Terry Jones on the Passing of National Defense Authorization Act
[When is Mitt Romney going to say this? ~ Ed.]
Posted in Constitutional Law, tagged Bill of Rights, James Madison, Mark Twain, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, Sheriff Brad Rogers, Tea Party, Tenth Amendment, Thomas JEfferson, United States Constitution on January 19, 2012 | 6 Comments »
Twain’s comment speaks eloquently to the prevailing understanding of the Constitution, especially (and surprisingly), among the ranks of the self-proclaimed “small government” Tea Party Republicans.
When asked what section of the Constitution authorized Obamacare, (more…)
San Juan Capistrano, CA – A city in Southern California is demanding that a small home Bible study group stop meeting unless they obtain a cost-prohibitive permit.
The homeowners, Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, were fined $300 for holding the Bible study. (more…)
Date: Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:22 AM
To: Stan Walkup <Stan.Walkup@StormGatesHell.net>
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
by Ron Paul – Daily Paul
Published : August 11th, 2003
It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.
These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
Posted in 2012 Presidential Race, Candidates, Constitutional Law, Counterfeit Conservatism, Counterfeit Conservatives, Economic Impact, Economics, Election News, Elections, Federal Reserve, Government, Mitt Romney, National Politics, Politicians, Politics, Republican Party Reform, Republican Principles, Rick Perry, RINOs, Ron Paul on August 16, 2011 | 3 Comments »
“Sure, many on the socialist left still feel obliged to pay lip service to the U.S. Constitution. Like Obama, they even occasionally mouth the language of rights, as if to echo the famous affirmations of the American Declaration of Independence. But the idea of government limited by the moral requirements of unalienable right contradicts the efficient pursuit of socialist goals. Structural constraints like federalism or the separation of government powers inhibit the imposition of socialist change.” ~ Alan Keyes
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Washington State Constitution
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
[Ed. Note: Secret negotiations have resulted in striking down significant portions of Washington State Law regarding Political Parties. The ruling purportedly acts on legal issues we've been following at the Reagan Wing since 2008. At first blush, it would seem this activism could imperil the GOP & Democrat Party's existence in the mid-term and effectively ends any hope of clean party elections. This two-part article provides a legal analysis, and then practical implications for Washington state's PCOs.]
On August 17, 2010 thousands of citizens across the State were elected as Precinct Committee Officers of their respective precincts. But their offices have now been eliminated. (more…)
From the frequent commenter, JSBach:
An interesting birdie informs the awaiting grassroots, that the Attorney Genrull McKenna, of your state of Washington, was a guest at the re-org of this county today. The significance is that when the chair asked the AG a question related to the Bill of (inalienable) Rights, and the law, he did not seem to know the answer!
Or, was he confused by the simplicity of the question being asked in front of an audience of potential future voters in his potential future campaign for governor? (more…)
[Editor's note: Reagan Wing readers have profited in past election years from Cominus' insightful analysis of judicial candidates. He is back with this year's slate. Please remember that the Supreme Court contests will be decided in the primary!]
In days gone by, Judicial Forum used to review actual court cases and rate all the judges and attorneys involved. We no longer have that resource, although you may view the archives at http://cominus.com/judicial-archives/ and at http://cominus.com/judicial-ratings/. Now we search the web for information on the candidates. We review their websites if they have one, we search for endorsements, we search for articles, quotes and writings. Some candidates have very little information.
Not all the Cominus’ picks have solid credentials. Some are lesser of evils. So, this year, we have begun a star rating system. 5 stars means the candidate is at least 90% solid; 4 stars, at least 80%; 3 stars, at least 70%, 2 stars, at least 50%, 1 star is less than 50%, but better than the opponent. If we are not sure, but the candidate is favored over the other evil, we will guesstimate a 2 or 3 star rating. Hope this is helpful.
Please feel free to leave comments if you believe I am in error or you may have additional information. All comments are moderated. The moderation is to prevent wacko-attacks and vulgar postings. However, if you leave out all the cuss words and unwarranted defamation attacks on candidates, I will authorize your comment, whether you agree with me or not.
Read the ratings at: http://cominus.com/blog/washington-state-judicial-candidates-primary-review-2010/
Here is our latest episode in the series of VIDEO questions put, identically, to Dino Rossi and Clint Didier although both candidates changed their schedules in the final 24 hours and were not in the room at the same time. The third candidate, Paul Akers, cancelled at the last minute, falling into Luke Esser’s trap to thwart the Tea Party/Patriot Coalition Rally (with a hastily-constructed, last-minute, establishment, Kirby Wilbur event.)
Posted in Constitutional Law, Corruption, Counterfeit Conservatism, Counterfeit Conservatives, Freedom vs Globalism, Quote of the Week, Republican Party Reform, The Reagan Wing, WA State Politics, Washington State GOP on May 14, 2010 | 22 Comments »
Sen. Patty Murray, in tribute to Slade Gorton
“…Tony Williams, a well-known GOP lobbyist who was chief of staff to former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, held a fundraiser for Murray earlier this year.” ~
With a hat tip to Doc.
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
After spending a lifetime in politics John C. Calhoun (U.S. Senator, Vice President of the United States, Secretary of War) wrote his brilliant treatise, A Disquisition on Government, which was published posthumously shortly after his death in 1850. In it Calhoun warned that it is an error to believe that a written constitution alone is “sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any organism except such as is necessary to separate its several departments, and render them independent of each other to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and abuse of power” (p. 26). The separation of powers is fine as far as it goes, in other words, but it would never be a sufficient defense against governmental tyranny, said Calhoun.
Moreover, it is a “great mistake,” Calhoun wrote, to suppose that “the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted, with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers” (emphasis added). The party “in possession of the government” will always be opposed to any and all restrictions on its powers. They “will have no need of these restrictions” and “would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor to elude them . . .”
The “part in favor of the restrictions” (i.e., strict constructionists) would inevitably be overpowered. It is sheer folly, Calhoun argued, to suppose that “the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution” (emphasis added). He predicted that “the restrictions [of government power in the Constitution] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” He was right, of course.
This is a classic statement of the Jeffersonian states’ rights position.
When my wife was a little girl there was, in her area, a serial child rapist. As I understand the story, the man was caught, “red-handed” in the act, and a group of local fathers forcibly “restrained” him to an old “junker” car which then was set on fire. The police, somehow made aware of the circumstances, found no leads. The rapes ceased.
Now some would say that this is an example of anarchy, others, of good local government. However you define your terms, it captures the universal human tendency to government: (more…)