Judge Roger Vinson’s remarkable opinion in Florida v. Health and Human Services.
Vinson began his opinion in Florida v H.H.S by establishing the intent of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. He explained that the clause was added to make certain that the states did not engage in trade wars with one another, and to promote the free movement of goods between and among the states. But over time, our courts began to interpret the commerce clause more liberally. The same kinds of judges who saw a right to an abortion in the 4th and 14th Amendment, saw the Commerce Clause regulating – well – just about anything.
“If it (Congress) has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.”
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.”
“Because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.”
Yes, indeed, judges do matter. And what we need in this country are more Roger Vinsons. Keep that in mind when you rally friends to vote in 2012. Show them this opinion, and let them know that a few men in robes hold the economic life of our country in their hands. Judges matter. And the Presidents who appoint them.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LeeHabeeb/2011/02/03/obamacare_and_the_bench_-_why_federal_judges_matter_more_now_than_ever
THE FACE OF LIBERTY IN OUR CENTURY
House GOP considers constitutional test for all new legislation. - 12/16/10 03:40 PM ET
House GOP transition team leaders will recommend a change to the lower chamber's rules that would require all members to prove that their legislation is constitutional.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the head of the House Rules Working Group, on Thursday said the GOP transition team will recommend the adoption of a rule requiring lawmakers to provide constitutional authority for every bill.
“The Constitution will suddenly become en vogue again” in the next House, Bishop said.
Under the GOP-dominated House, the practice of using unrelated bills to move major measures will also come to an end, the transition leaders said.
“We are going to make sure that one issue comes up at a time,” Bishop said. “No longer will we marry totally separate issues on the same piece of legislation. So that if we are going to vote on college loans … it won’t be added to some separate legislation.”
A number of other rule changes are in the works — all bills and major amendments headed to the floor for a vote must be available online for a minimum of three days, and committees will have to announce mark-up meetings at least three days in advance so that the public knows they will happen, the Republicans said.
THE CAVALRY IS ALMOST HERE.....
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/134111-house-gop-mulls-constitutional-test-for-all-bills
STATES RIGHTS WINS TODAY:
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which two others in Virginia and Michigan have upheld. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one 20 other states have joined in a Florida filing.
READ RULING:http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Virginia_ACA_Order.pdf
Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.
READ LANDMARK BRIEF: http://marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Legal%20-%20Brief%20Filed.pdf
The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/JudgeRejectsObamaHealthcare/2010/12/13/id/379789
Attorney General Virginia: http://www.cuccinelli.com/index.php/healthcaredecision
TO UNDERSTAND THIS COMMERCE CLAUSE. FIRST HERE'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION STATES:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution – the “Interstate Commerce Clause.
Article I
Section. 8.Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2:To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
According to Constitutional scholar Randy Barnett, the original meaning of “commerce” was limited to the “trade and exchange” of goods and transportation for this purpose. The original meaning of “to regulate” generally meant “to make regular” -that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted-when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make “prohibitory regulations.” “Among the several States” meant between persons of one state and another.
THIS MEANS THE FED CANNOT FORCE A PERSON TO BUY BY FORCE OR FINES WHICH THEY CAN WITH BHOCARE.
Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are “unathoritative, void, and of no force” from the outset.
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/11/reclaiming-intrastate-commerce-power-back-off-dc/
SO THEN LAWS NOT BOUND BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE THEN BECOME STATE RIGHTS PER AMENDMENT X.
Amendment X.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment II.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A Liberal Supreme Judge who want his own judgment over the second amendment.
ARTICLE II:
Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 2 section 4 was voted today (Dec 8th): House prosecutors say the 63-year-old judge had a gambling problem and began accepting cash and other favors from people with business before his court. He also was accused of lying to Congress and filing for bankruptcy under a false name.
The Senate has voted unanimously to convict U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana on the first of four impeachment charges, removing him from the federal bench.
How many more tentacles of corruption are out there? The barrel is deep.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/08/senate-convicts-louisiana-judge-impeachment-charges/?test=latestnews
Amendment X.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Dave Freudenthal, the Democrat Governor of Wyoming Governor stood up and gave a resounding NO to this by signing into law House Bill 95 (HB0095), the Firearms Freedom Act. Wyoming joins Montana, Tennessee and Utah as the fourth state to make the act law.
States are flexing their rights as detailed in the Constitution:
Example Against: Federal gun laws fall into two broad categories: the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 National Firearms Act. GCA deals with "regular" guns that any non-criminal can buy at the local gun shop. NFA covers "special" guns and weapons such as machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and other, less politically correct guns.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234789
State efforts to reclaim their jurisdiction are great. But in some respects, the states are still showing signs of apprehension of, and/or undue deference to, the federal government.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/20/commerce-jurisdiction-and-firearms-freedom-acts/
For decades, using a tortured definition of “interstate commerce,” Congress has claimed the authority to regulate, control, ban, or mandate virtually everything – from wheat grown on one’s own land for personal consumption, to weed grown in an individual’s own home for the same purpose, to guns manufactured, sold and kept in state boundaries.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/11/reclaiming-intrastate-commerce-power-back-off-dc/
Example Against: Federal gun laws fall into two broad categories: the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 National Firearms Act. GCA deals with "regular" guns that any non-criminal can buy at the local gun shop. NFA covers "special" guns and weapons such as machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and other, less politically correct guns.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/20/commerce-jurisdiction-and-firearms-freedom-acts/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234789
State efforts to reclaim their jurisdiction are great. But in some respects, the states are still showing signs of apprehension of, and/or undue deference to, the federal government.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/firearms-freedom-act/
Article I
Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
ARTICLE II:
Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
ARTICLE III:Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
HOW CAN WE SEND A MESSAGE TO OUR FELLOW CONGRESSMAN???? DEFEAT THE ENEMY AMONGST US......
In the meantime, as part of this over-arching objective, quick passage of a bill to repeal Obamacare should be front and center, followed by an all-out war against the Cap-and-Trade scam. And let’s not forget Representative Michele Bachmann’s (R-Minn.) main focus: "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on." As I have previously written, I interpret her word nonsense to be a euphemism for blatant criminal activity.
Those who would argue that investigating congressional wrongdoing over the past two years is a waste of taxpayer money are wrong. If there are no consequences to criminal activity in government, felonious politicians have no incentive to change their ways. It’s very important that there be a bloodletting that politicians will remember for decades to come.
I could go on and on, but, in the end, what the midterm elections were really all about was freedom. Clearly, though I doubt most people realize it, freedom is what underlies most of the economic problems that dominate the daily news. And if a staunch Marxist is allowed to hold the reins of power much longer, Americans might just lose forever what’s left of their rapidly shrinking supply of that most precious of all commodities.
That said, McConnell is right. Let’s all make a commitment to bring to an end the hope-and-change nonsense in 2012.
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/civil-liberty/the-missing-story/
ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT:
Amendment I.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill -- despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. There's very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:
Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
Dianne Feinstein -- California
Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
Jon Kyl -- Arizona
Chuck Schumer -- New York
Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
Dick Durbin -- Illinois
John Cornyn -- Texas
Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
Al Franken -- Minnesota
Chris Coons -- Delaware "DOES THE COON MAN REALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION"
This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2630532/posts
The Honorable Rep. Michele Bachmann understands Article 1 section 8. A balance budget must be our ultimate drive back to prosperity......
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/MicheleBachmann/2010/11/19/congress_must_avoid_raising_the_debt_ceiling
Hats off to the republicans. It is the right step to holding down all this spending. The democrat can now be caught with all their hand on the cookie jar pigging away all the pork unless they too open their eyes on the gravity to the future of our children. We cannot spend our way out of this because we already spent everything and NOW YOU CONGRESS ARE GIVING THE COUNTRY AWAY TO THE CHINESE.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/earmark-ban-senate-demint/2010/11/16/id/377261
LET IT BE WRITTEN THAT WHOSOEVER VOTES FOR EARMARKS IS NOW DOOMED IN 2012. WE ARE NO LONGER HERE TO PLAY WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL SINCE OUR CHILDREN's FUTURE IS WHAT IS AT STAKE. I WILL NOT JEOPARDIZE THEIR FUTURE FOR MY COMFORT AND SAFETY AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU oh Congress.
See who supports this:
http://www.redstate.com/aceintx/2010/11/14/tin-ears-and-earmarks-so-what-is-a-conservative-and-tea-partier-to-do/
http://endingspending.com/earmark-ban/
Have the scanners really been vetted by congress??? Or is this another executive order to suppress the citizens once again.... And now we have BHO to thank...... Oh yeah... may I have another.... you big dummy....
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=227489
Another trampling of our constitution and yes our personal rights. Will this organization ever stop????
Amendment IV.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
EARMARK BE GONE. SEE WHICH REP supports and those others so called for small GOV.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/11/call-your-republican-senator-now-support-senator-jim-demints-earmark-ban/
Vote is set for Tuesday 11/16/2010:
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/11/senate-gop-earmark-ban-gains-support-still-short-votes
List of Representatives who did the Benedict Arnold on H.R. 1207:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/materials/HR1207-Shame-List.pdf
A must read why our Constitution stated that Congress and only Congress can legislate laws:
In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA by designating Yucca
Mountain as the only option for a longer-term storage site by a vote of 237-181 in the House of
Representatives and 61-28 in the Senate. Congress reaffirmed Yucca Mountain's designation as the only option for a long-term storage site in 2002 by a vote of 306-117 in the House of Representatives and 60-39 in the Senate.
But, the NRC is preventing this law in acted. See the memo from the Select Committee on Energy
http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/Corr_Oversight/10142010Jaczko_Yucca.pdf
Article I
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
How to defund obamacare:
http://marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/how-to-defund-obamacare/449971410945
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1011213%20
Amendment X.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
TO REPEAL THIS DASTARD BILL ..... H.R. 4972 :
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Steve King of Iowa, move to discharge the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, Rules, House Administration, and Appropriations from the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4972) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; which was referred to said committees on March 25, 2010, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to wit:
http://clerk.house.gov/111/lrc/pd/petitions/Dis11.htm
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), in line to become the new speaker of the House
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), the Republican whip, is in line to become majority leader
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), one incoming committee chairman,
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who will chair the immigration subcommittee
Rep. Ron Paul (R - Texas) next in line to become House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis), expected to become chairman of the House budget committee.
Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), chairman of the Republican Governors Association
Clearly a day will come when sanity will prevail in Rightheousness and Wisdom ... today was a bit of a shining lite...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/04/hud-dismisses-complaint-woman-ad-seeking-christian-roommate/
"Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with," he said. "Christians shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church -- an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity."
Amendment I.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article III
Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article I
Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
