Sunday, December 11, 2011

Obamacare and SCOTUS

H/T:  Bob Utecht

This is a good read.  Unintended consequences abound.  If SCOTUS overturns this part of Obamacare, it may be the wedge that rolls back the power of the Federal Government...if the states will use it.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Here is a horrible idea.  At least if you believe in the sovereignty of the States.  The author has the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons.  States elect the President, not voters, per se.  This was intentional.  Direct election of the President eliminates another vestige of sovereignty from the individual States and strengthens a large central government.  It makes the more populous states more important in the election process and reduces the influence of smaller states.  Right now, Wisconsin (population of about 5 million) is seen as a more important state in the presidential election than, say New York (population of nearly 20 million).  New York is a pretty reliable Democrat win, but Wisconsin is needed to win the election.  Under the national Popular Vote (NPV) plan, Wisconsin becomes irrelevant while New York, California, Texas, Florida become the major prizes.

If the States are sovereign and equal, NPV is a horrible idea.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Money in Politics

Removing the money from the political election process has always been a worthy, if not necessarily realistic goal.  It takes money to run a campaign.  Money for ads, staff, flyers, office space.....  Two offices require more money than all others (maybe combined): President of the United States and United States Senator.  The money required makes the politician beholden to certain special interests and it happens on both sides of the aisle.

The Constitution originally had senators appointed by state legislatures.

 Section. 3.The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

But the "good government"-types wanted to be more "egalitarian" about it and drove the 17th Amendment which says:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

With that popular election comes the need for the money for those items stated above.  Senators are no longer the people who look out for their states' best interest.  They are either the uber-rich elites like the late Ted Kennedy or completely beholden to special interests.  Neither makes for "good government".

Repealing the 17th Amendment will solve this problem.  Now, it brings up a host of other problems like "cronyism", but I see that as a smaller problem than the current.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

The New Civil War?


Jesse is really good at this stuff.  "State's Rights?  Or a more perfect union?"  And of course, the Jackwagon on MSNBC doesn't challenge that comparison.  I believe we will be a "a more perfect union" when government is smaller on all levels and when government adheres to the original intent of the Constitution.

Jesse wants more jobs.  I think we all want more jobs, but the Obama administration has done nothing that has been historically shown to create new jobs.  We remain mired in a sluggish economy at the whim of those who supply our needs when we should be developing our own resources and exports.  But don't confuse Jesse with the facts.

I understand the Tenth Amendment is de facto repealed since the Civil War, but in reality it still exists in the Constitution.  If Lefties like Jesse want to repeal it, they can go through the amendment process.  The states still retain the rights not afforded the federal government and they are choosing to exercise those rights.  It will not result in a return to Jim Crow.  It will not result in segregation, a loss of (real, not "made up) women's rights.  What it might result in are better schools, more people working, fewer people enslaved to the dole and less opportunity for  the Federal Government to enter into ill-advised war.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Larry Tribe - Constitutional....Something

Apparently, Larry believes in the "living, breathing Constitution" not The Constitution of the United States.

Look, I'm just a guy.  But I believe I can think critically and come to a logical conclusion.  Larry Tribe is wring here.  If Congress can "compel action due to public necessity", then what are the limits on Congress?  Tribes contempt for original intent is clear here.  That, or he received his sheepskins from boxes of Crackerjack.

According to Thomas E. Woods in Nullification, Madison was very clear in his view of Article I, Section 8.  If the general welfare clause granted the Federal government a general power to do anything that might advance the general welfare, why did the Constitution bother to list specific powers government could exercise?  That is, under the general welfare clause comes 17 specific powers granted to the Federal Government.  Were these suggestions by the framers?  "Hey.  When y'all get this thing goin', you can pretty much do whatever, but here are 17 things you might want to get right after."

Tribe also invokes the Commerce Clause.  Again, according to Woods, "Commerce" only meant trade or exchange, not all gainful activity.  There are no historical references from the Constitutional Convention or writings of Federalists that indicate otherwise.

Tribe is dead wrong here.  If he is not, there is no need for the Constitution as there are no limits to Federal Power.  If the Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner other than literally, there is no need for amendments.  No, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.  Even a guy like me can figure that out.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

This is Where We Must Head

This is not my work; you can find it here.  The post is spot-on and needs no comment from me.

I Will, I Am

I have been thinking about this for a long time. Ever since I wrote The Constitutionalist and recognized that most of our liberties had been given over by the Supreme Court to the legislature, I have tried to figure out a way to regain them. At times that has not been understood to be a peaceful means. What power has any government relinquished just because it was right?

Shortly after writing the book the Tea Party began to take shape and build influence. I realized that most of what I thought needed to happen could be done through the Tea Party. But, I have never joined a real Tea Party. I am a member on some of the websites, but I attend no particular meeting. I go to a number of events and have attended meetings of a number of different organizations, often as a speaker. Yet, I have not taken part. The reason is I have never quite believed that they would accomplish the task. They were too timid of conflict and conflict is the only means of securing power that has been taken away.

I am not content to sit by and watch the continued destruction of liberty in this nation. It is time for action. We must, as a people, understand that there is no vote that we will ever be given that will secure liberty. There is no person we can elect that will return liberty to the people. Too many are dependent upon the way things are to go messing around with freedom. We saw in Wisconsin what happens in America when politicians try to do the right thing. They are mobbed and threatened by the moochers and parasites living off the carcass of liberty.

I write a lot about action. Those who have read my posts over the past several months and even years, know that I do not counsel that which I will not do. I do not pretend to make sacrifices and brag about my accomplishments. If I were not now actively engaged in what I am about to suggest, I would not put it forward for comment.

A few things have become completely clear to me over the past several months, things I always knew about myself, but they have now been confirmed and strengthened. 1) I am no leader; 2) I cannot prescribe actions for others; 3) I do not have the patience for political evolutions; 4) I am much too willing to be a martyr for my own good.

These facts have all come together to form a conclusion. It is time right now to start doing things. I have been contacted by the State of Colorado demanding that I explain Guardians of Liberty, to register it as a charity, or not and explain its role in politics. I maintain that Guardians of Liberty is a Delaware corporation and a private enterprise and I owe the government no explanation. This is going to get me into trouble. When and if I face a jury, which I hope to do, I am going to remind them something I am going to remind all of you about right now.

We are free people. We owe the government no allegiance that is not secured by their obedience to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not just our founding document but a contract with the people. Where the government has broken the contract, it is in breach and deserves no loyalty. Where you extend loyalty to that corruption you might as well offer it to a king, or a Soviet-style troika. When a free people abide by a broken contract they become complicit in its destruction and I will not give my consent to that act.

If you want liberty from this corrupt government you have to take it. It will not be given back to you. You can take it by failing to cooperate with whatever imposition they would put you through, but it will cost you something. Liberty is not free. You can think about all of the bad things that are in store for this nation, but if you think liberty will be the outcome, you are wrong. Strength is built up, it is not summoned all at once. When the union thugs decided to take your paycheck, they did it through the government. What have you done to stop them? Do you know how many billions they have taken from you and laughed in your face when you pointed to the Tea Party? You have to stop them. It is your money, your children's money and you will watch the government's muscle take it without a fight?

I don't care what you do. I have already seen the heart of most Americans and it is disappointing. I will no longer abide by the illegalities of a corrupt and limitless government. In every case in which I am brought before the jury I will tell them that the government is is in violation of the Constitution but they can fulfill their obligation as a citizen by refusing to convict where it is obvious that the law in question is unconstitutional.

Jury nullification is the only means open to us as a form of peaceful resistance. But that takes some cases and some of us must become those cases. I will, I am.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Commerce Clause

I'm reading Thomas Woods book, Nullification.  I'll periodically recount what I'm learning here.

Regarding the Commerce Clause, Thomas describes the genesis of the Commerce Clause  and recounts the tortured way in which the courts have interpreted it to the benefit of the Federal Government over the years.  This passage shows the absurdity to which they have argued:

...the anomolous 1995 case of  U.S. v. Lopez...the Gun Free School Zones Act...

The Federal governement argued that the potential presence of guns in schools would make students nervous, that nervous students would learn less and thus acquire an inferior education, that people with inferior educations would contribute less to the U.S. economy, that contributing less to the U.S. economy would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce...

The Supreme Court overturned this absurdity, but with the exception of Clarence Thomas, did not challenge the idea that a "substantial effect" argument.

I'll comment later on why this should never have come before a Federal court and especially not before the Supremes.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

This Is Why

States have prostituted themselves so heavily to the Federal Government that they have placed themselves in a position of pushing for bankruptcy.  This is why states should exercise their 10th Amendment rights and force the federal government out of state internal affairs.

There is no more money.  A $1.6 trillion federal deficit is staggering to contemplate  and the individual states are complicit.  This is the legacy we leave for generations to come.  There can no longer be the "business as usual" relationship between the individual States and the Federal government.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Obama Interferes in a State Matter

This is a new blog for me.  As I learn more about the Tenth Amendment, I become more dismayed at how the Federal Government has become more and more powerful.  A clear example resonates today in my home state of Wisconsin.

We are up to our collective you-know-whats in debt and taxes.  Wisconsin has always been a "quality of life" state.  We have a robust park system, on both a state and local level, schools have been (mostly) pretty good, though lately declining.  Roads are generally good and there is a wide social safety net.

The majority of the Wisconsin state budget contains two things:  employee compensation and aid to state schools.  They comprise well over 50% of the budget.  In November, we elected Scott Walker, former Milwaukee County Executive as Governor.  We elected him to fix the $3.6 billion hole we are in.  To do that, he must get compensation under control.  Call it Union Busting if you want.  It's not, but it's being called that.  I call it Common Sense.  Pay part of retirement and healthcare and collective bargaining ends for benefits and work rules.  Wisconsin has worker protection in Civil Service and has no need to duplicate it with a Union.

Enter the Tenth Amendment part.  The President is personally and through his proxies interfering in a state matter.  The President has no standing in this.  He is doing it to ensure union money continues to flow to Democrat coffers.  It is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  He has no right, no jurisdiction in this dispute.  It is purely a state matter.  The President and the Federal Government anre infringing on the sovereignty of the state of Wisconsin.