Tag Archives: First amendment

The U.S. Constitution is Merely Toilet Paper

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!!!!

 

Will Obama Move To The Right?

The question of whether or not Obama will make a move to the right if republicans take one or both houses of congress I think has an obvious answer, and that would be an emphatic…..No! He has shown no propensity to compromise or any willingness to work with the opposition in any measure. He is an ideologue who sees his role as president to fundamentally change America. In other words, to change the basics of America.

He will try to sound as though he is moving toward the center and is willing to be more cooperative with republicans, but this will only be for show. Sort of like when the stimulus bill was being debated and most everybody was up in arms, he would come out and talk about how we must cut spending. It’s as though he thinks we are still in the 19th century when a politician could go to one town and say one thing and then go to a town twenty miles away and say the polar opposite. Somebody should tell him that we are in the 21st century, and every word he says is broadcast around the United States as he speaks. He can’t say and act in one way in even a state and go to another state and present himself in the opposite without everyone in the country knowing about.

I get the sense that this being president stuff for Obama is getting old real fast. I really don’t think he is as concerned about being re-elected as he is about changing the country to his liking. He is a worshiper of big government, and he will do all he can to force his religion upon us. We have the First Amendment that prevents congress from forcing religious views upon us, but unfortunately we have no such protections from government worshipers…..wouldn’t it be nice if we did. Republicans should put their names on their office doors with velcro, because they won’t be there long if they forget why they were given back some power if they do in fact get back some power.

The Unconstitutional Supreme Court

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

The Ground Zero Mosque Is Not A Constitutional Matter

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.

The Truth About The Establishment Clause

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” To understand the First Amendment with an accurate reading of it is to understand the limits of its authority. The Constitution and the attached amendments are a contract that should be read like any other contract, by reading the actual words, and it is clear that the founders did not want the federal government to establish a religion or restrict freedom of religion, but, to say that the First Amendment says that church and state should be separate, that there should be a wall of separation is to say something the First Amendment just does not say.

There are many examples of how this incorrect interpretation has resulted in misguided restrictions and even used by those hostile to religion. One example is the cross that was erected in 1934 by VFW members on federal land in California honoring WWI veterans. This cross was ruled unconstitutional by a California district court on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. In order for that to be true, the cross would have to have been placed there as a result of the federal government establishing a religion, which it was not, or it would have to somehow restricted freedom of religion, which it didn’t. It is clear that the amendment had not been violated, but the district court ruled otherwise—they just made it up.

Another good example is school vouchers. If a parent receives government money to send a child to a private school and then decides to send that child to a Catholic school, it is not a violation of the First Amendment. The parent was not forced to use the religious school by government decree, they chose to use it. Nor does it restrict their or anybody’s freedom of religion. The examples of how the First Amendment has been incorrectly invoked to restrict freedoms are too numerous to cover here, but we need to remember only one thing when evaluating whether or not this amendment has been violated. Is the activity in question the result of Congress passing a law establishing or restricting religion. One point I think should be made is that the First Amendment guarantees to all of us a secular government, not a secular nation. Some seem to think it guarantees us a secular nation.

The reason I am making such an issue about this is that this is not the only portion of the Constitution that is being warped into something never intended. For instance, the commerce clause which states Congress can regulate commerce among the states has been twisted into saying that congress can force us to participate in insurance programs, and that they can control other aspects of our lives. The Takings Clause which says private property can be stolen for public use such as schools, roads, public buildings and the like now means that private property can be stolen for public benefit such as increased tax revenues that can be reaped by transferring the property to another private entity to be used for private purposes not public use. Congress and the President believe there is no limit to their authorities, and the day will come when we ask, “Where have all of our rights gone?”

The Mythical Separation Clause

We hear talk all the time about the “separation of church and state,” or the “separation clause.” The separation clause is constantly invoked to make unconstitutional any activity where state and even a hint of church intersect. Now I have looked everywhere in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and I can find no separation clause. I read it several times just to make sure I didn’t miss it, and I even tried reading between the lines as many do to invent authorities, nope, no separation clause, it just isn’t there.

I did however, stumble upon a portion of the First Amendment that states “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I guess at this point in order to determine how to apply this clause we need to determine exactly what Congress is. Is it one of the original states or all of the states? Is it your local school district or government? Maybe it’s the Boy Scouts. Well, if you read Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution you will see that it clearly defines what Congress is, and it states “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”

Well now, isn’t this enlightening? It is patently obvious that the First Amendment was designed in its entirety to limit the power of only the Senate and the House of Representatives in their collective responsibilities as Congress. This was done to keep the United States Congress from directing the religious activities of American citizens which was common practice in England and elsewhere. It is impossible without a warped and distorted reading of the First Amendment to apply its restrictions to anyone or any entity except Congress. In the end we must remember two things. There is no separation clause and the First Amendment only restricts Congress.