With little consternation or lasting opposition, the Obama administration has dramatically usurped congressional power at the expense of popular will and the rule of law. Numerous dastardly bureaucratic coups -- motivated by the president's progressive and political agenda -- have amazingly failed to engender a serious response. What began as a trickle of presidential power-grabs has turned into a cascade of executive roguery. A list of them is worth some review and reflection:
In June 2012, President Obama circumvented Congress's refusal to pass the DREAM Act by instituting a portion of it on his own. Through executive order, the administration has directed federal officers to no longer deport large swathes of younger illegal immigrants, with an inclusive net that could impact over a million. Conservative sage Charles Krauthammer summed it up pithily: "This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say[ing] months ago, 'I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.' Well, I have news for the president -- the laws remain on the books. They haven't changed."
MORE: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_amazing_presidential_power-grab.html?utm_source=7-31-12+Newsletter&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+7-31-12&utm_medium=email#ixzz22FKiZhu3
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Democrats’ History Of Racism
Here’s a bit of American history guaranteed not to appear in any government-approved history book. The Democrat party has, throughout its existence, represented the bigotry and racism they seek to project onto Republicans. The informed readers of this article are likely familiar with the racist roots of the political party aptly portrayed by a jackass, but much of the general population, especially outspoken Democrats, are woefully ignorant of any such facts.
Ask the nearest Democrat about Republicans and race and even the mayor of a substantial American city might just respond with, “They are racist.”
In reference to their own party, Dems will likely say they led the fight for civil rights throughout the years, though a cursory review of the party will prove this assertion wrong. For instance, this was the party that established the Ku Klux Klan as its enforcement arm. Powerful Democrat politicians have appointed klansmen to high-ranking positions in American government for a century, yet have somehow convinced the vast majority of blacks that Republicans are the bad guys!
CONTINUED: http://www.westernjournalism.com/democrats-history-of-racism/
Ask the nearest Democrat about Republicans and race and even the mayor of a substantial American city might just respond with, “They are racist.”
In reference to their own party, Dems will likely say they led the fight for civil rights throughout the years, though a cursory review of the party will prove this assertion wrong. For instance, this was the party that established the Ku Klux Klan as its enforcement arm. Powerful Democrat politicians have appointed klansmen to high-ranking positions in American government for a century, yet have somehow convinced the vast majority of blacks that Republicans are the bad guys!
CONTINUED: http://www.westernjournalism.com/democrats-history-of-racism/
DON'T MISS THESE VIDEO CLIPS!
Video--Stoplight: A Walk for the President
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-nc-legislature-nullify-obamacare
American Crossroads—Operation Hot Mic--Here is a dynamite little biting video -- some of those moneyed "Right-Thinking" PACs ought to put this on the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs
Obama Supporter Interviews Her 2008 Self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WbX5EwSp_W8#%21
Obama Mocks & Attacks Jesus Christ And The Bible / Video / Obama Is Not A Christian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Hi-V_ilJu0w
Video: Ray Stevens – Obama Nation-- Comedic musician Ray Stevens takes on Obama’s “hope and change” with his new song “Obama Nation.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/ray-stevens-obama-nation/
Video: Allen West: Stealth Jihad In America-- Rep. Allen West weighs in on the stealth jihad threat in the U.S. military, and decries the reluctance of both the Obama and Bush Administrations to adequately assess the threat.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/allen-west-stealth-jihad-in-america/
Video: College Friend Speaks Out On Obama’s Marxism, Part 1
http://www.westernjournalism.com/college-friend-speaks-out-on-obamas-marxism-part-1/
Video: Sellout Congressman Writes Off ForgeryGate Until After Election
http://www.westernjournalism.com/sellout-congressman-writes-off-forgerygate-until-after-election/
Video: Whistleblocking: Obama Pays Billions To Keep Secrets Out
http://www.westernjournalism.com/whistleblocking-obama-pays-billions-to-keep-secrets-out/
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-nc-legislature-nullify-obamacare
American Crossroads—Operation Hot Mic--Here is a dynamite little biting video -- some of those moneyed "Right-Thinking" PACs ought to put this on the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs
Obama Supporter Interviews Her 2008 Self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WbX5EwSp_W8#%21
Obama Mocks & Attacks Jesus Christ And The Bible / Video / Obama Is Not A Christian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Hi-V_ilJu0w
Video: Ray Stevens – Obama Nation-- Comedic musician Ray Stevens takes on Obama’s “hope and change” with his new song “Obama Nation.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/ray-stevens-obama-nation/
Video: Allen West: Stealth Jihad In America-- Rep. Allen West weighs in on the stealth jihad threat in the U.S. military, and decries the reluctance of both the Obama and Bush Administrations to adequately assess the threat.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/allen-west-stealth-jihad-in-america/
Video: College Friend Speaks Out On Obama’s Marxism, Part 1
http://www.westernjournalism.com/college-friend-speaks-out-on-obamas-marxism-part-1/
Video: Sellout Congressman Writes Off ForgeryGate Until After Election
http://www.westernjournalism.com/sellout-congressman-writes-off-forgerygate-until-after-election/
Video: Whistleblocking: Obama Pays Billions To Keep Secrets Out
http://www.westernjournalism.com/whistleblocking-obama-pays-billions-to-keep-secrets-out/
Saturday, July 21, 2012
JOIN CCTA IN PRAYING FOR OUR COUNTRY!
If you believe that the power of prayer is greater than any force on earth—and that the current crop of political candidates is unlikely to put our nation’s house in order in time to avoid a major economic disaster—then join with CCTA and other concerned Americans who pray daily, for divine intervention, at one of the following times: 6, 7, or 8 am OR 6, 7, or 8 pm.
Dear Lord,
You blessed America with more freedom than any other nation in the world; and we allowed these freedoms to be restricted in the name of fairness, equality, social justice, government safety nets, and homeland security.
You blessed America with a continent far removed from the disputes and wars of nations; and we have become hated for flaunting our military might , as policeman to the world.
You blessed America with an abundance of natural resources; and we locked them away, in the name of environmentalism, global warming and the false earth-god Gaia.
I slept, when I should have objected more actively. I ignored grievous violations to our constitution by claiming it was beyond my power to change. I allowed my government to compromise away your gift of natural law, until it became meaningless. And, worst of all, even when our courts and our legislatures banished your name and Holy Book from our institutions, or schools and even our everyday lives, I did not rise up in protest—I helped re-elect them; because, as bad as they were, they just had to better than the other party’s political whores.
All of these failures I acknowledge with a humble heart. And though you have punished us for our lack of diligence, the majority of our elected leaders remain unwilling to address the beast that is devouring our constitution, our laws, our national honor and our most sacred beliefs.
Our Republic now stands at a crossroad; on the brink of a spiritual, ideological, fiscal and economic disaster. I offer no excuse for how we got here. But I fear the magnitude of damage we have done to our constitution, you so carefully guided our Founding Fathers to create, cannot be corrected, by the current crop of candidates—and certainly not in time to escape the multiplicity of imminent disaster that confront our nation today.
I therefore urgently pray that, through divine intervention, you send us a leader in the mold of our Founding Fathers—a man or woman with the charisma, knowledge, wisdom and ability to restore the original intent of our constitution and one who also recognizes the vital importance of your Holy Presence in the affairs of our nation as in our lives.
In Jesus’ name I ask this,
Amen
Dear Lord,
You blessed America with more freedom than any other nation in the world; and we allowed these freedoms to be restricted in the name of fairness, equality, social justice, government safety nets, and homeland security.
You blessed America with a continent far removed from the disputes and wars of nations; and we have become hated for flaunting our military might , as policeman to the world.
You blessed America with an abundance of natural resources; and we locked them away, in the name of environmentalism, global warming and the false earth-god Gaia.
I slept, when I should have objected more actively. I ignored grievous violations to our constitution by claiming it was beyond my power to change. I allowed my government to compromise away your gift of natural law, until it became meaningless. And, worst of all, even when our courts and our legislatures banished your name and Holy Book from our institutions, or schools and even our everyday lives, I did not rise up in protest—I helped re-elect them; because, as bad as they were, they just had to better than the other party’s political whores.
All of these failures I acknowledge with a humble heart. And though you have punished us for our lack of diligence, the majority of our elected leaders remain unwilling to address the beast that is devouring our constitution, our laws, our national honor and our most sacred beliefs.
Our Republic now stands at a crossroad; on the brink of a spiritual, ideological, fiscal and economic disaster. I offer no excuse for how we got here. But I fear the magnitude of damage we have done to our constitution, you so carefully guided our Founding Fathers to create, cannot be corrected, by the current crop of candidates—and certainly not in time to escape the multiplicity of imminent disaster that confront our nation today.
I therefore urgently pray that, through divine intervention, you send us a leader in the mold of our Founding Fathers—a man or woman with the charisma, knowledge, wisdom and ability to restore the original intent of our constitution and one who also recognizes the vital importance of your Holy Presence in the affairs of our nation as in our lives.
In Jesus’ name I ask this,
Amen
The Prelutsky Platform
By Burt Prelutsky • May 12, 2012
A while back, one of my readers, whom we'll call Cosmo, sent me an angry challenge. He wrote: "I watch Fox, I listen to Rush and I read you. I do this because I'm trying to understand conservatives. I see them and you bashing liberal policies, but I don't see any of you coming up with alternative policies."
To be totally honest, I never really thought it was my mission to come up with alternative policies. I figured it was enough that I pointed out how awful the policies of this current administration are, and how great a menace Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, our own little axis of evil, pose to America and our allies.
Iran, Syria and North Korea, are evil and dangerous, but they don't have the power to destroy our freedoms or scuttle our economy. They might wish to see us on our knees, but they simply don't have the ability to saddle us with a debt that will make our currency worthless, turn our children and grandchildren into paupers, and leave our military in shambles.
Still, I am not one to shirk a challenge. So I sent Cosmo the following message: "I can't speak for Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, but this would be my platform if I were the Republican candidate running against Obama. First off, I would cut spending drastically. That would mean that we all face up to the fact that Social Security and Medicare cannot continue as they are. If that requires raising retirement age or even reducing payments across the board by, say, 5%, so be it. Either we act like mature adults or we slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs.
"We join with Israel to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, and we provide Poland and the Czech Republic with the missile defense program they were promised before Obama caved to Russia's demands. Next, we let Russia know that there's a new sheriff in town. When they ask something of us, we say, 'Nyet. You guys don't get to keep opposing us in the U.N. when it comes to Syria and then expect us to do you bums any favors.'
CONTINUED: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/2012/05/prelutsky-platform.html
A while back, one of my readers, whom we'll call Cosmo, sent me an angry challenge. He wrote: "I watch Fox, I listen to Rush and I read you. I do this because I'm trying to understand conservatives. I see them and you bashing liberal policies, but I don't see any of you coming up with alternative policies."
To be totally honest, I never really thought it was my mission to come up with alternative policies. I figured it was enough that I pointed out how awful the policies of this current administration are, and how great a menace Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, our own little axis of evil, pose to America and our allies.
Iran, Syria and North Korea, are evil and dangerous, but they don't have the power to destroy our freedoms or scuttle our economy. They might wish to see us on our knees, but they simply don't have the ability to saddle us with a debt that will make our currency worthless, turn our children and grandchildren into paupers, and leave our military in shambles.
Still, I am not one to shirk a challenge. So I sent Cosmo the following message: "I can't speak for Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, but this would be my platform if I were the Republican candidate running against Obama. First off, I would cut spending drastically. That would mean that we all face up to the fact that Social Security and Medicare cannot continue as they are. If that requires raising retirement age or even reducing payments across the board by, say, 5%, so be it. Either we act like mature adults or we slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs.
"We join with Israel to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, and we provide Poland and the Czech Republic with the missile defense program they were promised before Obama caved to Russia's demands. Next, we let Russia know that there's a new sheriff in town. When they ask something of us, we say, 'Nyet. You guys don't get to keep opposing us in the U.N. when it comes to Syria and then expect us to do you bums any favors.'
CONTINUED: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/2012/05/prelutsky-platform.html
Are You Sure You Are a Democrat?
Today's Democrat Party (the party of ABORTION) is NOT THE PARTY OF YOUR PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS!
One look at the recent NC State Democratic Convention demonstrates the extreme liberal fringe that makes up today’s North Carolina Democratic Party. Resolutions adopted by the NCDP at their convention include:
• A single-payer national healthcare system (which would be significantly to the left of the job-killing monstrosity that is ObamaCare)
• Repeal of the marriage amendment (that was recently approved by 61% of North Carolinians)
• The full legalization of marijuana (not just for medicinal purposes, which is a position to the left of even California Democrats)
• The abandonment of nuclear energy as part of the U.S. energy policy (which would in turn force us to become even more dependent on foreign oil)
• Full abolishment of the death penalty
• A demand for collective bargaining rights for workers (which would be extremely detrimental to attracting new business investment in North Carolina)
• Opposition to state-level immigration reform (while the federal government continues to ignore the issue)
• The creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence (which is just absurd)
These positions are so outside of the mainstream, one wonders if they were even meant to be serious. Of course, you never know what to expect when you’re dealing with the same body that decided to keep their Party Chairman after his role in the cover-up of a sexual harassment scandal, who continue to support the least popular governor in the country (who may have recently committed fraud by altering official documents to protect her pet spending projects), and who just nominated a candidate for governor who has promised to keep the exact same policies as his predecessor.
PUBLIUS 2012
One look at the recent NC State Democratic Convention demonstrates the extreme liberal fringe that makes up today’s North Carolina Democratic Party. Resolutions adopted by the NCDP at their convention include:
• A single-payer national healthcare system (which would be significantly to the left of the job-killing monstrosity that is ObamaCare)
• Repeal of the marriage amendment (that was recently approved by 61% of North Carolinians)
• The full legalization of marijuana (not just for medicinal purposes, which is a position to the left of even California Democrats)
• The abandonment of nuclear energy as part of the U.S. energy policy (which would in turn force us to become even more dependent on foreign oil)
• Full abolishment of the death penalty
• A demand for collective bargaining rights for workers (which would be extremely detrimental to attracting new business investment in North Carolina)
• Opposition to state-level immigration reform (while the federal government continues to ignore the issue)
• The creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and Nonviolence (which is just absurd)
These positions are so outside of the mainstream, one wonders if they were even meant to be serious. Of course, you never know what to expect when you’re dealing with the same body that decided to keep their Party Chairman after his role in the cover-up of a sexual harassment scandal, who continue to support the least popular governor in the country (who may have recently committed fraud by altering official documents to protect her pet spending projects), and who just nominated a candidate for governor who has promised to keep the exact same policies as his predecessor.
PUBLIUS 2012
Note: CCTA is a non partisan organization. We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party. News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.
What each of us can do to defeat Obama
July 19, 2012
By Kevin "Coach" Collins
Imagine sitting at your kitchen table with a group of family and friends trying to figure out what you can do to save yourselves from an enemy who is coming your way from just two towns over. Wouldn't you do ANYTHING you could to save yourself and your family? What would you do; what would you give from what you had left to defeat an approaching enemy? Would you hold back ANYTHING? VOTING IS NOT ENOUGH!
There's no one in our country that can't do something.
Here are some suggestions of how to fight back.
By Kevin "Coach" Collins
Imagine sitting at your kitchen table with a group of family and friends trying to figure out what you can do to save yourselves from an enemy who is coming your way from just two towns over. Wouldn't you do ANYTHING you could to save yourself and your family? What would you do; what would you give from what you had left to defeat an approaching enemy? Would you hold back ANYTHING? VOTING IS NOT ENOUGH!
There's no one in our country that can't do something.
Here are some suggestions of how to fight back.
- Set up a table wherever you can. Get voter registration forms and get like-minded people to fill them out. If someone wants to register as a Democrat hand the form back - this is no time to "play nice."
- Stores with enemy signs should be boycotted. Don't patronize people who want to enslave us. Ask store owners to place signs in their windows. Ask doctors to put signs in their offices; 4 of 5 say they might consider quitting if the enemy wins.
- Take a very close look at your finances and decide what you can give, not IF you can give. If the enemy wins your money won't be yours anyway.
- If you can put just $100.00 together type up a fact sheet - cram the facts on the top half and repeat them below and get your sheet photocopied. Then cut the sheets in half to double the yield. Include contact info on each piece. HAND THEM OUT in public places. Distribute them outside churches on Sunday. Too shy to do this? Think about how the enemy will destroy your life then decide if you are too shy to hand the facts to a stranger..
- Buy and maintain a truth telling website. They are cheaper than you think.
- Get on twitter and facebook and start telling the truth, "Oh I can't do that, I'm afraid of computers" you say? Are you more afraid of computers than of our enemy? Are you so comfortable being shy that won't stand up and fight?
- Get yourself to a campaign headquarters and volunteer.
- Make large signs, then stand and show them on busy intersections telling people the truth.
Charlie Daniels: You Wanna Do Gun Control, Start with The DOJ!
On this Friday, July 20, edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex covers the shooting in Colorado and breaks down how it will be used to push through ratificatio...
HEAR THE AUDIO: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/video/show?id=4301673%3AVideo%3A833018&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video
HEAR THE AUDIO: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/video/show?id=4301673%3AVideo%3A833018&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video
Calls for Gun Control after Colorado Incident, But Human Cost of Illegal Immigration Ignored
The news media and the left are out in force on publicizing this horrible crime in an effort to get the Congress to enact gun control. Rahm Emanuel said,"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
We have a horrific one time tragedy in Colorado by a crazed gunman, yet this country is daily littered with the bodies of American citizens who have been killed by illegal aliens.
Where is the outcry from the left.? Where is the 24/7 wall to wall media coverage?
CONTINUED: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673%3ATopic%3A833761&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
We have a horrific one time tragedy in Colorado by a crazed gunman, yet this country is daily littered with the bodies of American citizens who have been killed by illegal aliens.
Where is the outcry from the left.? Where is the 24/7 wall to wall media coverage?
CONTINUED: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673%3ATopic%3A833761&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Tea Party's Winning Model
The Tea Party's Winning Model
by Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks
Jul 20, 2012
Like a child who edges the line to see how many rules he can break, President Obama is testing America’s patience with a pattern of unconstitutional behavior that rivals any other president’s record, trading out America’s founding principles for top-down policies designed to centralize control in the federal government. No wonder Americans are fed up and eager to take back what’s theirs by staging a hostile takeover of Washington.
At its outset, the political elite ignored the Tea Party, casting it off as a partisan flash in the pan as it grew in strength in the early part of 2009. Since then, the Tea Party has transformed from a street protest movement into a political machine with an impressive slew of legislative and electoral victories under its belt. After the midterm elections in 2010, the establishment has had to recognize that the Tea Party is indeed a force to be reckoned with.
What makes the Tea Party unique as a vehicle for change is that there isn’t any grand plan. It’s millions of people in disparate places—each individual in possession of a unique perspective; particular goals, wants, and needs; and a personal knowledge of their community and circumstances—coming together in voluntary cooperation to create something far greater and more valuable than any one individual could achieve alone. The movement is an embodiment of its principles of decentralization.
The Tea Party has been able to organize in this way because of the liberating power of social media and the decentralized, open-ended online discovery process. Social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter allow individuals to engage and share with others they may never have been able to meet otherwise. In this way, grassroots organizing allows the Tea Party to mobilize itself by gaining information quicker and sparking its message across many venues.
The movement has also found victory at the ballot box, where it has challenged unprincipled Republicans in primaries and sent dozens of strong conservative to Washington in general elections. In doing so, the movement has challenged the top-down method of campaigning. The Tea Party was growing the pie, adding new potential voters to its ranks, looking in districts that hadn’t been in play before, and effectively organizing voters. It focused on social, technological, and personal networks. As it turns out, the grassroots protests were not only a good recruitment mechanism for building boots on the ground, they also created a powerful market signal to potential candidates with both the principles and the practical skills needed to win public office.
The momentum built in 2010 is continuing in 2012. Most recently, the Tea Party helped Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker win the union-backed recall. In Indiana’s Republican Senate primary, it helped conservative Richard Mourdock defeat moderate incumbent Dick Lugar. In Utah, it forced Sen. Orrin Hatch to reevaluate his commitment to conservative principles. It seems that everywhere the Tea Party is, the movement is enacting change.
In business, shareholders stage a hostile takeover of the company when the board has failed to fulfill its duties. The same is occurring in politics. The board—the Washington establishment—is no longer serving the shareholders—the American people—and refuses to change it ways. So We the People are taking Washington back. But just like shareholders taking a company back, the people must have a plan for what to do when they’ve regained power. The Tea Party has that too, in the form a wide-reaching agenda focused on decentralization and returning power back to the people at all levels of decision-making.
Americans need to break up the privileged collusion of Washington insiders and take power away from self-appointed “experts” and give it back to the people. From business and fiscal policy to the tax code to health care and education, the decentralized model that has made the Tea Party a success will return America to the standing it deserves a the greatest nation on earth.
by Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks
Jul 20, 2012
Like a child who edges the line to see how many rules he can break, President Obama is testing America’s patience with a pattern of unconstitutional behavior that rivals any other president’s record, trading out America’s founding principles for top-down policies designed to centralize control in the federal government. No wonder Americans are fed up and eager to take back what’s theirs by staging a hostile takeover of Washington.
At its outset, the political elite ignored the Tea Party, casting it off as a partisan flash in the pan as it grew in strength in the early part of 2009. Since then, the Tea Party has transformed from a street protest movement into a political machine with an impressive slew of legislative and electoral victories under its belt. After the midterm elections in 2010, the establishment has had to recognize that the Tea Party is indeed a force to be reckoned with.
What makes the Tea Party unique as a vehicle for change is that there isn’t any grand plan. It’s millions of people in disparate places—each individual in possession of a unique perspective; particular goals, wants, and needs; and a personal knowledge of their community and circumstances—coming together in voluntary cooperation to create something far greater and more valuable than any one individual could achieve alone. The movement is an embodiment of its principles of decentralization.
The Tea Party has been able to organize in this way because of the liberating power of social media and the decentralized, open-ended online discovery process. Social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter allow individuals to engage and share with others they may never have been able to meet otherwise. In this way, grassroots organizing allows the Tea Party to mobilize itself by gaining information quicker and sparking its message across many venues.
The movement has also found victory at the ballot box, where it has challenged unprincipled Republicans in primaries and sent dozens of strong conservative to Washington in general elections. In doing so, the movement has challenged the top-down method of campaigning. The Tea Party was growing the pie, adding new potential voters to its ranks, looking in districts that hadn’t been in play before, and effectively organizing voters. It focused on social, technological, and personal networks. As it turns out, the grassroots protests were not only a good recruitment mechanism for building boots on the ground, they also created a powerful market signal to potential candidates with both the principles and the practical skills needed to win public office.
The momentum built in 2010 is continuing in 2012. Most recently, the Tea Party helped Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker win the union-backed recall. In Indiana’s Republican Senate primary, it helped conservative Richard Mourdock defeat moderate incumbent Dick Lugar. In Utah, it forced Sen. Orrin Hatch to reevaluate his commitment to conservative principles. It seems that everywhere the Tea Party is, the movement is enacting change.
In business, shareholders stage a hostile takeover of the company when the board has failed to fulfill its duties. The same is occurring in politics. The board—the Washington establishment—is no longer serving the shareholders—the American people—and refuses to change it ways. So We the People are taking Washington back. But just like shareholders taking a company back, the people must have a plan for what to do when they’ve regained power. The Tea Party has that too, in the form a wide-reaching agenda focused on decentralization and returning power back to the people at all levels of decision-making.
Americans need to break up the privileged collusion of Washington insiders and take power away from self-appointed “experts” and give it back to the people. From business and fiscal policy to the tax code to health care and education, the decentralized model that has made the Tea Party a success will return America to the standing it deserves a the greatest nation on earth.
Crystal Coast Tea Party Meetings on July 24th
Morehead City meeting will be at Jing Gianni's Italian Restaurant...across from Taco Bell in Morehead. Ample parking in the rear with a rear entrance to our meeting room....handicap accessible. A discounted buffet will be served, or you can order off the menu. Social and dining at 5PM, meeting starts at 6. Someone please bring any size flag for the pledge.
Up West CCTPP meeting on July 24th will be at Ribeyes Steakhouse in Cape Carteret @ 7 PM. Come early to eat and chat. ---> NOTE: that this meeting is not on the normal 3rd Tuesday as that meeting was cancelled due the 2nd Primary Election. Normal schedule will resume after this meeting on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of the month.
Up West CCTPP meeting on July 24th will be at Ribeyes Steakhouse in Cape Carteret @ 7 PM. Come early to eat and chat. ---> NOTE: that this meeting is not on the normal 3rd Tuesday as that meeting was cancelled due the 2nd Primary Election. Normal schedule will resume after this meeting on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of the month.
Threat to ObamaCare Is No ‘Drafting Error’
It turns out that ObamaCare makes an essential part of its regulatory scheme—an $800 billion bailout of private health insurance companies—conditional upon state governments creating the health insurance “exchanges” envisioned in the law.
This was no “drafting error.” During congressional consideration of the bill, its lead author, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), acknowledged that he intentionally and purposefully made that bailout conditional on states implementing their own Exchanges.
Now that it appears that as many as 30 states will not create Exchanges, the law is in peril. When states refuse to establish an Exchange, they are blocking not only that bailout, but also the $2,000 per worker tax ObamaCare imposes on employers. If enough states refuse to establish an Exchange, they can effectively force Congress to repeal much or all of the law.
That might explain why the IRS is literally rewriting the statute. On May 24, the IRS finalized a regulation that says the law’s $800 billion insurance-industry bailout will not be conditional on states creating Exchanges. With the stroke of pen, the IRS (1) stripped states of the power Congress gave them to shield employers from that $2,000 per-worker tax, (2) imposed that illegal tax on employers whom Congress exempted, and (3) issued up to $800 billion of tax credits and direct subsidies to private health insurance companies—without any congressional authorization whatsoever.
CONTINUED: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/threat-to-obamacare-is-no-drafting-error/
This was no “drafting error.” During congressional consideration of the bill, its lead author, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), acknowledged that he intentionally and purposefully made that bailout conditional on states implementing their own Exchanges.
Now that it appears that as many as 30 states will not create Exchanges, the law is in peril. When states refuse to establish an Exchange, they are blocking not only that bailout, but also the $2,000 per worker tax ObamaCare imposes on employers. If enough states refuse to establish an Exchange, they can effectively force Congress to repeal much or all of the law.
That might explain why the IRS is literally rewriting the statute. On May 24, the IRS finalized a regulation that says the law’s $800 billion insurance-industry bailout will not be conditional on states creating Exchanges. With the stroke of pen, the IRS (1) stripped states of the power Congress gave them to shield employers from that $2,000 per-worker tax, (2) imposed that illegal tax on employers whom Congress exempted, and (3) issued up to $800 billion of tax credits and direct subsidies to private health insurance companies—without any congressional authorization whatsoever.
CONTINUED: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/threat-to-obamacare-is-no-drafting-error/
Thursday, July 19, 2012
American Thinker: Jews and American Conservatism
Last year, when voters in the Queens-Brooklyn Ninth Congressional District of New York elected Bob Turner, a solid Republican conservative, to the seat abandoned by disgraced Anthony Weiner, it marked a watershed moment in American Jewish history, as Orthodox Jews finally flexed some muscle alongside Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union. That seat had not left the Democrats since 1923, and it seems that Jewish voters have been liberal Democrat as long, if not longer.
Alongside African-Americans, Jewish Americans traditionally have been the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc. In that way, rather than advancing legitimate interests, Jews effectively throw away their voting influence, year after year, as do African-Americans. Democrats know that African-American votes mostly are in the bag, as are Jewish votes, so Democrats need not vie seriously for support. Contrary to increasing their influence by such group voting, they dilute by signaling to one party that they will be there no-matter-what, while signaling to the other party that virtually nothing will influence their voting.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/jews_and_american_conservatism.html#.UAbJva7LKMc.mailto#ixzz20zBfSS9E
Alongside African-Americans, Jewish Americans traditionally have been the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc. In that way, rather than advancing legitimate interests, Jews effectively throw away their voting influence, year after year, as do African-Americans. Democrats know that African-American votes mostly are in the bag, as are Jewish votes, so Democrats need not vie seriously for support. Contrary to increasing their influence by such group voting, they dilute by signaling to one party that they will be there no-matter-what, while signaling to the other party that virtually nothing will influence their voting.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/jews_and_american_conservatism.html#.UAbJva7LKMc.mailto#ixzz20zBfSS9E
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Video: Brain Surgeon Confirms ObamaCare Rations Care, Has Death Panels!
A brain surgeon on the Mark Levin show confirms that Obamacare will indeed ration healthcare, and will include panels to decide whether patients (or “units,” as they are referred to) are eligible to receive critical care. The inhumanity is unbelievable.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/brain-surgeon-confirms-obamacare-rations-care-has-death-panels/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/brain-surgeon-confirms-obamacare-rations-care-has-death-panels/
Monday, July 16, 2012
‘Listening Session’ July 19
July 19, 2012, 4:30-6:00 pm: County Commissioner Scott Dacey will hold a ‘Listening Session’ at the Trent Woods Town Hall , New Bern
NULLIFY NOW !!
by Diane Rufino, July 13, 2012
There is a growing movement in my state of North Carolina, as well as other states, to Nullify the federal healthcare bill. The Supreme Court's disingenuous decision to uphold the Individual Mandate as a valid exercise of the Congress' taxing power has evidenced an unwillingness on any branch of the federal government to honor the sovereignty of the individual. The decision clearly puts our country on the dark path to government tyranny.
But there is no need to label me a fanatic or a right-wing alarmist. I only write about what I observe and what I know to be true. And I've been observing that Americans and state representatives all over the country are taking notice of the powerful State sovereignty doctrine known as Nullification. Although this doctrine is based on our founding principles, the term itself was not articulated until 1799 when Thomas Jefferson wrote a series of resolutions to address the unconstitutionality of the Alien & Sedition Act. Those resolutions, known as the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, state as follows:
"If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal compact (ie, the US Constitution), an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction, contended by the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien and Sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the Constitution....."
Jefferson believed it was up to the States, the parties who drafted and ratified the Constitution and thus created the federal government to stand up to the government when it exceeds constitutional bounds. The states, he wrote, have the unquestionable right to judge whether the government has usurped power from the states or the people (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). He called Nullification the "Rightful Remedy" to keep the federal government constrained by the limited delegations of power granted by the states.
I know this a concept which is foreign to progressives and something that liberal universities prefer to keep hidden in historical record or teach as an outdated, racist doctrine, but the fact is that it is as vital and relevant as any of the other principles of government on which our system is based. It is an important check and balance and it is inherent in the system of Dual Sovereignty. The guarantees of the Declaration of Independence can only be protected if the government operates according to the Constitution's limitations.
Perhaps the reason this concept has been receiving so much attention is because it was articulated by our most revered Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson, the author of our charter of freedom and James Madison, the father of our Constitution (see the Virginia Resolves of 1798 and The Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800). It is an American remedy. Perhaps the reason it is criticized is because it's not found in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" playbook or in the Communist Manifesto. It doesn't further the concentration of government. Furthermore, Jefferson and Madison opposed slavery so it was not, as liberals allege, a racist doctrine.
And so, nullification groups have popped up all over the country. The topic is spreading like wildfire. Nullification groups are even organizing in North Carolina, a state which has spent years sucking up to the federal government. At the meeting the other night, one person asked whether certain provisions of the NC state constitution might present a legal barrier to members introducing nullification bills. Another asked whether it was a dangerous remedy and likely to escalate to secession. I'd like to spend the rest of this article addressing these concerns.
The provisions in the North Carolina state constitution that the gentleman was referring to are Article I, Section 4 ("Secession Prohibited") and Article I, Section 5 ("Allegiance to the United States). I don't believe either provision presents a barrier to Nullification.
Article I, Section 5 states: "Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force." This provision merely restates the theme of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, Section 2). State laws must not challenge the federal government in those areas it is expressly permitted by the Constitution to regulate.
Our federal system of government and the Tenth Amendment tell us that there is a purposeful tension between two sovereigns. With respect to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, which are "few and defined" (James Madison, in Federalist No. 45), the government is sovereign and the states must yield their power. But as to all other powers and responsibilities, these are reserved to the states and thus they are sovereign. The federal government, therefore, must yield to the states. The tension has always been palpable and almost always, the federal courts have taken the federal government's side. But just because the trend seems to show that the federal government is taking power it was not originally granted, or delegated, by the states, it does not mean that Article I, Section 5 of the NC constitution is a carte blanche allegiance provision. It is to be observed responsibly, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the original intent of the US Constitution. States are entitled to err on the side of their sovereignty. After all, they contemplated, drafted, debated, and eventually ratified the Constitution with specific designs for the Union. The federal government was THEIR creation.
Dr. Frankenstein and Igor created the monster; the monster didn't create them. The individual nations of the world joined created NATO and not the reverse.
Article I, Section 4 states: "This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State." This section is extremely offensive and is an insult to every North Carolinian who died in the Civil War believing in the sovereign right of self-determination and trying to preserve the notion that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence - "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Article I, Section 4 conflicts directly with the Declaration of Independence, as well as contradicts the very legal basis that underlies our government - the Compact Theory of the Union.
The Compact Theory was discussed even before the states ratified the Constitution. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote separately to propose that the Constitution be based on this principle. Under the Compact Theory of Federalism, the United States is made up of a voluntary union of States that agreed to a set of conditions on how they will be organized and governed. The Union was created by compact - or agreement (contract). They agreed to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states did not and could not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights. Under this theory, states can determine if the federal government has violated its agreements because they are the rightful parties who understand the terms and intent of the compact. The federal government was a CREATION of the compact and NOT a party to it. The compact theory states that our federal government was formed through an agreement by all of the states.
The Compact Theory is subject to the law of compact (or contract). And as with all contracts and agreements, the federal compact is limited by its language and by the intent when it was entered into. It is only legally enforceable under such conditions. In other words, the government is only legal for the specific purpose it was ratified for and under the precise terms (except for amendments properly adopted through the Article V amendment process).
Most states subscribe to this theory as the principle that underlies their bonds to the Union. Look at the articles of secession submitted by the southern states. For example, South Carolina explained:
"Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.” (the Supreme Court is not a neutral arbiter)
Also, just ask the state of Montana. In 2008, while it was waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand down its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (second amendment case), the Montana State Legislature passed a resolution – H.J. 26 – asserting its state sovereignty and announcing that if the Supreme Court failed uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to have and bear arms, then the state of Montana would consider it a fatal breach of the Compact and therefore it would nullify and void its bonds with fellow states. In other words, it threatened secession if the Supreme Court took away gun rights.
[Heller was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. A group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The government claimed the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard, and is not an individual right. The federal district court in DC sided with the government and upheld the federal ban on private gun ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed. With four liberals on the Court who believed that the second amendment was only a collective right and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice who sits on the fence, the right to have and bear arms was precariously close to being destroyed, and the state of Montana was not willing to take it lightly].
In short, Article I, Section 4 condemns the state of North Carolina to be a federal cling-on rather than a sovereign state, comprised of sovereign individuals. We are not wards of the state, eternally and perpetually bound to their schemes and design of governance. The provision declares in the loudest of terms that the issue of state sovereignty was settled at Appomattox in 1865. I would be surprised to find many North Carolinians who believe that in their hearts. They are proud and patriotic.
There should be no concern that either provision of the North Carolina state constitution would bar any state representative from rightfully interposing the state between the helpless citizens and a power-hungry federal government.
The second question asked was whether nullification is risky and likely to escalate to secession. Ideally, the purpose of nullification is to address usurpations of power so that secession could be avoided. Of course, that requires that the federal government respect the state's right to invoke nullification and enforce their nullification bills.
In 1796, in response to the Quasi War with France, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts to quash any false, misleading, scandalous, hateful, contemptuous, or defamatory communication concerning the government, the President (John Adams), or Congress (or individual members thereof). Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment's rights of free speech and press. The question became: What can be done to protect the people from an act of government that exceeds constitutional authority? (What can be done if the government violates the very Constitution which defines it?) Jefferson said there were three viable options: Judicial review, Nullification, and Secession. He didn't trust the courts to interpret the Constitution faithfully and thought secession was too extreme. He concluded that the "rightful remedy" was nullification. If successful, there would be no need for the extreme measure of secession.
John Calhoun, the famous Senator from South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, viewed nullification in the same way. Calhoun was a strong supporter of the doctrine and helped his state put forth an ordinance to nullify the federal tariffs ("Tariffs of Abomination"). The full title read: “An Ordinance to Nullify Certain Acts of Congress of the United States Purporting to be Laws Laying Duties and Imposts on the Importation of Foreign Commodities.” Although President Andrew Jackson believed South Carolina was heading towards secession, Calhoun assured that South Carolina was committed to the Union and did not want to secede. It just wanted the government to stop using its power to inflict such economic harm on the South.
In 1831, a year before the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun wrote: "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail."
He continued:
"So numerous and diversified are the interests of our country, that they could not be fairly represented in a single government.. A plan was adopted best suited to our situation and perfectly novel in its character. The powers of government were divided, not, as heretofore, in reference to classes, but geographically. One General Government was formed for the whole, to which were delegated all the powers supposed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all the States, leaving others subject to the separate control of the States, being, from their local and peculiar character, such that they could not be subject to the will of a majority of the whole Union, without the certain hazard of injustice and oppression.
It was thus that the interests of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the whole, while the peculiar and local interests were left under the control of the States separately, to whose custody only they could be safely confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitutional compact, to which all the States are parties, constitutes the peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly and emphatically American, without example or parallel.
To realize its perfection, we must view the General Government and those of the States as a whole, each in its proper sphere independent; each perfectly adapted to its respective objects; the States acting separately, representing and protecting the local and peculiar interests; and acting jointly through one General Government, with the weight respectively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and protecting the interest of the whole; and thus perfecting, by an admirable but simple arrangement, the great principle of representation and responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each to move in its prescribed orbit, is the great and difficult problem, on the solution of which the duration of our Constitution, of our Union, and, in all probability, our liberty depends. How is this to be effected?
The question is new, when applied to our peculiar political organization, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are represented by distinct but connected governments; but it is, in reality, an old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in any government; whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of the ages have devised but one mode by which such political organization can be preserved,--the mode adopted in England, and by all governments, ancient and modern, blessed with constitutions deserving to be called free,--to give to each co-estate the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of the others, in order to protect against encroachments the interests it particularly represents; a principle which all of our constitutions recognize in the distribution of power among their respective departments, as essential to maintain the independence of each; but which, to all who will duly reflect on the subject, must appear far more essential, for the same object, in that great and fundamental distribution of powers between the General and State Governments.
So essential is the principle, that, to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to consolidate, in the one left in the exclusive possession of the right, all powers of government; for it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the right to take what powers in pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the distribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The reason is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown.
The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, 'to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.' This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may, -- State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, -- I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.
With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make 'its discretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;' and that, 'in all cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.' Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced."
He concluded by addressing the secession question:
"If the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative would be submission and oppression on one side, or resistance by force on the other. That our system should afford, in such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alternatives, by which the Government may be brought to a pause, and thereby an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through an appeal to the States themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom: an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength; not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety. Its general recognition would of itself, in a great measure, if not altogether, supersede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the Government that moderation and justice so essential to harmony and peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours; and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers (a point all-important), and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution or overthrow, but in reformation. It is, in fact, properly understood, a substitute, -- where the alternative would be force, -- tending to prevent, and, if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which all systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe."
We see, then, that nullification is not intended as a threat of possible secession. It is a peaceful plea to the federal government to faithfully honor the Constitution. So, if the government grows hostile to any state that uses nullification to declare an act of the government unconstitutional and that hostility leads to secession, then the fault of secession lies not with the state but with the government. The power to restore the design of the federal compact lies with the government. The power to prevent secession lies in the conduct of Washington DC.
No one wants the Union to dissolve. No one wants a state to be so frustrated and so apathetic and so rebellious with the federal government that its only effective solution is to dissolve its bonds with fellow states so that it is relieved of allegiance to an oppressive or controlling federal government. But if Americans are devoted to keeping the American ideal alive - that government serves the people and not the other way around - than secession must always be recognized as not only a fundamental sovereign right but also a viable option. It was certainly the option our founding patriots took when they adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence. That document, most clearly and straightforwardly, was a secessionist document. It announced "to a candid world" that the colonies endured a history of repeated injuries and usurpations at the hands of King George and were therefore dissolving their bonds with Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "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 connections between them and the State of Great Britain, are and ought to be totally dissolved.."
Lincoln got it wrong. He engaged the South in a costly war to save the Union because he believed it was meant to be a perpetual Union. America was never promised to be a perpetual Union. It was promised to be the land of perpetual freedom. If the independent sovereign colonies had the right to be free and to dissolve their political bonds with a tyrannical government in 1776, why do they have any less of a right under the same circumstances?
Some have laughed at this sentiment. Many believe that the government would never allow any state to withdraw from the Union. Some look at the legal issues and wonder how a state can legally secede if no federal court will recognize the right of secession. [The only Supreme Court decision which addressed secession was Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), which was written by Justice Salmon Chase. Chase was appointed by Abraham Lincoln as a cabinet member and was a leading Union figure during the war against the South and so it was no surprise his decision was a regurgitation of Lincoln's premise for war. He wrote: "The act which consummated Texas' admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States."]
Since the government enacted martial law in the South (thus treating the southern states as a conquered land) put strict conditions on the Confederate states for "re-admission to the Union," it is clear the government didn't even believe its own story.
The authority for secession comes from man's humanity and vests in every sovereign. The right of a people to abolish their government is a fundamental right, just as the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are. As Jefferson said: "God who gave us life gave us liberty." Liberty is indivisible from life itself. This right of a people to abolish government is grounded in the inherent right of self-protection (individuals can protect their lives and property). When people are organized into communities and reside in a particular state, that state itself possesses the sovereign powers that the people themselves would have had if they had not delegated it for collective and mutual benefit. States do not need permission from the federal government to dissolve the political bonds binding them to the Union. They need no permission from fellow states (although they might wish some support). They certainly don't need permission from any of the federal courts.
The Declaration of Independence reads: "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The US Constitution begins with the words "We the People." This is immensely significant because it evidences the understanding that the power of the government derives from the people. The power derives from the people because in this country we acknowledge that individuals are the true sovereigns. This concept mirrors the themes highlighted in Jefferson's Declaration. The Declaration is the WHY and the Constitution is the HOW.
This emphasis on "We the People" is quite different from what we've seen in history in other countries. Governments have been fashioned by Kings, established by tyrants, or forced on a conquering population. The rights of the people were always an after-though - a second thought. The interests of the King or the tyrant or the conqueror always came first. Governments were always top down until the US Constitution was written. In the United States, we have a bottom-up structure. Power bubbles up from the people. It transfers to a government which in turn serves them. It was not supposed to serve itself. The Constitution is a document that protects the individual from the conduct of government. It is a document used to enforce law on government - not on people. It is designed to limit government and not to limit citizens.
Our Founding Fathers came up with a special, unique formula, which it memorialized in the Constitution (and in the Federalist Papers) - that "limited government" equals "maximum individual liberty."
Governments established for the benefit of the individual are created by compact - an inherent agreement by the people to obey laws in return for the protection of their rights and the service of their liberty interests. After all, what is an individual's liberty interest in life and property worth if he can't leave his home in order to work and travel because he must protect his family and property from evil-intentioned individuals? Many governments are evidenced by a constitution, although it isn't necessary. Written instruments are preferred because they set out in particular detail the relationship between the People and government. Governments are supposed to be limited. While some laws are necessary to promote and even enlarge individual liberty, too many laws burden liberty and oppress people. The balance shifts. Instead of protecting and serving the People, it becomes their master. And then that is when we get to the point where the People review the situation and decide whether it is appropriate to form a different compact, or as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated: "to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It only makes sense that a nation founded on the sovereignty of the individual would allow individuals to abolish their government.
I certainly don't advocate secession. We lost almost 620,000 young men when the South seceded from the Union and Lincoln fought to deny them that opportunity. But as I wrote earlier, it has to be an option as a matter of last resort otherwise we slide down the path to tyranny without a way to salvage the liberty that our revolutionary patriots fought for and which our Founders secured for us.
It is said that nations typically follow a predictable path of progression: From bondage to spiritual faith; then from spiritual faith to great courage; then from courage to liberty; then from liberty to abundance; then from abundance to complacency; then from complacency to apathy; then from apathy to dependence; and finally, from dependence back into bondage. We are at the "dependency" stage. We think the federal government - all branches - are the answer. We see it every time we hear people make such outrageous claims as "home ownership" is a right and "healthcare is a right" and "entitlements are a right." Every time a people believes that government should give them something and therefore relieve them of the "opportunity" to provide such things for themselves, then they, in effect, hand those 'opportunities' back to the government. Each "opportunity" is indeed an exercise of Liberty. It is an opportunity to use the inherent rights and abilities granted to us by our Creator to achieve. We are squandering our opportunities by trusting government to take care of us.
We assume that the government - all branches - are the interpreters and final arbiters of what the Constitution means, what the government's powers are, what government should do, and what laws the people MUST obey. (A perfect example is the desire of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to have a second amendment case reach the Supreme Court again after another liberal justice has been appointed to the Supreme Court so they can "get it right this time." District of Columbia v. Heller was a narrow 5-4 decision. These liberal justices believe strongly in government gun control - despite the overwhelming authority to the contrary - and Ginsberg has already gone public urging another case to come before the high court "after Obama wins a second term.")
If our early patriots understood the inherent violation of liberty rights in a relatively small tax on tea, is it no wonder that today's patriots are urging the revival of nullification over the blatant violation of liberty rights in the coercive federal healthcare bill? If our early patriots rebelled over the fact that they forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others (the English), it is no wonder today's patriots are in an uproar over the fact that a certain segment of our population is being forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others?
It is no wonder that critical mass has been reached and nullification is being talked about as the only option remaining to get government back in line. Hope for other options ended with the Supreme Court's decision of the healthcare bill. There would be no commonsense voice from the Supreme Court. There will be no repeal of the bill in this session or even the next. If Obama is re-elected, the republic is effectively dead. Nullification is the only answer. It provides the path from dependency back to liberty. It puts power back in the hands of the state and to the people. It is the rightful remedy for a people who rightfully deserve to enjoy freedom without oppressive and coercive policies of government.
Thomas Jefferson lives again in the hearts and minds of those who desperately want to save the republic. And it's great to have him back.
"My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty. Land where my fathers died; land of the pilgrims' pride. From every mountainside, let freedom ring."
References:
Diane Rufino, "Nullification: A Concept Whose Time Has Come" August 2011. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
Diane Rufino, "Secession: Does a State Have the Right to Secede From the Union?" August 2011. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Referenced at: http://constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 579 (2008).
John C. Calhoun, “Fort Hill Address: On the Relations of the States and the Federal Government,” in the book: Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, ed. Ross M. Lenace (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992). Referenced at The Online Library of Liberty.: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=683&chapter=107120&layout=html&Itemid=27
There is a growing movement in my state of North Carolina, as well as other states, to Nullify the federal healthcare bill. The Supreme Court's disingenuous decision to uphold the Individual Mandate as a valid exercise of the Congress' taxing power has evidenced an unwillingness on any branch of the federal government to honor the sovereignty of the individual. The decision clearly puts our country on the dark path to government tyranny.
But there is no need to label me a fanatic or a right-wing alarmist. I only write about what I observe and what I know to be true. And I've been observing that Americans and state representatives all over the country are taking notice of the powerful State sovereignty doctrine known as Nullification. Although this doctrine is based on our founding principles, the term itself was not articulated until 1799 when Thomas Jefferson wrote a series of resolutions to address the unconstitutionality of the Alien & Sedition Act. Those resolutions, known as the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, state as follows:
"If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal compact (ie, the US Constitution), an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction, contended by the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien and Sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the Constitution....."
Jefferson believed it was up to the States, the parties who drafted and ratified the Constitution and thus created the federal government to stand up to the government when it exceeds constitutional bounds. The states, he wrote, have the unquestionable right to judge whether the government has usurped power from the states or the people (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). He called Nullification the "Rightful Remedy" to keep the federal government constrained by the limited delegations of power granted by the states.
I know this a concept which is foreign to progressives and something that liberal universities prefer to keep hidden in historical record or teach as an outdated, racist doctrine, but the fact is that it is as vital and relevant as any of the other principles of government on which our system is based. It is an important check and balance and it is inherent in the system of Dual Sovereignty. The guarantees of the Declaration of Independence can only be protected if the government operates according to the Constitution's limitations.
Perhaps the reason this concept has been receiving so much attention is because it was articulated by our most revered Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson, the author of our charter of freedom and James Madison, the father of our Constitution (see the Virginia Resolves of 1798 and The Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800). It is an American remedy. Perhaps the reason it is criticized is because it's not found in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" playbook or in the Communist Manifesto. It doesn't further the concentration of government. Furthermore, Jefferson and Madison opposed slavery so it was not, as liberals allege, a racist doctrine.
And so, nullification groups have popped up all over the country. The topic is spreading like wildfire. Nullification groups are even organizing in North Carolina, a state which has spent years sucking up to the federal government. At the meeting the other night, one person asked whether certain provisions of the NC state constitution might present a legal barrier to members introducing nullification bills. Another asked whether it was a dangerous remedy and likely to escalate to secession. I'd like to spend the rest of this article addressing these concerns.
The provisions in the North Carolina state constitution that the gentleman was referring to are Article I, Section 4 ("Secession Prohibited") and Article I, Section 5 ("Allegiance to the United States). I don't believe either provision presents a barrier to Nullification.
Article I, Section 5 states: "Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force." This provision merely restates the theme of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, Section 2). State laws must not challenge the federal government in those areas it is expressly permitted by the Constitution to regulate.
Our federal system of government and the Tenth Amendment tell us that there is a purposeful tension between two sovereigns. With respect to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, which are "few and defined" (James Madison, in Federalist No. 45), the government is sovereign and the states must yield their power. But as to all other powers and responsibilities, these are reserved to the states and thus they are sovereign. The federal government, therefore, must yield to the states. The tension has always been palpable and almost always, the federal courts have taken the federal government's side. But just because the trend seems to show that the federal government is taking power it was not originally granted, or delegated, by the states, it does not mean that Article I, Section 5 of the NC constitution is a carte blanche allegiance provision. It is to be observed responsibly, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the original intent of the US Constitution. States are entitled to err on the side of their sovereignty. After all, they contemplated, drafted, debated, and eventually ratified the Constitution with specific designs for the Union. The federal government was THEIR creation.
Dr. Frankenstein and Igor created the monster; the monster didn't create them. The individual nations of the world joined created NATO and not the reverse.
Article I, Section 4 states: "This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State." This section is extremely offensive and is an insult to every North Carolinian who died in the Civil War believing in the sovereign right of self-determination and trying to preserve the notion that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence - "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Article I, Section 4 conflicts directly with the Declaration of Independence, as well as contradicts the very legal basis that underlies our government - the Compact Theory of the Union.
The Compact Theory was discussed even before the states ratified the Constitution. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote separately to propose that the Constitution be based on this principle. Under the Compact Theory of Federalism, the United States is made up of a voluntary union of States that agreed to a set of conditions on how they will be organized and governed. The Union was created by compact - or agreement (contract). They agreed to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states did not and could not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights. Under this theory, states can determine if the federal government has violated its agreements because they are the rightful parties who understand the terms and intent of the compact. The federal government was a CREATION of the compact and NOT a party to it. The compact theory states that our federal government was formed through an agreement by all of the states.
The Compact Theory is subject to the law of compact (or contract). And as with all contracts and agreements, the federal compact is limited by its language and by the intent when it was entered into. It is only legally enforceable under such conditions. In other words, the government is only legal for the specific purpose it was ratified for and under the precise terms (except for amendments properly adopted through the Article V amendment process).
Most states subscribe to this theory as the principle that underlies their bonds to the Union. Look at the articles of secession submitted by the southern states. For example, South Carolina explained:
"Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.” (the Supreme Court is not a neutral arbiter)
Also, just ask the state of Montana. In 2008, while it was waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand down its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (second amendment case), the Montana State Legislature passed a resolution – H.J. 26 – asserting its state sovereignty and announcing that if the Supreme Court failed uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to have and bear arms, then the state of Montana would consider it a fatal breach of the Compact and therefore it would nullify and void its bonds with fellow states. In other words, it threatened secession if the Supreme Court took away gun rights.
[Heller was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. A group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The government claimed the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard, and is not an individual right. The federal district court in DC sided with the government and upheld the federal ban on private gun ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed. With four liberals on the Court who believed that the second amendment was only a collective right and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice who sits on the fence, the right to have and bear arms was precariously close to being destroyed, and the state of Montana was not willing to take it lightly].
In short, Article I, Section 4 condemns the state of North Carolina to be a federal cling-on rather than a sovereign state, comprised of sovereign individuals. We are not wards of the state, eternally and perpetually bound to their schemes and design of governance. The provision declares in the loudest of terms that the issue of state sovereignty was settled at Appomattox in 1865. I would be surprised to find many North Carolinians who believe that in their hearts. They are proud and patriotic.
There should be no concern that either provision of the North Carolina state constitution would bar any state representative from rightfully interposing the state between the helpless citizens and a power-hungry federal government.
The second question asked was whether nullification is risky and likely to escalate to secession. Ideally, the purpose of nullification is to address usurpations of power so that secession could be avoided. Of course, that requires that the federal government respect the state's right to invoke nullification and enforce their nullification bills.
In 1796, in response to the Quasi War with France, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts to quash any false, misleading, scandalous, hateful, contemptuous, or defamatory communication concerning the government, the President (John Adams), or Congress (or individual members thereof). Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment's rights of free speech and press. The question became: What can be done to protect the people from an act of government that exceeds constitutional authority? (What can be done if the government violates the very Constitution which defines it?) Jefferson said there were three viable options: Judicial review, Nullification, and Secession. He didn't trust the courts to interpret the Constitution faithfully and thought secession was too extreme. He concluded that the "rightful remedy" was nullification. If successful, there would be no need for the extreme measure of secession.
John Calhoun, the famous Senator from South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, viewed nullification in the same way. Calhoun was a strong supporter of the doctrine and helped his state put forth an ordinance to nullify the federal tariffs ("Tariffs of Abomination"). The full title read: “An Ordinance to Nullify Certain Acts of Congress of the United States Purporting to be Laws Laying Duties and Imposts on the Importation of Foreign Commodities.” Although President Andrew Jackson believed South Carolina was heading towards secession, Calhoun assured that South Carolina was committed to the Union and did not want to secede. It just wanted the government to stop using its power to inflict such economic harm on the South.
In 1831, a year before the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun wrote: "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail."
He continued:
"So numerous and diversified are the interests of our country, that they could not be fairly represented in a single government.. A plan was adopted best suited to our situation and perfectly novel in its character. The powers of government were divided, not, as heretofore, in reference to classes, but geographically. One General Government was formed for the whole, to which were delegated all the powers supposed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all the States, leaving others subject to the separate control of the States, being, from their local and peculiar character, such that they could not be subject to the will of a majority of the whole Union, without the certain hazard of injustice and oppression.
It was thus that the interests of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the whole, while the peculiar and local interests were left under the control of the States separately, to whose custody only they could be safely confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitutional compact, to which all the States are parties, constitutes the peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly and emphatically American, without example or parallel.
To realize its perfection, we must view the General Government and those of the States as a whole, each in its proper sphere independent; each perfectly adapted to its respective objects; the States acting separately, representing and protecting the local and peculiar interests; and acting jointly through one General Government, with the weight respectively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and protecting the interest of the whole; and thus perfecting, by an admirable but simple arrangement, the great principle of representation and responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each to move in its prescribed orbit, is the great and difficult problem, on the solution of which the duration of our Constitution, of our Union, and, in all probability, our liberty depends. How is this to be effected?
The question is new, when applied to our peculiar political organization, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are represented by distinct but connected governments; but it is, in reality, an old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in any government; whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of the ages have devised but one mode by which such political organization can be preserved,--the mode adopted in England, and by all governments, ancient and modern, blessed with constitutions deserving to be called free,--to give to each co-estate the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of the others, in order to protect against encroachments the interests it particularly represents; a principle which all of our constitutions recognize in the distribution of power among their respective departments, as essential to maintain the independence of each; but which, to all who will duly reflect on the subject, must appear far more essential, for the same object, in that great and fundamental distribution of powers between the General and State Governments.
So essential is the principle, that, to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to consolidate, in the one left in the exclusive possession of the right, all powers of government; for it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the right to take what powers in pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the distribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The reason is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown.
The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, 'to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.' This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may, -- State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, -- I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.
With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make 'its discretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;' and that, 'in all cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.' Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced."
He concluded by addressing the secession question:
"If the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative would be submission and oppression on one side, or resistance by force on the other. That our system should afford, in such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alternatives, by which the Government may be brought to a pause, and thereby an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through an appeal to the States themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom: an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength; not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety. Its general recognition would of itself, in a great measure, if not altogether, supersede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the Government that moderation and justice so essential to harmony and peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours; and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers (a point all-important), and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution or overthrow, but in reformation. It is, in fact, properly understood, a substitute, -- where the alternative would be force, -- tending to prevent, and, if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which all systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe."
We see, then, that nullification is not intended as a threat of possible secession. It is a peaceful plea to the federal government to faithfully honor the Constitution. So, if the government grows hostile to any state that uses nullification to declare an act of the government unconstitutional and that hostility leads to secession, then the fault of secession lies not with the state but with the government. The power to restore the design of the federal compact lies with the government. The power to prevent secession lies in the conduct of Washington DC.
No one wants the Union to dissolve. No one wants a state to be so frustrated and so apathetic and so rebellious with the federal government that its only effective solution is to dissolve its bonds with fellow states so that it is relieved of allegiance to an oppressive or controlling federal government. But if Americans are devoted to keeping the American ideal alive - that government serves the people and not the other way around - than secession must always be recognized as not only a fundamental sovereign right but also a viable option. It was certainly the option our founding patriots took when they adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence. That document, most clearly and straightforwardly, was a secessionist document. It announced "to a candid world" that the colonies endured a history of repeated injuries and usurpations at the hands of King George and were therefore dissolving their bonds with Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "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 connections between them and the State of Great Britain, are and ought to be totally dissolved.."
Lincoln got it wrong. He engaged the South in a costly war to save the Union because he believed it was meant to be a perpetual Union. America was never promised to be a perpetual Union. It was promised to be the land of perpetual freedom. If the independent sovereign colonies had the right to be free and to dissolve their political bonds with a tyrannical government in 1776, why do they have any less of a right under the same circumstances?
Some have laughed at this sentiment. Many believe that the government would never allow any state to withdraw from the Union. Some look at the legal issues and wonder how a state can legally secede if no federal court will recognize the right of secession. [The only Supreme Court decision which addressed secession was Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), which was written by Justice Salmon Chase. Chase was appointed by Abraham Lincoln as a cabinet member and was a leading Union figure during the war against the South and so it was no surprise his decision was a regurgitation of Lincoln's premise for war. He wrote: "The act which consummated Texas' admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States."]
Since the government enacted martial law in the South (thus treating the southern states as a conquered land) put strict conditions on the Confederate states for "re-admission to the Union," it is clear the government didn't even believe its own story.
The authority for secession comes from man's humanity and vests in every sovereign. The right of a people to abolish their government is a fundamental right, just as the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are. As Jefferson said: "God who gave us life gave us liberty." Liberty is indivisible from life itself. This right of a people to abolish government is grounded in the inherent right of self-protection (individuals can protect their lives and property). When people are organized into communities and reside in a particular state, that state itself possesses the sovereign powers that the people themselves would have had if they had not delegated it for collective and mutual benefit. States do not need permission from the federal government to dissolve the political bonds binding them to the Union. They need no permission from fellow states (although they might wish some support). They certainly don't need permission from any of the federal courts.
The Declaration of Independence reads: "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The US Constitution begins with the words "We the People." This is immensely significant because it evidences the understanding that the power of the government derives from the people. The power derives from the people because in this country we acknowledge that individuals are the true sovereigns. This concept mirrors the themes highlighted in Jefferson's Declaration. The Declaration is the WHY and the Constitution is the HOW.
This emphasis on "We the People" is quite different from what we've seen in history in other countries. Governments have been fashioned by Kings, established by tyrants, or forced on a conquering population. The rights of the people were always an after-though - a second thought. The interests of the King or the tyrant or the conqueror always came first. Governments were always top down until the US Constitution was written. In the United States, we have a bottom-up structure. Power bubbles up from the people. It transfers to a government which in turn serves them. It was not supposed to serve itself. The Constitution is a document that protects the individual from the conduct of government. It is a document used to enforce law on government - not on people. It is designed to limit government and not to limit citizens.
Our Founding Fathers came up with a special, unique formula, which it memorialized in the Constitution (and in the Federalist Papers) - that "limited government" equals "maximum individual liberty."
Governments established for the benefit of the individual are created by compact - an inherent agreement by the people to obey laws in return for the protection of their rights and the service of their liberty interests. After all, what is an individual's liberty interest in life and property worth if he can't leave his home in order to work and travel because he must protect his family and property from evil-intentioned individuals? Many governments are evidenced by a constitution, although it isn't necessary. Written instruments are preferred because they set out in particular detail the relationship between the People and government. Governments are supposed to be limited. While some laws are necessary to promote and even enlarge individual liberty, too many laws burden liberty and oppress people. The balance shifts. Instead of protecting and serving the People, it becomes their master. And then that is when we get to the point where the People review the situation and decide whether it is appropriate to form a different compact, or as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated: "to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It only makes sense that a nation founded on the sovereignty of the individual would allow individuals to abolish their government.
I certainly don't advocate secession. We lost almost 620,000 young men when the South seceded from the Union and Lincoln fought to deny them that opportunity. But as I wrote earlier, it has to be an option as a matter of last resort otherwise we slide down the path to tyranny without a way to salvage the liberty that our revolutionary patriots fought for and which our Founders secured for us.
It is said that nations typically follow a predictable path of progression: From bondage to spiritual faith; then from spiritual faith to great courage; then from courage to liberty; then from liberty to abundance; then from abundance to complacency; then from complacency to apathy; then from apathy to dependence; and finally, from dependence back into bondage. We are at the "dependency" stage. We think the federal government - all branches - are the answer. We see it every time we hear people make such outrageous claims as "home ownership" is a right and "healthcare is a right" and "entitlements are a right." Every time a people believes that government should give them something and therefore relieve them of the "opportunity" to provide such things for themselves, then they, in effect, hand those 'opportunities' back to the government. Each "opportunity" is indeed an exercise of Liberty. It is an opportunity to use the inherent rights and abilities granted to us by our Creator to achieve. We are squandering our opportunities by trusting government to take care of us.
We assume that the government - all branches - are the interpreters and final arbiters of what the Constitution means, what the government's powers are, what government should do, and what laws the people MUST obey. (A perfect example is the desire of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to have a second amendment case reach the Supreme Court again after another liberal justice has been appointed to the Supreme Court so they can "get it right this time." District of Columbia v. Heller was a narrow 5-4 decision. These liberal justices believe strongly in government gun control - despite the overwhelming authority to the contrary - and Ginsberg has already gone public urging another case to come before the high court "after Obama wins a second term.")
If our early patriots understood the inherent violation of liberty rights in a relatively small tax on tea, is it no wonder that today's patriots are urging the revival of nullification over the blatant violation of liberty rights in the coercive federal healthcare bill? If our early patriots rebelled over the fact that they forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others (the English), it is no wonder today's patriots are in an uproar over the fact that a certain segment of our population is being forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others?
It is no wonder that critical mass has been reached and nullification is being talked about as the only option remaining to get government back in line. Hope for other options ended with the Supreme Court's decision of the healthcare bill. There would be no commonsense voice from the Supreme Court. There will be no repeal of the bill in this session or even the next. If Obama is re-elected, the republic is effectively dead. Nullification is the only answer. It provides the path from dependency back to liberty. It puts power back in the hands of the state and to the people. It is the rightful remedy for a people who rightfully deserve to enjoy freedom without oppressive and coercive policies of government.
Thomas Jefferson lives again in the hearts and minds of those who desperately want to save the republic. And it's great to have him back.
"My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty. Land where my fathers died; land of the pilgrims' pride. From every mountainside, let freedom ring."
References:
Diane Rufino, "Nullification: A Concept Whose Time Has Come" August 2011. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
Diane Rufino, "Secession: Does a State Have the Right to Secede From the Union?" August 2011. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Referenced at: http://constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 579 (2008).
John C. Calhoun, “Fort Hill Address: On the Relations of the States and the Federal Government,” in the book: Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, ed. Ross M. Lenace (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992). Referenced at The Online Library of Liberty.: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=683&chapter=107120&layout=html&Itemid=27
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Obamacare to Cost $2.6 Trillion over First Decade
A new government report found that Obamacare will be far more expensive than the president originally promised.
The Senate Budget Committee study says spending will come in at $2.6 trillion in the first full decade of the new law. President Obama said it would cost around $900 billion. The report came as the Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to fully repeal the law, continuing the ongoing debate over the best way to overhaul America's health care system.
CONTINUED: http://cc.org/news/obamacare_cost_26_trillion_over_first_decade
The Senate Budget Committee study says spending will come in at $2.6 trillion in the first full decade of the new law. President Obama said it would cost around $900 billion. The report came as the Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to fully repeal the law, continuing the ongoing debate over the best way to overhaul America's health care system.
CONTINUED: http://cc.org/news/obamacare_cost_26_trillion_over_first_decade
ObamaCare's First Casualty
News that the Department of Health and Human Services was promulgating a rule that would destroy about 35% of the Health Savings Account market comes as no surprise to Tea Party activists who warned everyone who would listen that ObamaCare would kill the private insurance market.
The rule known as the "Medical Loss Ratio" rule would deny private and small business issued policies from being sold on the ObamaCare health care exchanges. There are currently five million people who have small business and individual issued policies. Those policies will be ripped from their hands should the rule go into effect.
CONTINUED: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4301673%3ABlogPost%3A822290&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
The rule known as the "Medical Loss Ratio" rule would deny private and small business issued policies from being sold on the ObamaCare health care exchanges. There are currently five million people who have small business and individual issued policies. Those policies will be ripped from their hands should the rule go into effect.
CONTINUED: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4301673%3ABlogPost%3A822290&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
Video: Exposed: Obama’s Radical, Communist Mentor
Dr. Paul Kengor talks about his new book, The Communist, focusing on the mentor of President Barack Obama, Frank Marshall Davis.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exposed-obamas-radical-communist-mentor/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exposed-obamas-radical-communist-mentor/
Treaties and the "AUTHORITY" to make them
A Defense of the U.S. Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.
by Publius Huldah
If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?
We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:
1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…
Article VI, cl. 2 says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.
2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word & phrase. The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.
So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.
3. From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.
If the Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to act on a subject, the Treaty is not “Law” –
it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78, 10th -11th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. (e.g., Federalist No. 78, 9th para).
4. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The American People to induce them to ratify it. Because of this, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution. Thus, we must always consult The Federalist to learn what it says about any constitutional provision. In Federalist No. 44 (7th para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:
…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]
Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson:
In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]
Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]
According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]
5. So! We see from the above that the treaty making power of the United States is very limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2).
The Federalist Papers discuss the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd and 6th paras). Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st and 3rd paras).
In addition, Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents and copyrights.
6. Now, let us consider the proposed “climate change” treaty. There exists somewhere a 200 page draft agreement which, during December 2009, is to be hammered out, put into final form, and signed in Copenhagen. If signed by Obama and ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?
To answer that Question, we must first ask: Does The Constitution authorize Congress to make laws about the objects of the proposed “climate change” treaty? One wants to see the actual 200 page draft agreement, but it appears, from various web sites, that the gist of the scheme is for the governments of the “rich” nations to reduce the “greenhouse gas emissions” within their borders and to send money to the “poor” nations to bribe them to sign the treaty and to compensate them for our “past emissions”. There seem also to be provisions for entrepreneurs like AlGore to sell “carbon offset credits” or “emission reduction units” to those who emit more than “their share” of “greenhouse emissions”. [By the way, from where does AlGore get them to sell?]
And just what, pray, are “greenhouse emissions”? Primarily, carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Carbon dioxide: the gas which humans and other animals exhale, and which plants must have for photosynthesis [sounds like a good system to me]. Methane: The gas which animals belch. All very easy to control: Kill most of the people and most of the animals! Shut down our remaining industries. Stop the cars. Turn off the electricity. Cut off supplies of propane. Prohibit the burning of wood. And water vapor! Oh! We must stop poisoning the world with Water!
So! The Questions are these: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. “emissions”? Is transferring wealth from Americans to “poor” nations to compensate them for our “past emissions”, one of the enumerated powers of Congress? Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor?
The answer is NO! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the “climate change” treaty, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such. Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.
7. While the statist-in-chief will surely sign a Treaty in Copenhagen, ratification requires two thirds of the Senators present (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.2). Are we such a corrupt people that we elected 67 U.S. Senators who will vote to ratify the Treaty? But even if 67 faithless Senators vote to ratify it, then we may take heart from the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 44 (16th para):
… in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…
and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):
…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….
Read again the foregoing passages! The statists can not enslave us without our acquiescence. For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!” We are told that “The Rule of Law” requires us to obey every order, law, court opinion, or treaty coming out of the federal government. And not only do we believe such nonsense, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Learning, Thinking and Analysis. And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!” Pay attention to the words of our beloved James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. PH
October 27, 2009
http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A383154&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
by Publius Huldah
If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?
We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:
1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…
Article VI, cl. 2 says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.
2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word & phrase. The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.
So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.
3. From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.
If the Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to act on a subject, the Treaty is not “Law” –
it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78, 10th -11th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. (e.g., Federalist No. 78, 9th para).
4. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The American People to induce them to ratify it. Because of this, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution. Thus, we must always consult The Federalist to learn what it says about any constitutional provision. In Federalist No. 44 (7th para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:
…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]
Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson:
In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]
Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]
According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]
5. So! We see from the above that the treaty making power of the United States is very limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2).
The Federalist Papers discuss the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd and 6th paras). Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st and 3rd paras).
In addition, Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents and copyrights.
6. Now, let us consider the proposed “climate change” treaty. There exists somewhere a 200 page draft agreement which, during December 2009, is to be hammered out, put into final form, and signed in Copenhagen. If signed by Obama and ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?
To answer that Question, we must first ask: Does The Constitution authorize Congress to make laws about the objects of the proposed “climate change” treaty? One wants to see the actual 200 page draft agreement, but it appears, from various web sites, that the gist of the scheme is for the governments of the “rich” nations to reduce the “greenhouse gas emissions” within their borders and to send money to the “poor” nations to bribe them to sign the treaty and to compensate them for our “past emissions”. There seem also to be provisions for entrepreneurs like AlGore to sell “carbon offset credits” or “emission reduction units” to those who emit more than “their share” of “greenhouse emissions”. [By the way, from where does AlGore get them to sell?]
And just what, pray, are “greenhouse emissions”? Primarily, carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Carbon dioxide: the gas which humans and other animals exhale, and which plants must have for photosynthesis [sounds like a good system to me]. Methane: The gas which animals belch. All very easy to control: Kill most of the people and most of the animals! Shut down our remaining industries. Stop the cars. Turn off the electricity. Cut off supplies of propane. Prohibit the burning of wood. And water vapor! Oh! We must stop poisoning the world with Water!
So! The Questions are these: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. “emissions”? Is transferring wealth from Americans to “poor” nations to compensate them for our “past emissions”, one of the enumerated powers of Congress? Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor?
The answer is NO! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the “climate change” treaty, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such. Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.
7. While the statist-in-chief will surely sign a Treaty in Copenhagen, ratification requires two thirds of the Senators present (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.2). Are we such a corrupt people that we elected 67 U.S. Senators who will vote to ratify the Treaty? But even if 67 faithless Senators vote to ratify it, then we may take heart from the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 44 (16th para):
… in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…
and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):
…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….
Read again the foregoing passages! The statists can not enslave us without our acquiescence. For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!” We are told that “The Rule of Law” requires us to obey every order, law, court opinion, or treaty coming out of the federal government. And not only do we believe such nonsense, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Learning, Thinking and Analysis. And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!” Pay attention to the words of our beloved James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. PH
October 27, 2009
http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A383154&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
President Obama: ‘If You’ve Got a Business — You Didn’t Build That. Somebody Else Made That Happen’
OBAMA SLAMS BUSINESS OWNERS!
The White House has released the transcript of President Obama’s recent speech in Roanoke, Virginia, and it holds a number of noteworthy statements.
“Channeling Elizabeth Warren,” in the words of Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, Barack Obama said that successful Americans “didn’t get there” on their own.
The official transcript relates:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. [Emphasis added] If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. [Emphasis added]
Watch a clip of the remarks, via C-SPAN (the clip begins with Obama’s declaration that we asked the wealthy to pay more taxes during the Clinton administration, and did better for it):
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-obama-if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that-somebody-else-made-that-happen/
The White House has released the transcript of President Obama’s recent speech in Roanoke, Virginia, and it holds a number of noteworthy statements.
“Channeling Elizabeth Warren,” in the words of Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, Barack Obama said that successful Americans “didn’t get there” on their own.
The official transcript relates:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. [Emphasis added] If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. [Emphasis added]
Watch a clip of the remarks, via C-SPAN (the clip begins with Obama’s declaration that we asked the wealthy to pay more taxes during the Clinton administration, and did better for it):
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-obama-if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that-somebody-else-made-that-happen/
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change
Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of unilaterally gutting welfare reform after the Department of Health and Human Services quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program’s strict work requirements. HHS made the announcement in a policy memo Thursday, news that slipped well below the radar amid a raucous day on the presidential campaign trail. But a few prominent GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill picked up on the change, and accused the administration of overhauling one of the most important bipartisan agreements of the past several decades.
“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract” Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a “blatant violation of the law.” Mitt Romney on Friday spoke up on the change, saying: “President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare.” He said “the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”
CONTINUED: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/?intcmp=trending
“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract” Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a “blatant violation of the law.” Mitt Romney on Friday spoke up on the change, saying: “President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare.” He said “the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”
CONTINUED: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13/republicans-accuse-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform-with-quiet-policy-change/?intcmp=trending
Hands off My Health Care Rally - August 3, 2012 - Washington DC
Are YOU ready to Rally??? Ready to REPEAL Obama Care??? Then make arrangements to be at THIS Rally on the 3rd of August.
You already know that President Obama is attempting to force a multi-trillion dollar takeover of health care and push a massive new tax. But you can fight back. The Supreme Court decision was frustrating, but not a decisive setback. You may have already heard how AFP is organizing dozens of rallies and events in more than 20 states to defend health care freedom. One of our most important rallies is coming up soon, and we need your help as we rally for repeal!
Come join other free-market grassroots activists from across the country at Upper Senate Park on August 3rd!
Meet us at the park or take an AFP shuttle bus from the Defending the American Dream Summit at the Hilton Washington.
If taking the AFP shuttle bus, meet at the rear bus entrance of the Washington Hilton at 10 AM. Buses will drop-off for the rally at Union Station and reload in the same location from 12:15-12:30 PM to return attendees to the Hilton Washington.
This event is FREE - except of course trip fare and hotel/motel fare. For more info:
http://handsoffrally.eventbrite.com/
Hands Off My Health Care Rally
Upper Senate Park, Washington, D.C.
Friday, August 3rd from Noon - 1 PM
With Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity, Congressman Paul Ryan, Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America, Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
You already know that President Obama is attempting to force a multi-trillion dollar takeover of health care and push a massive new tax. But you can fight back. The Supreme Court decision was frustrating, but not a decisive setback. You may have already heard how AFP is organizing dozens of rallies and events in more than 20 states to defend health care freedom. One of our most important rallies is coming up soon, and we need your help as we rally for repeal!
Come join other free-market grassroots activists from across the country at Upper Senate Park on August 3rd!
Meet us at the park or take an AFP shuttle bus from the Defending the American Dream Summit at the Hilton Washington.
If taking the AFP shuttle bus, meet at the rear bus entrance of the Washington Hilton at 10 AM. Buses will drop-off for the rally at Union Station and reload in the same location from 12:15-12:30 PM to return attendees to the Hilton Washington.
This event is FREE - except of course trip fare and hotel/motel fare. For more info:
http://handsoffrally.eventbrite.com/
The President’s $8 Billion Coincidence
Obama’s Affordable Care Act is funded by taking from Medicare and Medicare Advantage Cuts!
(Video—YOU MUST WATCH)
http://my.brainshark.com/The-President-s-8-Billion-Coincidence-356086344
(Video—YOU MUST WATCH)
http://my.brainshark.com/The-President-s-8-Billion-Coincidence-356086344
Camp Liberty: Seminar on Founding of America
Camp Liberty Seminar on Founding of America
non-partisan & non-demoninational.
July 19/20, 5:30 pm-9:00 pm and July 21, 9:30 am-3:15 pm
Cost family $15.00 . Singles $10.00 {includes 3meals}
Speakers: Thursday--Dr Troy Kickler; Friday--Justice Paul Newby;
Saturday--Rep. Paul Bradley and KrisAnne Hall Each day.
Classes for students K-12 & a nursery.
Victory Free Will Baptist Church, 1806 Wayne Memorial Dr., Goldsboro, NC
Call 919-751-1090 or email tl1862@bellsouth.net to pre-register so we know how much food will be needed.
Mail check to: 210 Bayleaf Dr,Goldsboro,27534
$2.00 more to register at door.
Presented by Wayne County Tea Party & ENC Tea Party
News from the NC Legislature from NC Representative, Norman Sanderson
Note: CCTA is a non partisan organization. We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party. News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.
Promises made. Promises kept. July 12, 2012
July 3rd marked the end of the 2011/2012 legislative cycle. What will be recorded in history as the shortest "short session" ever was marked with a number of accomplish-ments. Your conservative legislature, in spite of 19 vetoes by the governor, kept our promises to put NC back on the path toward financial prosperity, fiscal accountability, sound education reform and stronger private rights of our citizens. We passed a $20.2 billion budget adjustment, capped the gas tax, provided a 1.2% raise for teachers and state employees for the first time in over 4 years and restored education funding - all without raising taxes.
Relevant to our local District 3, we were able to secure a one-year moratorium on ferry tolls in order to study impact and look for alternatives to tolling. The budget adjustment also allocated $500,000 to help local communities protect our military bases from closure and restored a portion of funding for Tryon Palace. All of these successes were with bi-partisan support. Below are some key accomplishments in greater detail.
It has been an honor to serve you in the NC House, and I look forward to the opportunity to serve you in the NC Senate!
Norman
Fiscal Accomplishments
Balanced Budget: On July 2, 2012 Republicans in the House and Senate voted to override the Governor's veto of a $20.17 billion budget adjustment for 2012-2013 (HB 950). This bill fine-tuned some items from the previous budget. No tax rates were increased.
Regulatory Reform: SB 810 "Regulatory Reform Act of 2012" loosens regulatory requirements on citizens and businesses. Presented to Governor on 6/28/12.
Licensure: HB 799 will accelerate the process by which military personnel and their spouses can be licensed to lawfully practice their occupation once they have moved to NC. It allows the state Board of Education to issue teacher licenses to military spouses who are teachers in their home state. It was passed by the House and Senate on 7/2/12 and presented to the Governor.
Education
Funding: The 2012-2013 adjusted budget restores $251 million to public education. It provides $27 million for an education reform program that focuses on student literacy, improving graduation rates, and rewarding effective teachers. The budget fully funds enrollment growth in K-12, community colleges and the university system.
Raises: Teachers and all state employees were granted a 1.2% raise, the first in five years, and community colleges and the university system are given funds for a 1.2% raise for recruiting, retaining, or rewarding excellent instructors.
Policy: HB 7 allows community colleges to opt out of the William D. Ford Federal Director Loan program. The House and Senate overrode the Governor's veto on 6/18/2012 at the request of the Trustees of many community colleges.
Environment
Natural Gas: SB 820 "Clean Energy and Economic Security Act" creates the Mining and Energy Commission, which will develop regulations for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Licenses will not be issued until further legislative action. It became law on 7/2/12 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor's veto.
Property Rights
Protections: HB 925 requires that residents of an area have the opportunity to vote prior to that area being annexed by a municipality. It became law on 6/11/12.
Gun Rights
Protections: HB 843 repealed GS 14-288.7 which made it a Class 1 Misdemeanor to transport any dangerous weapon or substance in an area where there is a declared state of emergency. The act also prohibits municipalities and counties from restricting or prohibiting lawfully possessed firearms within a declared emergency area. It became law on 6/11/12.
Transportation
Gas Tax: The budget cuts and freezes the gas tax at 37.5 cents per gallon. This is 1.4 cents less than the current rate.
Ferry Tolls: After much behind the scenes work, the final budget language included a one-year moratorium on ferry tolls for the Cherry Branch-Minnesott ferry. A later technical correction also includes the Aurora - Pamlico River ferry. This will allow time to look at the impact of ferry tolling on citizens and study possible alternatives to ferry tolling.
Criminal Justice
Human Trafficking: SB 910 is a bipartisan bill that increases the penalties for the unlawful sale, surrender, or purchase of a child. This is a new tool to suppress human trafficking.
Murder: SB 105 increases the penalties for second degree murder and death by motor vehicle. It was presented to the Governor on 6/28/12.
Death Penalty: SB416 amends death penalty procedures. Major changes detail the use of evidence to prove racial discrimination. It eliminates the defendant's ability to use statewide statistical evidence. Statistical evidence alone is not enough to determine racial discrimination. It also limits the use of stat data to approximately a 15 year window around the time the death sentence was sought or imposed. It ends the moratorium on the death penalty. It became law on 7/2/12 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor's veto.
Death Penalty: SB416 amends death penalty procedures. Major changes detail the use of evidence to prove racial discrimination. It eliminates the defendant's ability to use statewide statistical evidence. Statistical evidence alone is not enough to determine racial discrimination. It also limits the use of stat data to approximately a 15 year window around the time the death sentence was sought or imposed. It ends the moratorium on the death penalty. It became law on 7/2/12 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor's veto.
Donate to my Senate Campaign: http://votefornorm.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
