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.
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!!!!
The so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution like the Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause has come to mean something entirely incoherent with what it is suppose to mean. Every clause of the Constitution that has been reduced to a hand full of meaningless words has become exactly that, meaningless. As with all of the other abbreviated clauses there are other words in Article VI of the Constitution which includes the Supremacy Clause that have significant meaning. What exactly are those words that nearly everyone ignores? Article VI of the Constitution states,
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”
The most important words of this clause are “pursuance thereof.” Very simply, in order for a federal law to be the supreme law of the land the law it must be in pursuance of the Constitution which means it must be constitutional. Does anybody who has any knowledge of the founding of this nation and the reasons for our separation from England believe that the founders and ratifiers intended for those in the new federal government to be the sole deciders-in-chief of the extent of the power they could wield over the American people. Was it their intentions to fight a war in order to free themselves from the tyranny of the king in order to give that same power to a handful of individuals in the new federal government? The answer to that question is patently obvious—absolutely not.
California Representative Pete Stark no so long ago said that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants. The problem with this formulation is that it is not the federal government doing it, it is instead a group of individuals using the power of the federal government to force themselves upon the masses. Unfortunately, those in the federal government do have the power to do pretty much whatever they want, but, they do not have the authority, in particular the constitutional authority to do whatever they want, which brings us back to “Pursuance thereof.” What should be done when those with the backing of the power of the federal government make laws or in the case of those in the judiciary interpret laws in a manner that is clearly not in pursuance thereof? The very simple answer is to ignore such unconstitutional acts by those in the federal government, ah yes, nullify them. Yikes!!!
If we have learned nothing else, we have learned that those individuals in all three branches of the federal government will seize for themselves all of the power that we, the American citizens will allow them to seize. While we have sat idly by the last several decades all three branches of the federal government have intruded into areas they have absolutely no authority to be involved in. Those individuals in all three branches have shown nothing but a pure disregard for the Constitution when it comes to restricting their power over the people. It is now time for us, the American citizens as individuals and collectively in our States to tell those in the federal government to go jump in the lake. We as individuals and our States should nullify all unconstitutional acts by the federal government, because that is the only way to force these traitors to the constitution back to a more constitutional form of government.
I can hear it now. How can we endeavor to sanction such mutinous and anarchic activity? I guess that depends on where you think the mutinous and anarchic activity began. It is my contention that it begins with the unconstitutional acts of those in the federal government. Why should it be left to those in the power circles of the federal government to determine among themselves’ the extent of the power they exert over the populace, and then invoke the supremacy clause. The liberal loons who worship the federal government are already screaming slavery or something to do with the civil war as if nullification by osmosis means support for slavery. These folks will do all kinds of contortions to get any argument back to slavery somehow.
Nullification has occurred everywhere and always in some form or fashion. California recently nullified federal drug laws by allowing marijuana for medical use. Presidents since its inception have nullified the War Powers Act, because they don’t believe congress has the authority to restrict the president’s authority as commander in chief. Abraham Lincoln nullified the constitution when he launched a war that killed a half million Americans, crippled countless others, left homes, families, and property in ruins in order to force the southern states back into the union. Secession was constitutional, while preventing secession through war was not. Enough said.
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.
President Obama’s state of the union speech was the same old same old we have heard from him since he first started running for president. Soaring rhetoric and the abundance use of metaphors sprinkled with emotionalism are used to cover up his unwillingness to really tackle the tough issues. His desire to remain as neutral as possible on all issues in order to deflect as much criticism from himself is in effect his way of voting present instead of taking a stand.
His constant use of the term “investments” is merely a stand-in for let’s spend, spend, spend, because as with all liberals, spending is what makes his world go around. It is completely irrelevent to President Obama whether or not such spending actually works, for all that matters to him is that his conscience achieve some level of satisfaction. I suppose no level of satisfaction is ever achieved, because all he wants to do is spend, spend, spend.
He has been referred to as a constitutional law professor which he actually never was. He was a part-time instructor who was more concerned with political office than teaching anything in college. If he knew anything about the Constitution he would know that there is no constitutional authority for ninety-percent of the spending he proposes, but, as with all liberals he doesn’t care about the constitution.
We have lab experiments in progress right now that show exactly what will happen when liberal policies are put in place. These lab experiments are California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan. This country will end up just like these states, in a state of bankruptcy if those in the federal government do not cut spending and return the federal government to its constitutional function.
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
Who is the best president of all time? Most polls I have seen put FDR in the prestigious top spot, but does he really deserve such a distinction. It seems that merely being president during trying times regardless of how the president’s policies affect the country is what matters the most. The legend is that FDR came riding in on his white horse after Hoover ruined the economy, and FDR made the people feel safe and secure under wing. He cared, he felt their pain, and he did everything within his power to make their lives better—his intentions were noble and gracious. Well, let’s consider a few facts. Unemployment during his terms stayed between 15 and 20% except for a brief drop to around 14% in early1937 which was the result of massive government spending in order to buy the 1936 elections. The unemployment rate just before the war was around 18%. Does this sound like a successful presidency? Are intentions all that matter, or do results ever come into play? If you intend to give a man a free hair cut and end up cutting off his ear would the haircut be judged a success? The only way to judge the success of any policy or individual is by judging the overall results, and the overall results of the Roosevelt presidency were disastrous.
Hoover has received the blame for the Great Depression by most while FDR has skated. How is it that FDR could take Hoover’s policies, put them on steroids, and not receive any of the blame for the depression? I would say that Hoover created the depression, but that FDR created the Great Depression. FDR’s policy of attacking business, meddling in the private sector with his business cartels, his meddling in the agriculture sector via the AAA, and his tax raising propensities created an atmosphere of fear, distrust, and uncertainty. How can business operate in such an environment? Does any of this sound familiar? The simple answer is that it can’t. This is a lesson that President Obama will certainly learn, for he has fashioned his presidency after that of FDR, even lifting some of FDR’s phrases such as he did with Deval Patrick’s “just words” passage.
Hoover and FDR deserve equal credit for creating the Great Depression. They both meddled in the economy, by setting wage and price levels, production levels, spending oodles of money on public works programs, and involving the federal government in unconstitutional activities other than those previously mentioned—they both did it. If we were to make a movie about the presidencies of Hoover and Roosevelt it would be named “Dumb and Dumber”—Hoover being Dumb, and FDR being Dumber. Hoover did exercise a little restraint, but FDR was as free as a bird when it came to exercising power over the private sector. FDR was the closest this country has ever come to being a centrally planned economy, after all, that was the fad of the time with Mussolini and Stalin being admired adoringly by some in FDR’s administration and his brains trust.
It is said by many that the war ended the Great Depression because of massive government spending, and they will point out the low unemployment rates of the time. Removing many millions of men from the work force by conscripting them into military service will reduce the unemployment rate, but merely having a low unemployment rate is not necessarily a sign of prosperity. You will have a difficult time convincing a soldier who is standing in a fox hole reeking of urine and feces and with the body of his dead buddy lying next to him that he is somehow standing in prosperity. Building ships to be sank, planes to be blown out of the sky, and bombs to be blown into a million pieces is not a good use of resources, and does not create prosperity. FDR, I think put it perfectly when he said that Dr. New Deal was replaced with Dr. Win the War. Very simply, the war distracted him from his destructive domestic policies, and his timely death meant that the United States would no longer be victimized by him.
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.
“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?”