps the reading of the Declaration of Independence should be as much a part of the celebration as the hotdogs and the fireworks.

God Bless America!

Obama Administration Creates Their Own News

The current administration has been masterful at controlling the press and the news. The first and most important step in converting any Democracy into a Dictatorship. But now he's taken it even a step further. There are now events to which the Washington press corp is no longer welcome. Instead, the Obama administration will pick and choose what they want the press to see, and release that to them. Really not a good sign.

At this point in time, the events to which the press corp is excluded are relatively benign, but this test run won't last long. I believe that they are testing the waters to see if they can get away with it, and if they do, it will just expand.

Think about every movie you've seen or book you've read with a new totalitarian government installed and what they have in common. The new power controls the flow of information to the people. If you control the information, you control the people. This is where we're headed. The freedom of the press was considered a right because they are necessary to hold our government accountable to the people. The mainstream press has been doing a piss poor job of this lately, but at least they still had the opportunity. The question is will they stand for the eroding of that opportunity.

The press corp is notoriously left wing and support the usurpations of the power of the individual while jealously guarding their own rights. Let's see how they deal with this one. Will the slobbering love affair with the current administration continue when the press corp is forced to accept only those crumbs of information that the administration is willing to feed them? I hope not. I dearly hope that at some point, somebody in the press corp decides to try to find out what the administration does not want them to see.

Control the release of information and you control the people. A philosophy that Hugo Chavez has used in order to turn Venezuela from a Democracy to a dictatorship, and a philosophy that Obama appears to be adopting.

Now Mr Obama, please tell us again how you love our Constitution.

We've Got Them Running Scared

It is becoming clear that Obama is finally beginning to hear the people, and we've got him on the run. Think about his speech on Gitmo. Where did he hold it? He placed himself in the national archives with the Declaration of Independence behind him. He constantly spoke about the constitution and the principles on which we were founded. He's finally realizing that the American people do actually care about our Constitution, and as a result he's trying to make us believe he cares about it to.

The fact that Obama is draping himself in the Constitution at the same time he's shredding it, is actually a pretty good sign. He's learning that he has to at least pretend to want to follow the Constitution or he'll lose his oh so special approval rating. But what he doesn't yet understand is that we're looking for, no wait, we're demanding that he does more than pretend. It's not enough to say the constitution is more than words on old parchment. It's not enough to say you studied it. It's not enough to say you love it. You have to actually FOLLOW it.

The majority of people in this country are crying out for a leader who is a Constitutionalist. Somebody who really believes in the principles and guidelines laid down in that document, and is willing to speak out in it's defense. A leader who will be strong enough to decrease the power of government instead of greedily seeking to expand their own. A leader who understands that our freedoms are not granted by our government but by our God.

Thomas Jefferson said that when a people fear their government, that's tyranny. But when a government fears the people, that's liberty. Obama is doing his best to evince a design to reduce us under absolute despotism, but we refuse to be afraid.

We're on our way to regaining some lost liberty. We've gotten them a little bit scared. But a little bit isn't enough for me. When it comes to this situation I have a touch of Verruca Salt in me. I want it and I want it now. It is time to really put the fear of the people into the so called leaders of this country. We need to have them shaking in their individual and collective boots. To put it bluntly, 'cuz that's what I do best, we need to scare the bloody damn bejeezus out of them.

Let Freedom Ring!

Obama Proposes Constitutional Amendement to Make Himself King

President Barack Obama petitioned Congress today for a Constitutional Amendment to change the presidency into a monarchy. Stating that he has been ordained by God and chosen by the people to institute a change in the way our government functions, he requested that, from now on, he be referred to as His Royal Highness.

King Barack as he will now be called, went on to say that the leadership of the nation is far too important to be trusted to a bunch of rednecks and hillbillies clinging to their God and their guns. A cheer went up from Congress with this pronouncement as he mirrored the thoughts of so many there. Immediately after the teleprompter quit scrolling, the draft of the new amendment was begun. There was, of course, some argument from the right side of the congressional aisle as the "party of no" objected to this latest advancement in our country's governmental policies. Luckily there are not enough of them to stop the amendment from passing.

The final bill is expected to be presented, voted on and passed on Tuesday. The King's new sceptre and crown have already been ordered and will be shipped from China as soon as they are completed.

Any attempt to stop this new amendment will be considered sedition at best and treason at worst. Having shown such an admiration for Britain's interrogation techniques in the past, King Barack is adopting the traditional British punishment for treason. This means that those convicted of treason will be dipped in hot oil, disemboweled and drawn and quartered. However, they will not be water boarded as that has been determined to be too extreme.

Long live the King.

How About A Few New Political Parties

I've had it up to my eyeballs with both the Democrats and Republicans and how they present the "issues" of the day. How about we create some new parties whose very name states where they stand? Instead of having the two party system with the Republicans and Democrats we could have the Constitutionalists and the Revisionists. Or how about the Individualists and the Collectivists? This is a better representation of the people even if not of the parties.

The Constitutionalist / Individualist party would represent the principles and beliefs of the founding fathers. That government should be small and that the rights of the individual prevail. It would be a party that stands up for personal accountability and ownership of your own life, your own success, and most importantly, your own failures. It would be the party that believes that the Constitution does not evolve except through the amendment process. The party that embraces our early history and the wisdom it provided.

The Revisionists / Collectivist party would represent more the principles of Europe. That we need big government and that the government knows best. It would be the party that believes that the individual rights don't matter as much as the collective whole. That all individuals should be doing what's best for the whole instead of what's best for them. This would be the party that believes that the Constitution evolves with the times and that it's principles are suggestions and not directives. The party that looks to Europe for inspiration instead of to our past.

Most Americans would fall somewhere on the spectrum of these two parties. This would give us clear communication on where the party stands and who we as individuals should stand with based on our own individual beliefs. This would be far superior to the amalgam of the two parties we have seen as they compete for the same voters. And oddly enough, the more they complete for certain demographics the more they abandon the others.

If you have other suggestions or ideas for new party names, please let me know. I welcome comments, but please be polite.

Punish the Innocent and Protect the Guilty

There's a rule, which most of us know, that states that Congress cannot be prosecuted for any decision they make in the execution of their duties in Congress. They did not pass this law to cover themselves. They did not pass this law at all. It was written into our Constitution. This was done by our founding fathers because there was a history, in Great Britain especially, where the monarch would file civil or criminal charges against Parliament for disagreeing with them. It was used for totally punitive and political reasons. It was a good thing to have in place and a smart thing to put in our Constitution.

Now, in the calling for prosecution of Bush officials for the "torture" issue, has Congress become the Monarchy? This is being called for by certain Congressmen for punitive and political reasons. That's it. So they are now exhibiting the exact behavior that they are Constitutional protected from. This was set up to preserve the integrity of the legislative process. Well where the bloody bloomin' hell as the integrity in our legislative process gone?

They say that this is to preserve the principles on which this country was founded. I'm all for preserving those principles, but most members of our government pick and choose which of those principles to preserve. We don't seem to be worrying too much about personal accountability and that with hard work and determination you can benefit from the fruits of your own labor. Nope, those have gotten tossed out the door. They say we, as a people, don't engage in torture. But there are some anomalies in their standing.

We're awfully worried about how enemy combatants are treated. What is considered humane. The same thing applies to our convicted murderers and rapists. They're so worried about how these people are treated. Concern for our fellow man is a good thing and I don't denigrate it, but it's applied inconsistently. These are the same people who support abortion, including partial birth abortion. No matter your stance on the abortion issue, it's inconsistent to say that we must preserve the life of a serial rapist and yet allow the destruction of someone whose only crime is being inconvenient. And partial birth abortion is indefensible. If you're unaware what it is, the baby is forced into a feet first birth, when nothing but the head remains in the birth canal the doctors hold it in there by force and then suck the brain out. The child has entered the world with everything but it's whole head and it is killed for no medical reason. No reason at all. This is something Obama supports. So these statements that we have to preserve our principles is bogus.

So now, we may punish people for making a legal decision (but of course not Congress for their culpability because they're immune) in order to protect terrorists. In essence, as we do in so many other areas in this country, we are willing to punish the innocent and protect the guilty.

And shame on Congress for hiding behind their Constitutional protection while exploiting an other's lack of the same protection. If you add on their attitude on taxes, their disregard for the voice of the people and their behavior regarding the anti-tax tea parties, you'll find that the 111th Congress is beginning to bear a striking resemblance to King George III. Especially with the insanity they display.