constitutional issues

Liberal Honesty

Cluster48 Comments

One of our resident liberals has finally taken a firm ideological stand, after years of numerous requests to do so, and I want to thank James for having the courage to do just that.  This now opens up an honest dialogue on left vs right ideology and how it relates to the constitutional framework of this country. It also sheds light on the true intent of the new Democratic Party led by Barack Obama. That ideological position was articulated by James and is the following:

“I believe in big government. I believe that government should provide citizens with guaranteed healthcare, free education, and pensions. This would be paid for by higher marginal tax rates on everyone.

I don’t believe in the 10th amendment or the sovereignty of states. we should have ONE national drivers license, one national licence plate, one national criminal code. states should not have their own constitution or autonomy to decide on issues like abortion, gay marriage, or death penalty.

I believe that an education system controlled from the federal government and enacted by the federal government is better than having a rag tag of 50 states with 50 different levels of education and standards.

I believe that big government spending on social programs with our tax dollars is not only acceptable but morally required to take care of the needy in our nation. states should not even touch those issues.

I believe in a strong military and I don’t believe each state should have its own national guard. the national guards should be under control of the federal government.”

In my opinion, James is not alone in this ideological stance which I believe is shared by many current Democrats, but a position of which is completely antithetical to our Constitution. It is my belief that this is at the root of our current political divide, and why so many of us conservatives are attacked personally. The left DOES want to fundamentally transform America, as clearly stated by Barack Obama, and any effort to maintain the traditions of America, will be met with irrational hate instead of informed debate. This should make for an interesting debate, and I hope it does, but like too many other threads, let’s not allow it to devolve into name calling.

UPDATE:

This ideological divide is what is also at stake on November 6th. A vote for Obama, is a vote for the vision James outlined. A vote for Romney is a vote to restore traditional American constitutional principles. For the sake of this great country, and for those across the globe that depend on a strong and free America to stand behind them, and support them in their desire to be free, I pray Romney wins.

 

Secession Can Keep Us Together

Mark Noonan23 Comments

Victor Davis Hanson writes another brilliant piece and it goes along with a thought I’ve had for a while – first, a quote:

…As those who run the nation state become ever more estranged, we yearn for the safety and security of our own neighbors, who seem to think, speak, and live more as we do. In other words, we are unhappy residents of Hellenistic Greece who dream of the romance of the lost face-to-face city state, or the bread-and-circuses turba of fourth-century Rome, who feel that their fellow citizens in Gaul, Numidia, and Pontus seem hardly Roman. These days the problem is not just that an Italian wants to leave the EU, but that a Florentine or Venetian would prefer to leave Italy itself. A Texan not only wants us out of the U.N., but may feel he is already out of the U.S. Britain may want no part of the EU, but Scotland wants no part of Britain…

Hanson speaks of a return of medievalism – not in the sense of living in castles but in the sense of extreme localism.  That, at bottom, is what feudalism was:  local control of most of the power while the central authority had least power.  This developed in the post-Roman world because the Roman government could not carry out its self-appointed, imperial tasks.  The Roman government, that is, decayed – it became bloated, inefficient, corrupt (sound familiar?) and while trying to micro-manage affairs of the Empire eventually lost the ability to even defend the Empire.  People were forced back on their own resources and the feudal lords were really, in origin, no more than whomever could effectively organize local people for self defense.

Continue reading →

obAMATEUR Expands the Dependent Class AGAIN and Bypasses Congress!

tiredoflibbs78 Comments

Let’s look at this pResident’s accomplishments:

  • Government takeover of 17% of the economy and your health care.
  • Doubling the number of Americans on food stamps.
  • Spanish soap operas to encourage Hispanics to sign up for food stamps.

And now……

Since the beginning Obama intended to reverse the welfare reforms made by the Republican majority when Clinton was president.  Those reforms freed millions of Americans from their government dependency.  This is not the direction in which Obama wants to travel.

The Obama administration via the Department of Health and Human Services has essentially rewritten the rules established by the welfare reform law of 1996.  The new policy, as per the Obama administration, will no longer require welfare recipients to work in order to maintain their benefits.

(For those who cannot connect the dots)FROM THE MEMO:

Waivers will be granted only for provisions related to section 402.

Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.

Section 402 describes state plans—reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the many requirements established in the other sections of the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.

The new Obama dictate asserts that because the work requirements, established in section 407, are mentioned as an item that state governments must report about in section 402, all the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will – or mealy mouthed words as “innovation”..

Therefore, states and other bureaucracies can DEFINE WORK as they attempted before but were overridden.

Over the years, the definition of “work” began to deteriorate and in 2005, Congress tried to reign in the definition of what constitutes “work” in order to receive welfare.   Barack Obama, a Senator at that time, was opposed to this effort – no surprise there.

Here is a SENATE report as to what states have attempted to define as work:

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=47ada91c-07ac-4c7f-bc20-182df03d2654

Some of these include:
1.    Bed rest
2.    Personal care activities
3.    Massage
4.    Exercise
5.    Journaling
6.    Motivational reading
7.    Smoking cessation
8.    Weight loss promotion
9.    Participating in parent teacher meetings
10.  Helping a friend or relative with household tasks and errands

These are what casper tried to pass off as “innovation”. How Sec. of HHS can grant waivers to states that have these activities (or whatever else) in their innovative plans (Section 402).

So, when he says “moving in the right direction”, I guess this is it – EXPANDING the dependent class!

Question is, does this pResident have the authority to do this – reverse law WITHOUT CONGRESS!  I mean this has never stopped him before!!

The Heritage Foundation reminds us of the growing list of Obama administration actions that it has taken to circumvent the legislative process.

  • Even though the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the President’s cap-and-trade plan, his Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
  • After the Employee Free Choice Act—designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls—was defeated by Congress, the National Labor Relations Board announced a rule that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
  • After an Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would regulate the Web anyway, even despite a federal court’s ruling that it had no authority to do so.
  • Although Congress consistently has barred the Department of Education from getting involved in curriculum matters, the Administration has offered waivers for the No Child Left Behind law in exchange for states adopting national education standards, all without congressional authorization.
  • Since it objects to existing federal immigration laws, the Administration has decided to apply those laws selectively and actively prevent the state (like Arizona) from enforcing those laws themselves.
  • Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.
  • DOJ also has announced that it would stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act or defending it from legal challenge rather than seeking legislative recourse.

These are the actions of a RULER, not a leader. It’s too bad more Americans haven’t focused on the words of Valerie Jarrett – the head of Obama’s transition team – days before his inauguration:  “We will be ready to RULE from day one.”

ImageImage

Jeb Bush and Ideology

Cluster10 Comments

Yesterday Jeb Bush strongly suggested that the GOP was too rigid ideologically and that the party needed to be more flexible to attract a larger block of voters, and while I disagree with Bush, I want to thank him for bringing this subject up because I believe it is a win for conversatives to have this conversation.

First of all, I agree with Amazona when she says that ideology is the foundation of any individual and/or party platform. Ideology drives policy, so if you understand their ideology, you will know and understand the policies they will promote. The ideology that is at the core of the tea party and most conservatives is that of a more constitutionally based government at both the federal and state level, and that is an ideological belief that should always be rIgid.

The decentralized outline for government that is found in the Constitution is, to parapharase Churchhill; “….is not the best form of government but it is the best so far”, and the same can be said about free enterprise. It may not be the best economic platform, but it is the best so far. Capitalism, for all it’s faults, is the most effective economical system ever, in terms of creating more wealth for more people and for creating a higher standard of living for everyone. And contrary to liberal thought, conservatives do want to provide safety nets for those in need, but we want it administered at a local level where it can be more effective, efficient, and help more people.

The good news is that I think the voters are starting to figure that out with the 2010 elections, and then again in Wisconsin.  So let’s continue this conversation, and if you are a liberal, please tell me where I am wrong.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: I would like to take this opportunity to go on the record saying that I think Jeb Bush was right.. to a degree.

Sorry Cluster, but I have to weigh in.

Yes, I agree with Jeb. But, I see this as a problem with both the major parties, and a problem that starts not with elected officials, but with the voters… Let’s be honest about what’s been happening in recent years. The internet has empowered the extremes on the left and the right by giving them a venue to build an audience and influence. This naturally will result in the ability for these groups to influence people in power.

In recent years we’ve seen elected Democrats and Republicans lose primary battles because they weren’t liberal or conservative enough. Joe Lieberman went from being his party’s Vice Presidential nominee to be booted out. In 2010, Christine O’Donnell beat the more moderate, but more electable Republican Mike Castle, only to lose a winnable U.S. Senate seat in the general election.

This past year, we saw every single candidate in the Republican presidential primary labeled a RINO by supporters of a different candidate. So, yes, I believe that Ronald Reagan would never have made it through this year’s primary, because he was a former Democrat.

Barack Obama, the most extreme left-winger to occupy the White House, isn’t considered liberal enough by left-wing bloggers, and hasn’t exactly won praises from them.

So, let’s be honest about what’s going on, and who’s to blame. We, as bloggers and activists, are criticizing our leaders for compromising or for merely for working with the other side just to get things done. We’ll dissect a voting record to find a few black marks just to feel justified in opposing a decent public servant of our party. Let’s wake up.

Her Eminence, Pope Nancy of the Patriotic American Catholic Church, Speaks

Mark Noonan8 Comments

And, as per usual,  subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge:

…CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom.  Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”

“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.  And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said…

Uh, Nance, old gal – ex cathedra is something the Pope does only very rarely and only to rule on matters of doctrine.  The Pope does not rule on how we govern ourselves.  The Church’s opposition to abortion goes back to the earliest days of the Church and thus requires no, new ruling from the Pope on whether it can ever be allowed – and, so, when 43 Catholic institutions sue the US government in order to fight against a government mandate to violate Church teaching then they are not doing something ex cathedra because they don’t have to…but they are very much defending the teaching of the Catholic Church you claim to belong to.

It really does make you wonder – how did someone this ignorant manage to not only get elected to Congress but manage to become Speaker of the House at one point?  Does anyone on the left side of the aisle have any concern for intellectual ability?  Was it really no more than she was a fountain of (sometimes illegal) fundraising and a sure vote for the left?  Is that all it takes to rise high in the Democrat party?  Basic knowledge and honesty play no role?

 

Natural Born Citizen

Federalist 2012259 Comments

This is the second in a series of Constitution-related posts.

Natural-born, Native-born, and Naturalization

Let’s start this discussion with some definitions, dispel some assumptions, and request some civility in the follow-up discussion. This discussion is going to be, as much as possible, restricted to the qualifications for the Office of President of these United States and the portion of U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 which states “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”.

Continue reading →

Obama Crosses the Line

Retired Spook163 Comments

Well, the President has certainly stepped in it this time.

The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called “judicial review:” It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years.

The president is entitled to his own opinions, just like everyone else is. He is free to argue and to predict that ObamaCare should and will be upheld. But he cannot seriously suggest, with intellectual honesty, that the Court is without lawful authority to invalidate an act of Congress that the Court determines is repugnant to the Constitution.

Nor can he, with intellectual honesty, issue veiled threats to the Court.

The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that.

Now the Judge says the President “knows” all this, which begs the question, why then did he say what he said?  Is it simply his narcissism showing through?  Did Justice Kagen already get word to him that ObamaCare will be struck down, and he’s just getting even — in a juvenile, school-yard sort of way.  He could have just called the Supreme Court a bunch of poopy heads; it would have been about as effective and classy as what he said.  I suppose this could, as a number of pundits have suggested, be a way of preparing his army of useful idiots to take to the streets in protest if and when the Court announces that it has found the law unconstitutional.  And, of course, there’s always the possibility that he already knows the Court will uphold ObamaCare, and he will simply be able to say, “see, I told you they couldn’t strike it down”.  I’m not betting the farm on that last option, but nothing this crew does surprises me anymore.

The interesting thing to take note of will be opinion polls over the next week or two as they relate to Obama’s approval by Independents.  I can’t imagine a large percentage of Independents admiring this latest move by the President, and without a strong majority of Independents’ votes, he’s toast in November.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ObamaCare – Open Thread

Retired Spook187 Comments

The Supreme Court is halfway through its 3 days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, highlighted by this reaction from Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a possible swing vote for the court, was rigorously challenging Verrilli. Kennedy said he needed to answer a “very heavy burden of justification” to show how the Constitution authorizes Congress to require that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty.

At one point, Kennedy said the mandate changes the relationship between citizens and the government “in a fundamental way.”

Lots of news on this, and judicial bloggers are having a field day.  Good time for an open thread.