The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (”Act”), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

Montana received a very similar letter:

The passage of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, Montana House Bill 246 (”Act”), effective October 1, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

The Tenth Amendment:

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.

The ATF is under the control of the Justice Department, which in turn is run by the pro-terrorist Eric Holder. How would Holder reconcile the letters and amendments above? He doesn’t have to, because he regards us as a nation of cowards.

On a tip from Bubba. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Yes I still think Graham is a RINO and this is probably a showboating, but I just wish a real conservative would stand up and grill her like he just did.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On forced abortions:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

On government confiscation of babies:

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption — especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. … It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

On targeted involuntary sterilization:

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

On mass involuntary sterilization:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

We wouldn’t want livestock to be affected while we’re snuffing out the human race. What would PETA say?

On government dictating family size:

In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Don’t want to kill your baby? Then you’re a racist:

Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. … Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all.

On the ultimate liberal dream — a planetary totalitarian state:

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime — sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable…

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.

On surrendering national sovereignty to the international Gestapo:

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

Other progressives brought hell to earth in Germany, Russia, and China. But radical environmentalism has laid the groundwork for nightmarish extremes of totalitarianism undreamt of by Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

Satanic freaks like Holdren are now running the USA. It would be impossible to overstate the danger we face.

On tips from V the K, Smokey, BURNING HOT, J, Kayt, and Hope. Hat tip: The Blogprof. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

.that was then..and…:

“What George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he’s been saying ‘well I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part,” Obama said last year during a campaign stop. “I’m gonna’ choose to interpret it this way or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

This is now:

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions.
They would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,” Obama said in the signing statement.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The L.A. Times had a very interesting piece last week on the unusually close relationship between Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern and President Obama. The story revealed how Stern “enjoys unusual access to the White House,” and how often Stern is invited to attend meetings the administration holds on policy even as other union heads are left out of the loop.

The piece does cast some doubt on just how much clout Stern might have with Obama as several of the initiatives he has pushed hard for have yet to come to fruition — but it should also be remembered that this administration is only 6 months old. There is plenty of time, here.

Though it does not develop the theme, here is where the Times piece shows the danger that Andy Stern’s close connection with Obama presents to the country and its various governments, federal and state both.

The SEIU’s access to the White House also has left California officials unsettled. Earlier this year, the Obama administration invited the SEIU to take part in a conference call centering on a dispute over pay cuts to home healthcare workers represented by the union. State officials said the union’s involvement in a government-to-government conference seemed inappropriate.

Inappropriate? You bet. But Obama indulged his buddy Stern anyway.

So, where is the danger? Andy Stern’s SEIU is the biggest union in the country that represents government workers of all sorts. If Stern can translate his close relationship to the administration into cajoling and strongarming more and more government workers into his union, Stern will (and already has to a great extent) become an unelected, fourth branch of government in every state of the union as well as Congress.

Before any government budget is decided, before any responsible cut in spending is considered, government officials all across the land have to go to Andy Stern, hat in hand, to ask him if they are allowed to cut costs. This is a check on government power that the voters have absolutely no say whatever in affecting. This is a power that is illegitimately in the hands of a self-interested union thug that could not care less what “good government” means nor what is best for the tax payers. In fact, his interest is to screw the tax payers as much as possible, yet he is being handed almost total veto power on state and federal budgetary concerns. The closer to Obama he gets, the more his clout grows and the more powerful he becomes, legitimate or not.

This man is a danger to the whole country.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

General Motors Corp will do the “heavy lifting” to help meet the ambitious goal set by President Barack Obama of having one million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015, a GM executive said on Tuesday.

Major automakers, including GM, have been ramping up plans for a range of electric-drive vehicles intended to meet sharply higher U.S. fuel economy standards and an expected increase in demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

GM will launch the rechargeable Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid by the end of 2010 and plans to have a total of 14 hybrid models in production by 2012.

GM has no choice in doing the “heavy lifting.” The government will force it to make these lines. And, 14 hybrid lines? How many lines do they make now? 20? 25? The profitable ones tended to be trucks and SUVs. So, we’ll end up having to subsidize GM basically forever.

Interestingly, as we go through all this, no one is asking the question “where is the power coming from?” Democrats will not allow new nuclear and coal plants to be built, so, we can expect the country to be like California, with rolling brown and black outs. And with more power being used, and the coming AGW legislation (more on that in a minute), we can expect to pay much more for electricity. Sounds like a great deal, right?

The Volt is expected to cost around $40,000. Federal tax incentives could bring the cost to consumers closer to $32,500.

So, more subsidies from Los Federales and the micro-mobile is still expensive to purchase. Not to mention maintain, because quite a few independent car service stations will not touch them. So, you pay more to go to a GM dealer.

Meanwhile

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, urged on by President Barack Obama, announced progress on Tuesday toward quick passage of legislation to fight global warming by reducing industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

At a midday White House press conference, Obama said the “hiphstoric” climate change bill moving through the House would “transform the way we produce and use energy in America.”

Translation: you’re power bills, followed by everything else, are going to skyrocket.

Is this the hopeNchange you voted for, independents? Perhaps you should have been paying attention in 2008.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Remember the hue and cry that went up when President Bush fired some U.S. attorneys in 2006? Oh, the left was beside itself about how eeeevil it was that Bush was to fire so many U.S. Attorneys… even though he had the authority to do so. Charges that the firings were made for “political reasons” were thrown about and Congressional Democrats clamored for new laws and the head of Bush’s Attorney General on a pike.

Well, last night, clearly for political reasons, Barack Obama tried to fire AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin. Not only is it for strictly political reasons (Short take: “the AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG.”) but Obama does not have the authority to summarily dismiss an IG as he tried to do last night.

Will the left ring the claxon clang of how illegitimate the president’s actions are this time? Should we hold our breath?

Last night, Obama’s office sent a terse note to IG Walpin stating that he had one hour to resign or he’d be fired. Walpin alerted Congress and asked what he should do because he knew that his position wasn’t solely at the discretion of the president. He knew that he answered to both the president and Congress.

So, what is this Inspector General position, how does it work? To answer that we go to Byron York’s piece in the Washington Examiner.

Inspectors General are part of every federal department. They are given the responsibility of independently investigating allegations of waste, fraud, and corruption in the government, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House. Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which added new protections for IGs, including a measure requiring the president to give Congress 30 days prior notice before dismissing an IG. The president must also give Congress an explanation of why the action is needed. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was one of the co-sponsors of the Act.

Notice that York reports that Obama is supposed to give a 30 day notice to Congress before an IG is removed? Yet, last night in what should be seen as an entirely arrogant move, Obama tried to fire an IG not with 30 days notice, but one hours notice!

According to York, it has also been pretty much assured that this firing was for political purposes, too.

More information now, from the Associated Press. The White House is going ahead with firing Walpin. The firing apparently stems from Walpin’s investigation of a non-profit group, St. HOPE Academy, run by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California (and a big Obama supporter). “[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car,” the AP reports. In April, the U.S. attorney declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and criticized Walpin’s investigation. But at the same time Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fires AmeriCorps IG.

Here is some more background on the misuse of AmeriCorps funds that York was referring to.

Obama is perpetrating a purely illicit action by trying to fire this IG without following the rules and without consulting with Congress. In fact this is worse than Bush’s firings of the U.S. attorneys in 2006 because in that case, Bush at least had the authority to do so — whether it was a good political move or not. Here, it seems Obama clearly does not have such authority.

I’d say that this is a supremely arrogant move on Obama’s part. Will he be called on it?

(It should also be noted that both Carter and Clinton fired many U.S. attorneys in their day. Clinton fired all of his at one time during his tenure in the White House.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

Wow! I wonder how they expect to get any useful information that could save lives from these captured terrorists after telling them they have the right to remain silent? Milk and cookies? Saying, “pretty please”? Seriously…cuz it ain’t water boarding. We tried treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue once already. I guess we are back to the mindset that allowed 911. This is the kind of crap that earns the left names like libtard.

Allahpundit:

If you’re unwilling to use any form of enhanced interrogation to save lives, you might as well go the whole nine yards and affirmatively warn detainees that they don’t have to talk to you. That’s what a law-enforcement approach to terrorism means — accepting a heightened risk of an attack by eschewing certain preventative measures in order to heighten the risk of conviction in court later by following criminal procedure. How this squares with The One’s willingness to send drones into Pakistan and torpedo houses packed with people on the say-so of informants is beyond me, but I’m sure we’ll get a speech on it at some point down the line.

Drew M:

People used to say, ‘no prisoners, just shoot ‘em’. That was a bad idea because we might get valuable intel. Clearly, most of these jihadi scum are going to exercise ‘their right’ to remain silent. Prisoners aren’t so attractive anymore, are they?

Another Palin Told Ya So:

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”

Governor Sarah Palin
RNC Acceptance Speech
September 3, 2008

Right Pundits:

Republicans and anybody with half a brain knows that this is a bad idea. The first thing a suspect is told when they are given their Miranda rights, is that they have the right to “remain silent”. What would be the point of keeping a bunch of suspected terrorists, if we were not going to glean information from them?

Flopping Aces:

Yup, lets return[to]the days of treating terrorism as a crime rather then as a act of war. It worked out so well during the 90’s didn’t it?

Best way for our soldiers to win this thing? Kill the enemy instead of EVER capturing them. You capture them they may very well end up with a taxpayer funded vacation to a tropical paradise.

Does Obama realize radical jihadis are at war with us, or does he just view them as simple criminals?

Andy McCarthy says we can thank McCain for this.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

How unconstitutional is Barack Obama? I’ve begun to count ways.

1) Bailouts
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

Two Presidents had a hand in the auto industry bailout: 1) President G. W. Bush by using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money authorized by Congress and 2) President Barack Obama, not using TARP funds, but declaring that he would use monies from somewhere, and do so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch. At the time, CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs where President Obama derived his authority to use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler.

I think the determination has been made both by the previous administration and the current administration that this assistance is legal, and our goal is to ensure that the taxpayers in any instance when this is used feel confident that it’s being done in a transparent and accountable way,” Gibbs said.

President Bush’s use of congressionally approved TARP funds is suspect also, although the money was “legislated” by Congress. The bug in the ointment is that the TARP funds were authorized only for use by the Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from “financial institutions.” The auto industry does not qualify as a “financial institution.”

CNSNews.com once again seeks an answer, this time from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

I don’t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” said Hoyer. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don’t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don’t know technically the answer to that question.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) introduced a Bill in the House to give the President Constitutional authority for the bailouts. Sixty Senators were required to vote for the legislation to overcome a Senate filibuster. Those votes were not there and the legislation was dead.

Then comes the Time of Obama. There was no attempt to get the Senate Banking Committee to introduce the needed legislation.

Rep. Barney Frank washed his hands of all responsibility of the administration’s trampling the Constitution. Again, when CNSNews.com asked Frank about Obama’s intentions to do the bailout without Congressional approval, Frank allegedly said:

It’s an administration situation so I’m not very well informed on it,” Frank told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com

Then the correspondent asked Frank if Obama’s promised guarantee of the auto warranties for GM and Chrysler needed “legislative authority,” Frank was even clearer in his answer:

Do the words ‘I’m not very well informed on it’ have any meaning to you? Am I speaking a language you don’t understand?”

It’s not something I’m focused on,” said Frank. “The committee, which I chair, keeps me busy. I have not had a chance to look at that. I do not have an informed opinion on it. It’s not my understanding that Congress is going to get to vote on it. So I tend to focus on things that are under the jurisdiction of the committee and that we’ll have to vote on. When things are neither, I don’t have a very well-informed opinion.

So much for constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.

Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that the government “created this crisis with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nevertheless, CATO Institute’s chairman, Robert A. Levy, says, no, the bailout is not constitutional.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers’ money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con­gress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.

Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for this position is a misinterpretation.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators’ misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.

Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.

Under the sub-heading No Intelligible Principle, Levy says (snippets):

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch….A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.

But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that “the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” The legislative power, wrote Locke, is “to make laws, and not to make legislators.”

Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.

Here’s the link again to Mr. Levy’s article.

2) Supreme Court

President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court nominees embrace “empathy” in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind the the oath that a Justice swears to:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

There is no room for empathy when justice is blind and the poor and the rich have equal rights in the sight of the law of the land. While the U.S. Constitution does not provide the oath for a Supreme Court Justice, it does state that others “shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”

Additionally, if the President keeps his oath of office, he will not require a Justice who uses “empathy” to decide a case, because empathy is unconstitutional and unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Appointing activist Judges to the Supreme Court is an avenue to interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document…an avenue for a Judge to insert personal opinion, maybe “empathy,” which is unlawful. The only way for the Constitution to take a breath is through an amendment. There is no other way. Outside of amendments, the Constitution is ageless, and it awaits it’s use as a service to all Americans, but not at the whim of an activist Judge.

Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document without amendments, renders it practically impotent, because it no longer has the power to protect our rights. Eminent domain is an excellent example.

3) The Czars

The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional. There’s the Car Czar, The Pay Czar, The Great Lakes Czar, a Cyber Czar, a Drug Czar, an Energy Czar, a Health Reform Czar, an Intelligence Czar, and a Tech Czar. The Czar Czar, of course, is Barack Obama. What is Obama’s Cabinet members doing these days? They’ve all been demoted and they know it and there’s not a thing they can do about it.

Here’s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama. They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single decision they make. What has happened to our egotistic Congress who has been so willingly hypnotised into giving up their grasp on EVERYTHING? Maybe it’s something in the water. So much for checks and balances. Barack Obama reigns.

Even Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in history, hates the idea of Czar appointments. It’s dangerous he says. It gives the president too much power.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.

As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

The wildly liberal CBS News, at the end of the article on Byrd, says:

These days, however, Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

What does Byrd’s chairmanship or the lack of it have to do with the fact that it is unconstitutional to have presidential appointees making decisions about taxpayer monies without congressional oversight?

4) Government ownership in private business

The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more.

5) Redistribution of Wealth

Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is unconstitutional. I’m not sure I have the latest figures, but nevertheless, it’s not good for shareholders who I believe end up with 10 percent of their investment or five cents on the dollar. The government gets 50 percent of the stock, about 87 cents on the dollar. The Unions get 40 percent ownership, plus $10 billion in cash – about 76 cents on the dollar. Doesn’t this make you want to throw-up and then find a quiet spot and grieve for our country?

6) Health Care

Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional. The first thing that comes to mind is his plan to pay for his health care plan by taxing the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional in America. Then there’s the fact that he plans to put private business out of business to achieve his goal, which is simply power over all of us.

In the fall of 2008, Obama told Tom Brokaw that health care “should be a right for every American.” The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing health care. BUT, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced H.J. Res. 30 which calls for a Constitutional Amendment to establish “the right of citizens of the U.S. to health care of equal high quality.”

7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document

The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,

That’s my six obviously unconstitutional steps taken by President Obama.

We live among idiots, and I guess, we are idiots because if we had the proper sense of outrage, we would sit on the steps of Congress until all of the above are overturned, or Barack Obama is impeached, whichever comes first.

Where are our Defending Fathers in Congress? They should be on the floor railing about these issues every single day, over and over. Are we…are they, really so willing to devalue our prized Constitution.

From Thomas Paine:
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.’ ‘A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.’

Think about that:

“…operating the government without the Constitution “is a power without right.”

I as a “people” didn’t grant that power, neither did you, neither did Congress.

I ask this question: Who will limit the expansion of government? President Obama and the Executive Branch? Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid? The Supreme Court? For the moment, The Supreme Court is the only chance we have. Once Sonia Sotomayor, an activist judge is confirmed, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign and then we have not one branch of government to stop the wild ride to Socialism. By the way, Socialism whether Americans want it or not, and I believe a huge majority do not want it, is unconstitutional. The preamble to the Constitution makes it clear:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

(guarantees a republican form of governance)
I know there are other unconstitutional acts to add to this list, including: the budget an earmarks, the stimulus expenditures that do not create jobs, eminent domain, snatching rights designated only to states, and other unlawful federal rights granted that are clearly unconstitutional – such as “special interest” legislation. If you have thoughts about this or other additions, please leave them in comments. I’ll continue updating this list and give you credit, unless you prefer that I not. Help me compile a complete list. While the U.S. Constitution is not a living, breathing document, this post will be.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Jerusalem Embassy Act commitment was deep-sixed on Friday night after Obama et al removed a critical sentence from the agreement. Friday night shenanigans are well-underway, but I must say, the word “shenanigan” has far too frivolous a tone for what is actually happening.

Barack Obama

Our President has rendered a commitment to Israel “gone,” as though it never existed. The history is that in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act to insure that the U.S. Embassy in Israel would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because Israel considers Jerusalem it’s nation’s capitol, and Israel has the right to designate their capitol. The U.S. Embassy was mandated to take up its Jerusalem presence by May 31, 1999, but today, our Embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

As bureaucrats are wont to do, for one reason or the other, every six months since May 31, 1999 a “Presidential Determination,” in the form of a memo has been sent to the U.S. Secretary of State, titled “Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act.” The memo with the hefty title is simply a legal waiver moving the deadline for our Embassy’s Jerusalem presence forward another six months. This has been going now, all these long years.

But now, everything has changed, just as so much has changed since January 20, 2009. The memo went out as usual, but with one big change. A sentence has been completely excised from the memo:

My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.

So on a Friday evening when not many are paying attention, we find that Barack Obama has undone what Congress did in 1995 with the Senate adopting the Jerusalem Embassy Act by a vote of 95 to 5, and House doing the same with a vote of 374-37.

It appears that Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton believed that Congressional authority through their vote is, in reality, only an “advisory,” because it “impermissibly interferes with the President’s constitutional authority.” If the U.S. Constitution places the conduct of foreign policy in the hands of the President, then any resolutions Congress makes are possibly invalid.

If the above assumption is correct, the only power Congress has is to deny funding – in this case – for the establishment of a new Embassy in Jerusalem. To date, Congress has not denied funding for a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

The website Palestine Facts says that the Clinton White House:

…refused to move the embassy citing harm to America’s national security, believing that it would interfere with peace process negotiations. In fact, the Act gave the U.S. President a “waiver authority” under which he could suspend the [implementation] for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

Both Presidents Clinton and Bush used this waiver to postpone any change, fearful of the reaction of Palestinian Arabs, even though Bush promised to move the embassy if elected in 2000. The US refusal to act on the embassy move, leaving Israel as the only country in the world where the US embassy is not in the designated capital city, has encouraged Palestinian Arabs to believe they may eventually succeed in driving Israel out of Jerusalem.

Although President G. W. Bush campaigned on the Embassy move, we know that never happened. He began waffling soon after taking office. I think Bush, however, added the sentence:

My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act commitment has gone to feed the fishes. As of today, the “commitment” sentence is missing and the only option seems to be that we have Barack Obama’s non-commitment to establishing a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem – which he wants to cede to the Palestinians.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post