The latest FDA food labeling decision regarding food labeling is unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority to force food retailers to include nutrition labeling on their products. This overreach by the federallies is another example of how this country is becoming a fascist tyranny, and indicative of how Obamacare will be a complete failure.
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion about Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Civil War. He is proclaimed a hero, decisive, the man who saved the United States of America. I used to believe those things also without putting any thought into it – It was just a given for me. I however, have since changed my mind completely. I would say 180 degrees completely. Lincoln has moved from the top of my Best President list, to the very bottom. I can no longer deify a man who is responsible for the deaths of 600 to 700 thousand human beings. The maiming of hundreds of thousands more, the destruction of families, lives and property. We just drive by these numbers like fence posts. We see them, but pay them no mind.
Let’s look at it in today’s terms. The population of the United States is a little over 300 million. Which is about 10 times the population in 1860, so all we need to do is multiply the war numbers times 10. I dare you to try to just drive by these numbers. 6 to 7 million dead. Several million maimed and wounded, hundreds of billions of property damage. Now, how many of you would be ok with this level of destruction if 17 states decided to secede. Is it so important to you for others to think like you, that you would condone this destruction.
When the Civil War is discussed, it is mostly around the subject of slavery. The war however, was not fought over, or because of slavery. The war was fought over and because of secession. But, wasn’t secession illegal and traitorous? The very simple answer is, No. Secession was constitutional in 1860, before 1860 and is constitutional to this day. No where in the Constitution is secession prohibited to the States. This country was founded on an act of secession, when our forefathers seceded from the British empire. I guess it’s a good thing Lincoln wasn’t around then, for he most certainly would have been a loyalist.
Lincoln should have never resorted to military force to bring the South back into the Union. Much of the South was poor and backwards, and they would have seen the North leave them behind economically. Their destiny was to be united with the North. He should have used diplomacy only, and let time work to bring the seceding states back. During this time, the Constitution could have been amended outlawing slavery, which the seceding states would have to agree to in order to be re-admitted to the Union. I believe that the seceding states would have returned in time, and if they didn’t, that would be their decision, their right of self-determination…not Lincoln’s.
Believe it or not, since the very beginning of this great republic there have been those who have desired to transfer as much power as possible from the states and individuals to federal politicians and judges. Starting all the way back to Hamilton’s unconstitutional bank where he made the argument to Washington that the new federal government had the authority to regulate the economy, making the bank constitutional, when in fact no such authority existed. Washington then consulted Jefferson about the bank idea. Jefferson stated that the bank was not an enumerated power, nor was it necessary and proper to carry out any of the enumerated powers, so therefore was unconstitutional. Jefferson’s understanding of the constitution was spot on, while Hamilton’s was wrought with amnesia for he had completely forgotten all about that war of independence thing a few years earlier and the reasons for it.
It’s very, very disturbing to me to hear so-called constitutional thinkers talk about the constitution in such haphazard and even reckless ways. They, just like those before them have turned the constitution into a mishmash of mangled words where up means down and left means right. They have reduced the constitution to a handful of meaningless phrases that completely distort the meaning of various parts of the constitution. Phrases such as the “general welfare ” clause, which is not a clause about general welfare, but instead a clause about taxation, how they are raised and what they can be spent on. Another distortion is the term “necessary and proper” also known as the “elastic” clause. which many seem to think this clause is there as some kind of catch-all. This clause, however only allows congress to do those things that are necessary and proper to carry into action powers that are listed in the constitution such as purchasing battle ships for the navy. The navy is a listed power, but buying battleships is not. Another famous distortion is the “supremecy clause” and the notion that all federal laws are supreme…….this could not be further from the truth. Two very important words that are never mentioned in the abbreviated version are “pursuant to”. In order for any federal law to be the supreme law of the land, it must be made pursuant to the constitution, which means it must be constitutional.
Another “Supreme” distortion is the doctrine of incorporation by which it has been contrived that the Bill of Rights applies not only to the federal government, but state and local governments, public schools and anything else the courts wish to apply them to. The United States Constitution applies only as described therein, and the state constitutions apply to the state governments and the other government entities such as counties, cities, and towns.
The United States Constitution does not require a law degree to understand, although it does require several readings and some research. The only correct reading of the Constitution is a literal reading for it actually requires very little “interpretation.” A literal reading of it, however, presents one major problem to those with devious motives toward it. It will give them few, to no avenues for such efforts.
God save the United States Constitution!!!!
In light of the recent ruling by Florida U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson it is interesting while at the same time very frustrating to hear the analysis on whether Obamacare is constitutional or unconstitutional. One jaw dropper I heard today was from Michael Medved when he said Obamacare is unconstitutional, but that single payor or the public option would not be, merely because of the power of taxation. He stated very simply that since the federal government has the power of taxation that it can do whatever it wants with that tax money. He just leaves out about three-fourths of the picture needed to come the correct conclusion that any federal involvement in any health care program such as Obamacare is unconstitutional. The federal government does have the power of taxation, but, but, but, those taxes are authorized to be spent only on an enumerated power, or something necessary and proper in order to carry out an enumerated power—it is just that simple.
Another stupid statement I heard was from Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly during their discussion about this ruling. O’Reilly keeps bringing up the auto insurance safety issue argument while saying the “government” has the authority in safety concerns to get involved. O’Reilly doesn’t understand that the federal government has no such authority to mandate auto insurance, none, zip, zero, nada. He doesn’t even seem to understand that there are actually separation of powers not only between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, but also between the state and federal governments. His, and Medved’s constant use of the term “the government” leaves one very important question to be answered—which government? Then Kelly stated that the commerce clause gives congress the ability to do almost anything—no it doesn’t. The commerce clause gives congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and that’s it. It doesn’t give the authority to regulate things that affect interstate commerce, such as the insane ruling in the 30’s that a man couldn’t grow wheat for his own consumption, because it affected interstate commerce.
It is amazing to me that seemingly intelligent individuals are so willing to accept such unconstitutional misguided notions. Their policy is, Oh well, the courts have decided, there is nothing we can do except go along to get along. There is a saying that goes something like this; At first, a man exposed to criminal activity will abhor it. As he is exposed to it longer he will become indifferent to it, and with continued exposure he will become to embrace it. This is exactly what has happened in respects to the unconstitutional activity of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. The only way to battle such rights robbing stupidity is to constantly and unapologetically argue that the federal government return to a constitutional form of government. We can’t reverse everything, but we can reverse much of it with time, and allow the states to handle issues that affect each of us so profoundly. Such decisions should be left to those near to us, not by someone in a far away state.
There really is no limit to the amount of power those in the federal government will acquire if not stopped. We not only have to deal with run-away presidents and congresses, but we must also deal with a run-away judiciary. Prior to really looking at the powers of the United States Supreme Court I always wondered why this court was hearing cases that clearly were not of a federal concern such as school prayer cases. Well, as life would have it, the Supreme Court, this bastion of nobility and omnipotent dispensers of justice will snatch for themselves all of the power they possibly can.
When the Bill of Rights was being put together, James Madison tried to put in an amendment that would prevent the states from interfering with the basic rights of individuals, but was rebuffed. A majority were opposed to the idea of the federal judiciary being involved in reviewing the decisions of the states in regards to state issues. After all, a tyrannical judiciary is just as lethal to freedom as a tyrannical executive or congress, besides, why fight a war for freedom just to relinquish it to the new federal government. Well, never fear the Supreme Court is here. Not having the authority to overrule state decisions was not an impediment, for they very simply contrived the authority via the Fourteenth Amendment by saying that the due process clause of this amendment gave the Supreme Court the authority to enforce the Bill of Rights onto the states.
The Fourteenth Amendment was put in place to do one thing, and that one thing was to ensure that all citizens were treated equally under the law. How do we know that this incorporation doctrine is nonsense? First, if the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights it would say so, it would be right there in the amendment. Maybe it’s there, but I guess one must first brush on a little lemon juice and the huff some warm breath on it and it will magically appear. Second, it would not have taken sixty years for the authority to be used. Third, it would apply to all of the amendments, not just the teacher’s pets. This incorporation nonsense is merely an interpretation which I prefer to call a contrivance in order to seize power that was never intended by the framers or ratifiers.
Lawyer types want the rest of us to think that we are too stupid to understand the Constitution because we don’t have years and years of training in constitutional law. The Constitution wasn’t written in hieroglyphics, Chinese or martian, it was written in English, and it doesn’t take a law degree to understand it. This contrived doctrine has been used by the Supreme Court to decide issues it has absolutely no authority to hear, and such rulings should be ignored. Court rulings not rooted in the Constitution are not constitutional and therefore are not the supreme law of the land. Government officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the last court ruling for if the reverse were true we would still have separate water fountains.
We conservatives all the time are complaining about how Congress and the President couldn’t care less about the Constitution. We point out many of the unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, Medicare, AFDC, and ObamaCare, but seldom point out the unconstitutional activities of the courts and in particular the Supreme Court. We question the logic of many of their decisions, but never ask if they are adhering to the Constitution. The Westboro Church case before the Supreme Court is just another case that the court has no constitutional authority to hear. In order for a case to appear before the Supreme Court it must arise from some issue involving the United States Constitution. The protests that the Westboro crowd make at the funerals of fallen American soldiers violates no article of the United State Constitution. Further more, the United States Constitution does not protect individual citizens from invasions of privacy by other private citizens. It only protects the people from usurpations by the federal government.
What happens to the individuals who interrupt or are a nuisance at congressional hearings, court proceedings, basketball games, etc, etc?—they are removed, and by force if necessary. They have no right to disrupt these proceedings, nor do they have a right to be heard by the targets of their outrage. However, if they do wish to stand outside and protest without disrupting the proceedings they can do that all day long in accordance with the law. If a man is standing on his porch screaming at the top of his lungs all hours of the day, or even just during the daylight hours and is deemed to be disturbing the peace, he can be forced to quit. If he doesn’t, he can then be fined or arrested. Nobody has a right to protest anywhere they want at any time they want, there are restrictions, and furthermore nobody has the right to be heard by the target of their speech.
The authority to control the protests of the Westboro Church rests solely with the state or local governments. The legislative, judicial or executive branches of the federal government have absolutely no authority to control these activities. The Supreme Court just like congress has shown a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the willingness to conducts themselves as tyrannical as the president and congress have done. The human beings on the Supreme Court are no different than human beings anywhere else in position of power—they want as much as they can take for themselves
I was listening to an interview on the O’Reilly Factor where the Muslim being interviewed kept repeating that the mosque was a constitutional issue. He is not the the first to make this claim which makes him not the first to be wrong. The owners of that property have no constitutional right to be protected from the anger of those who oppose the mosque. The owners have a constitutional right to not be interfered with by Congress per the U.S. Constitution, and most certainly from interference from the State government per the State Constitution. There are no such protections from their fellow citizens who oppose the mosque. Those who oppose have every right to oppose the mosque within the law. They can protest, they can picket, they can right letters, and they can appear on television.
It seems that those who want the mosque built have taken a page from the black race baiting industry. Just call those who oppose the mosque, bigots, racists, yadda, yadda, yadda. Those who support open borders have taken this same tact also. These race baiting tactics no longer work the way they once did, but that won’t keep them from trying. I think these tactics actually are on their last leg, because nobody seems to be cowering away when accused of such nonsense as they once did. Lastly, ignorance of the U.S. Constitution is rampant. Not only among the average citizen, but also among members of Congress such as California Representative Pete Stark who believes that the United States Government can do whatever it wants. I guess when members of Congress have no clue, we shouldn’t be too hard on the average citizen.
In many discussions about politics, we hear how the government should do this, or the government shouldn’t do that, the government, the government, the government. Have you ever wondered exactly which government is being discussed – if you haven’t, you need to start. I was listening to a debate recently between a conservative and a liberal about national health care, and as you can guess the conservative was against it and the liberal was for it. At one point in the debate when the liberal realized that he couldn’t convince the conservative of the nobility of national health care he used “liberal slight-of-hand”, and asked the conservative if he liked his local fire and police service. Now – they were talking about “NATIONAL” health care and then it suddenly changed to “LOCAL” fire and police service. Do you see what is going on here? The liberal is trying to justify unconstitutional federal spending on health care by conflating it with constitutional state and local spending, and he is also trying to draw on emotion at some level.
This conflation/emotion tactic has been used quite effectively far and wide by liberals for decades, and they will even conflate federal and individual spending in order to make their agenda seem logical and necessary. Have you noticed that in discussions about national health care that the liberals will say how much money “WE” will save if we do national health care. When liberals say “we”, they mean each of us and the federal government and whatever mouse they have in their pocket. This is just another example of the deep rooted belief of collectivism, and the god-like reverence of the federal government that liberals hold so dearly. Another example of this, is the discussion that followed when Barack Obama made the statement that America is not a Christian nation. When many said that America is in fact a Christian nation, because of its overwhelming Christian majority and was founded on Christian principles – liberals took that as an attack against the government, as evidenced by their response. Just how did they respond, they responded by saying that we are a secular nation because of our secular government. Even here, they can’t separate the secular nature of the federal government from the religious make-up of America. They are just too emotionally invested in the federal government to understand that difference.
What I am about say is extremely important, so pay very close attention. We have basically three levels of government spending in the United States – federal, state, and local, and we must add individual spending in there also, because of the liberal proclivity to conflate federal and individual spending. We have the United States Constitution that enumerates limited and specific powers to the federal government, and we also have the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights that grants all other powers to the States or the People. Let Me Be Clear (sound familiar) – this means that if the constitutional authority doesn’t exist for the federal government, that it is the responsibility of someone else other than the federal government – either the states or the people.
In closing, it is so so important that with all of the discussions about “the government”, that we understand in a perfectly clear way which level of government is being discussed. We can’t be dragged into discussions about the merits of government control or spending, without first determining if the authority for such a venture exists. I would estimate, without looking at it closely, that seventy percent of the federal budget is unconstitutional as laid out in the Constitution as originally written. Just because some boneheads in black robes who pulled their rulings out of the darkness, say it is constitutional, doesn’t make it so – but it does give shelter to those who want to abuse the Constitution. Liberals believe that the Constitution should be flexible and malleable to fit the times, because the founders couldn’t possibly foresee the circumstances unique to our times, but that just isn’t true. The founders did foresee the need to make the Constitution adaptable to future issues by including an amendment process. This is the way it should be changed – not by judges creating authorities out of thin air.