Stop The ACLU » State’s Constitution

The Truth About the Balanced Budget

Warner Todd Huston — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:47:15 +0000

Truth In Accounting had an incredibly important 50 state study that needs to be broadcast far and wide. It shows the mess that every state in the union is in with the budget.

When the Institute for Truth in Accounting (the IFTA) began to design “The Truth about Balanced Budgets—A Fifty State Study” (the Study) in early 2008 our purpose was to widely examine the effect accounting principles and policies have on states’ budgeting and financial reporting practices. Experience in Illinois indicated to the IFTA that this state’s budgeting process used unsound accounting principles and evaded the intent of balanced budgets mandated by its constitutional and statutory requirements.

Now complete, the Study discovered that the budgeting and accounting problems first identified in Illinois are rampant in other states. The IFTA’s findings include:

Most state annual reports indicate their budgets are not balanced;
Despite this fact, states perpetuate the myth that their budgets are balanced;
Governors and legislatures intentionally circumvent balanced budget requirements for their own political expediency, endangering fiscal sustainability and evading public scrutiny;
Billions of dollars in retirement costs are incurred each year but not provided for in state budgets;
Information required to assess the long-term consequences of current policy decisions is not available;
Surpluses reported on state financial statements do not report true financial results; and
Many state annual reports are not published on time, resulting in legislators entering budget negotiations completely unaware on how the state performed in the previous fiscal year.

Back in early 2008 no one foresaw the financial distress that was to develop during the second half of the year. Since then, news of developing fiscal difficulties in several states shows why the creative accounting they use is not useful to understand their financial condition or to predict the future financial crisis. These developments concretely prove the IFTA’s finding that a complete overhaul of the budgetary requirements governing the states is critically needed. It is also time to improve the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by state and local governments, so pension and healthcare obligations are included as liabilities on the governments’ balance sheets.

Balanced Budget Requirements are Critical

Since state governments cannot infinitely expand their credit, issue currency, or tax excessively, their ability to spend is finite. To avert future financial difficulties and to enhance accountability, states have adopted balanced budget requirements in their constitutions and/or statutory schemes. The IFTA’s study found all states, except Vermont, have such requirements.

These balanced budget requirements have both short- and long-term objectives. In the short term, the requirements generally force governors and legislatures to determine the amount of taxes that must be raised to cover the costs of governmental policies and actions. In theory, these requirements foster governmental accountability because politicians should be allowed to spend only the amount taxpayers are willing to pay. Former U.S. Treasury economist, Francis X. Cavanaugh, said it best: “Politicians should not have the pleasure of spending (getting votes) without the pain of taxing (losing votes).” Mr. Cavanaugh highlighted that “we need that accountability to ensure that spending is justified and that the taxpayers are willing to pay for it.”

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) believes that laws requiring balanced budgets prevent the current generation of citizens from shifting the burden of paying for current-year services to future-year taxpayers – namely, our children and grandchildren. The GASB deems this concept, known as “inter-period equity,” to be a significant part of accountability and fundamental to public administration. Inter-period equity is indeed a significant part of accountability because it reduces incumbents’ ability to promise voters future benefits without having to face the political cost of enacting ways to pay for those benefits today.

The IFTA reviewed each state’s Budgetary Comparison Schedule as reported within the Required Supplementary Information included in the financial section of each state’s CAFR. This review found the majority of states report their budgets are not balanced. The review of the state numbers revealed that during the fiscal years 2005-2007:

Twenty-six states reported budget deficits for each of the three years;
Another nine states reported budgetary basis deficits for one or more of the three years;
The annual budget bills adopted by California, Arizona and Arkansas do not include revenues; therefore, only expenditures are presented on the Budgetary Comparison Schedules. This makes it impossible to determine whether their budgets were balanced.

Balanced Budget Requirements are Circumvented

Balanced budget requirements are intended to maintain fiscal sustainability and public accountability. Our Study found that self-serving budget manipulations are used to circumvent these requirements.

The IFTA found governments circumvent the intent of balanced budget requirements by:

Using “word games” that defy the plain intent of constitutions and statutes as well as the very meaning of words, such as classifying loan proceeds are “revenues” and claiming balanced budgets while running “structural deficits”;
Manipulating revenues through falsely inflating or favorably shifting them into earlier periods; and
Manipulating expenses by ignoring vendor bills and shifting current expenses into later periods.

<>/ul>

The manipulation of pension and other post-employment benefits involved the largest dollar amounts. Unfortunately, state and local government officials determined long ago that if they paid their employees more salaries there would be an impact on their current budgets and financial statements. The cash basis method used to calculate state budgets allows governmental officials to use deferred compensation gimmicks to avoid such negative impacts and keep their workforces happy. So, during labor negotiations, governmental officials just keep promising employees more pension and retiree health care benefits. None of these deferred costs appeared on the budget so politicians did not have to cut other programs to provide for these benefits, nor did they have to raise taxes to fund these future promises.

“The Truth about Balanced Budgets—A Fifty State Study” can be found at: www.TruthInAccounting.org. The Study provides a detailed discussion of the issues involved in state government budgeting and accounting, including a detailed description of all of the findings outlined above. Also included are recommendations of ways elected officials and the public can insist that truthful information be available for budget decisions.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Texas State Law Requires Teaching Of Bible In Public School

William Teach — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:58:27 +0000

If anything should bring the ACLU out of the woodwork, well, other than protecting Islamic Jihadis, and cause a full Force 10 freakout, this should

The school year is almost here, and if literature of the Bible is not already offered in your child’s school, it will be this fall.

Books are a common sight in classrooms around the nation, but the Bible is one book that is not. Come this fall, a Texas law says all public schools must offer information relating to the Bible in their curriculum.

“By the end of the year, what they begin to realize is that it is pervasive. You can’t get away from it. The kids came back and were like ‘It’s everywhere,’” said John Keeling, the social studies chair at Whitehouse High School. Whitehouse already offers a Bible elective. ”The purpose of a course like this isn’t even really to get kids to believe it, per se, it is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government.”

The law actually passed in 2007, but this will be the first school year it is enforced because the bill says, ”The provisions of this act pertaining to a school district do not take effect until the 2009-2010 school year.”

Personally, I find this a toughy. If it is taught more as a history or a sociology course, hey, that’s great. I have always thought that religion should be taught by the parents and the church, though. But, hey, I went to a private school which had mandatory vespers and some religious teaching, and quite a few other folks went to schools where religion is taught. The vast majority of us turned out fine. Interesting how most killers and assassins tend to be left leaners who really do not have a notion of God, though, eh?

People with a strong notion of morality and God will still have failings, as they are human. But, at least they have a moral center, of which the Bible provides.

So far, it looks like the courts have decided that the law is legal, and in compliance with the Texas State Constitution. The most specific part would be Sections 6 and 7 of their Bill Of Rights

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

As long as it is not being taught as a religious class, and forced worship, the law is in compliance.

Sec. 7. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES. No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.

That is one which, when stretched, could get the law in trouble, but, so far, no challenge has voided the law, and why in the heck am I giving the ACLU ideas?

Oh, and for those who want to quote the 1st Amendment of the Constitution at me, well, it doesn’t apply. The 1st applies to the Federal government, not to any State governments. What is the first word in it?

Anyhow, it is good to see an American school providing a context for Christianity, rather than for things like Muslim week.

More: Oops. Looks like Excitable Chucky doesn’t actually understand what the 1st Amendment of the United States Bill Of Rights actually means. And, of course, in his Progressive World, everyone who preaches Christianity is a fundamentalist wackjob.

Little Green Footballs 2.0 catches The Daily Kosbats going kosbatty.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Downfall of America

Gribbit — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:37:43 +0000

Recent events in this nation have begun to raise some questions about how far we have drifted away from the original intent of the Founding Fathers of this country. A nation originally conceived as a collection of smaller countries. Each state maintaining a level of sovereignty in the world but banded together for mutual defense. Our nation actually has 2 founding documents. The first, the Declaration of Independence put the world on notice that we no longer considered ourselves subjects of the British Monarch King George III. But more especially, it put King George III on notice that we were not going to accept his oppressive treatment any longer without a fight. The second founding document, established a governmental framework around which that mutual defense was to be structured. This document is the Constitution.

The Constitution is the people’s permission for the federal government to operate. As originally written, any issue not directly given as a responsibility of the federal government was to be left to the states. As specified in the 10th 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 supreme authority in the United States is actually granted to us, the people, by our Creator as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was much more than our asserting our emancipation from an oppressive dictator, it was our establishment as a people. This establishment went on without direction until after the American Revolutionary War when the Articles of Confederation were established. This loose agreement among the newly freed former colonies of the British crown established them as independent states with no way to settle disputes among them. This facilitated the Constitutional Convention which was empowered by the states to refine the existing Articles of Confederation.

When it was convened a decision was quickly made that the current Articles of Confederation were so flawed that they needed to be abandoned and a new agreement of the states needed to be made.

The intent of those who drafted our Constitution need not be interpreted as those who believe that it is a living breathing and evolving document would have you believe. For the love of Pete it is written in English. The intent is just as clear today as it was in 1787 when it was signed. The United States was and is to be a Constitutional Federal Republic in that the political power of the nation is to be centered in the various states NOT as some would have you believe the federal government.

Upon its signing, the US Constitution was nothing more than 7 Articles establishing the responsibilities of the Congress, President, Supreme Court and subordinate courts, interstate relations, a method of amendment, an establishment of authorization for the payment of debts, supremacy, and oaths of office, and the mode of ratification. It was to be understood, that if the Constitution did not address an issue specifically, it was for the states themselves to deal with or the people.

The USA Began to Unravel Before the Ink Was Dry

Since it’s ratification in 1789, the United States Constitution has been modified for better or for worse according to Article V.

The first fracture in this limited government was made with the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson, the Democrat that he was, believed that by establishing a bill of rights it would open the Constitution up to assumptions. If the government can assume one right over the people, where would it end. We now know. It doesn’t end.

How Abortion Has Led to the Downfall of a Nation

The next crack was with the adoption of the 14th Amendment. As necessary as the 14th was at its time in history, the amendment was written so broadly that those who cannot understand that a document written in English needs no interpretation will find meaning in its lack of wording to define rights or responsibilities that were never intended. This is how a Constitutional right to terminate life can be found in an amendment adopted to establish citizenship for all persons living in the United States at a specific moment in time regardless of previous state of servitude; and that those persons could not be denied due process under the law. I’m sorry people but slavery has been illegal in the United States since 1862. NO ONE living in 1972 – or since – had ever been a slave. Subsequently they could not be denied due process of law based upon a previous status of servitude. The basis for the legalization of abortion in the United States as legislated by the Supreme Court – a clear violation of Articles I and III of the Constitution – could not and should not have been made by the Warren court. The Amendment cited does not apply.

In contrast to the Warren Court’s establishment of the superiority of the 14th Amendment over all other provisions of the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment shines brightly above it. Or at least with any free thinking individualist with skills to comprehend a sentence written in plain English.

“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.”

Abortion is in the most liberal of terms a medical procedure. There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate, over-see, fund, or otherwise interfere with medical procedures in this country in spite of the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid. Simply put, there is no existing authorization in the Constitution allowing the federal government to do so. However, under the 10th Amendment the states have such a right.

The Warren court decided to supercede the right of the State of Texas to deny a woman an abortion because the state had established the procedure as being not lawful within its jurisdiction. The Warren court’s decision to hear the case much less find some twisted “Constitutional right” was a clear violation of states’ right as defined under the 10th Amendment. Their justification for even hearing the case in the first place – interstate commerce. A medical procedure – legal or illegal – has suddenly become a matter of interstate commerce. This will be the justification for Obamacare next. But I digress.

With this decision, the Warren court made it possible to argue that since every product and/or service performed in this country – legal or illegal – has an intrinsic value and might be a cause for an individual to cross a state line in order to seek said product or service, it is automatically a matter of interstate commerce and thus the jurisdiction of the federal government. And if a product or service is denied to a citizen of a state by the state, it can be argued that the citizen’s rights of due process have been violated even though, that person had no previous condition of servitude.

Using that argument, in Nevada, anyone can walk into any public building and play a slot machine. Here in Ohio we cannot. Therefore my right to feed a potential gambling addiction (which I don’t have) cannot be satisfied. Because companies in Nevada supply these type of machines, it can be argued that Ohio’s anti-gambling laws constitute a violation of my 14th amendment rights under interstate commerce. I don’t have readily available access to those machines. (note: this is actually a better argument for interstate commerce due process interference than the Roe decision was.)

In a sense, the Roe decision opened the 14th amendment up for bastardization by any liberal crazy with a wild hair to do anything that is currently forbidden by a state government.

The Income Tax and the Beginning of Class Warfare

The next modification to our Constitution that contributed to our demise as a country is the 16th Amendment. A very simple amendment the establishment of an income tax.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This removed the requirement established in Article I requiring an enumeration of the people before the levying of any taxes in Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3. I know the reason for doing so however, that does not justify the levying taxes without an enumeration of the people as required by our founders. Removing the racial make-up and devaluation of the human-being implied by Article 1 Section 2, it still should be required that if any new tax is to be imposed on the people, an enumeration of the populous should be conducted in order to know how much revenue would be generated by said tax. This only makes common sense and thus why it was originally written into article I.

This income tax has been a vehicle by which a particular political party has created a separation of the people based solely on one’s ability to earn. Hard work, effort, and the taking of risks in this country is what makes it great. Those who wish to impose some twisted sense of social equality based solely on existence have created in a sense a war among the classes that takes place every 4 years at the ballot box. Those who ‘have’ continue to be vilified in this nation rather than rewarded for creating wealth and providing opportunities for others to establish themselves and provide for their families. A progressive and overly burdensome tax system has been implemented in order to spread the wealth in a quest to redistribute the wealth of the nation according to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

The worst kept political secret in this nation is that the Democrat party has been working towards full implementation of social Communism by way of income redistribution. And the vehicle used most often is the 16th Amendment.

The Popular Election of Senators – The States Are Removed from the Equation

With the passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment, the people would in a sense have two Houses of Representatives. Originally, the state legislatures had the responsibility of appointing 2 Senators in different term classes to the United States Senate for terms of 6 years. This is outlined in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Being appointed by the state legislature made a Senator accountable to the state from which he/she was appointed. This gave the state more power. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the people of this nation removed this accountability to the states and in a sense made the states subservient to the federal government. And the end of our Republic was begun.

Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

As of the ratification of the 17th Amendment, we are no longer a collection of 50 separate and independent nations, we are nothing more than 50 provinces or districts within the out of control monster known as the United States.

Conclusion

Many cite the Constitution as the ultimate authority in the United States. This idea is nothing more than fiction. It is the will of the people as expressed by the people. We will it or it cannot be so. This authority is granted to us by GOD and declared to the world as such by the Declaration of Independence.

With the growing emergence of the sovereignty movement among the states, I can see a day when the United States as we know it could – and I emphasize the word COULD – be obsolete. If every one of the 50 states declared themselves independent again – like the Constitution originally intended – then perhaps a new agreement among the states could replace the now totally flawed and bastardized Constitution like it replaced the Articles of Confederation. One could only hope.

Gribbit Reporting for Stop the ACLU – Ohio

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Arizona Moves To Protect Residents From ObamaCare

William Teach — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:55:24 +0000

It appears as if the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments are alive and kicking in Arizona

Voters in Arizona will decide next year whether residents will be subject to mandates in the pending health care reform that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promoting.

At least five other states – Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming – have considered proposals to take pre-emptive action against the pending federal mandates, but those proposals have either not made it out of committee, failed to get enough votes from one side of the legislature, or are still being crafted.

Only the Arizona Legislature introduced an initiative (HCR2014), which if passed, would amend the state constitution to codify that no resident would be required to participate in any public health care option. Arizonans will vote on the initiative in November 2010.

Good for them, but, I suspect it could end up in a Supreme Court showdown with any federal legislation, which is certain to include language similar to what ended up in the House cap and tax bill, which, in Section 189(a)(2) made it clear that any State law could be ignored.

Related, 19 Democrat House members have sent a letter telling Nancy Pelosi to leave abortion measures out of ObamaCare.

“Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly (are) unacceptable,” they wrote.

Also, many small companies are dropping electronic medical records due to the cost, as well as functionality and training issues. Of course, Obama wants all records to be electronic, so, surely his plan will tax the rich to pay for this, right? We all know why he wants all the records on-line, though, and it isn’t to decrease costs or anything.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Democrat Says Gov’t Doesn’t Have to ‘Live Within Our Means’

Warner Todd Huston — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:39:21 +0000

-By Warner Todd Huston

So, as a common citizen, what do you do when you are out of money and your credit is used up? Well, you go without don’t you? Like my Mother always used to say, “What are you gonna do, buy something with your good looks?”

Well, we are all getting woefully used to feeling that government can’t seem to understand that fraud, waste, and overspending is not a good idea. In fact, we are starting to realize that government is incapable of fiscal responsibility.

But, even as we realize this truth, politicians at least pretend that they are interested in fiscal responsibility. They pretend at laws that supposedly force government into a balanced budget, they make claims that they are fully funding their new causes, and they act as if they are concerned about the budget.

Well, apparently California Budget Conference Committee Chairman Noreen Evans (D, Santa Rosa) has decided to cast away the mask of fiscal responsibility. She has publicly announced that she believes that government does not have to “live within our means.” In fact, it is a duty to spend on just any old thing that government wants to spend on.

No wonder California and the nation is in such a mess. Our politicians are irresponsible and feel no reason not to be.

I found the transcript on the RedState diary of Erick Brockway who found the video originally on the John and Ken show site.

Transcript:

Well, there is this mantra out there ‘live within our means’, and while that sounds really nice, it sounds really simple, and it sounds really responsible, its meaningless. Our means are completely within our control. And, as has been pointed out by numerous people, we have just recently given away huge corporate subsidies in February, we have given away other tax reductions over many many years we’ve created new tax loopholes, in good times we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. We continuously borrow, which is an enormous cost that we shift on into future years, and we find ourselves now with a deficit that — an ongoing structural deficit that we simply can’t close. So, ‘live within our means’ doesn’t mean anything. The fact is, we have a state that has a population that have needs, that we have a moral obligation to provide.

Unbelievable, isn’t it?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Local ACLU branch loses the plot

JonJayRay — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:00:37 +0000

They seem to have forgotten that Christians are the enemy:

“An incident at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival in which ministers were prohibited from distributing religious literature has caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. Marjorie Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana and a part-time Breaux Bridge resident, wrote a letter May 15 to Breaux Bridge Mayor Jack Delhomme and city leaders to do what it takes to ensure that all expression, including religious expression, be allowed in public places.

The letter was prompted by reports that several ministers were stopped from distributing religious literature outside the Crawfish Festival in a public park earlier this month, she said. “The sidewalks of Breaux Bridge, as any other city, are public spaces open to everyone. They cannot be preempted by a private group for private purposes,” Esman wrote. “Neither religious nor any other speech on public streets or in public spaces may be curtailed to benefit a private group.”

Delhomme, the ministers and others are expected to meet next week to discuss the incident and determine how to avoid a similar situation in the future, City Attorney Chester Cedars said. “There is no ordinance that prohibits these individuals from doing what they were doing,” Cedars said. “Even if there was such an ordinance, it would be unconstitutional.”

In her letter to Delhomme, Esman notes that the ACLU “has a long history of supporting religious freedom and expression.” [First time I have heard of it]

Cedars said he finds that statement ironic since the ACLU threatened to sue the city of Breaux Bridge several years ago for displaying a nativity scene in a public park.

Source

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

[Editor's note: Preamble to the Louisiana Constitution. "We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy..."]

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Sherriff Joe Tells Conyers To Take A Hike

William Teach — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:25:12 +0000

You tell ‘em, Joe!

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com he is going to invite Maricopa County (Ariz.) Sheriff Joe Arpaio to testify in his committee about alleged abuses by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in its enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. But a spokeswoman for Arpaio told CNSNews.com that the sheriff–who has not yet received an official invitation to testify–currently has “no intention” of appearing before Conyers’ committee.

The spokeswoman said, however, that Arpaio “welcomes” a Justice Department investigation into the way his sheriff’s office has handled enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Say, I wonder if Conyers has heard of this little thing called the 10th Amendment? Not that the Constitution means much to Democrats, except when they want it to back them up. Otherwise, eh, no big deal to them.

“We are not surprised by the initiation of hearings and so forth,” said Allen. “We knew when the administration in Washington changed, the likelihood of getting a much more sympathetic ear to a lot of these open-border activists would probably occur. We are not at all concerned about the hearings or about the Department of Justice investigation. We are confident that we are not racially profiling. We have trained and are cognizant of that type of criticism being levied against us all the time,” she said.

Democrats look at people and see groups, just like Rush Limbaugh stated at CPAC. They put people in a box and look at how they can be pandered to. They look at illegals and see a way to increase their voting base by giving amnesty to people whose first act was to break American law.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he is worried that Conyers’ intended hearing is an attempt to discourage enforcement of the immigration law.

“Some Democrats seem to have forgotten that in America, you’re innocent until proven guilty,” Smith told CNSNews.com in a statement. “I’m concerned that this hearing is an attempt to intimidate other law enforcement officials and discourage immigration enforcement. Democrats need to stop trying people in the court of public opinion–where there is no evidence–and let the Justice Department do its job without political interference.”

Separating Democrats from harsh partisan politics is like trying to separate dung beetles from sh..

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

What’s LEFT of the Constitution? Prop. 8 and the Administration’s Marriage Doubletalk

Greg Scott — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:09:03 +0000

Alliance Defense Fund: What’s Left of the Constitution? California, Marriage, and the Obama Administration

“What’s Left of the Constitution?” is a periodic news digest featuring Alliance Defense Fund legal analysis of proposals, policies, and trends advanced by the federal government. On a regular basis, this digest specifically highlights policies and actions that move America away from the principles of the U.S. Constitution and closer to the demands of the political Left, especially ones that threaten religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and the family.

For the second time in less than a year, the California Supreme Court will decide whether to reject the votes of millions of Californians regarding marriage. Proposition 8 implemented an amendment to the California Constitution that states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It passed by a margin of approximately 5 percent in November 2008.

The impact of the court’s decision will not be limited to marriage. Soon we will know whether the democratic process matters and what the impact will be on those who disagree with advocates of homosexual behavior.

Marriage remains a hot-button issue, and advocates of the homosexual agenda continue to argue that the public should have no say in the matter. These activists have adopted a two-pronged assault to enact their desires: first, to harass and vilify those who disagree; and second, to find judges who are sympathetic and will overrule the people.

When presidential candidate Barack Obama visited the Saddleback Civil Forum in California in August 2008, he gave his views on marriage:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”

Yet, the new administration’s actual policies and planned actions for marriage are stated much differently. The new administration…

· Supports “full civil unions and federal rights for [homosexual] couples”

· Opposes a “constitutional ban on same-sex marriage”

· Promises to repeal the federal “Defense of Marriage Act”

One look at the “Civil Rights Agenda” page of the White House website makes it clear that the rhetoric during the Saddleback Forum does not match the reality of the new administration’s priorities. They are advocating policies—and creating a legal and political landscape—that will lead to the judicial redefinition of marriage.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Obambi Seeks A New Assault Weapons Ban

William Teach — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:55:15 +0000

I’ll be honest, I do not really see the point behind owning assault weapons as a private citizen, I seriously doubt there is going to be another revolution, but, see, there is that pesky 2nd Amendment thing, so, if you want one, Mr. I Was A Constitutional Professor wants to infringe on your Right

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

Here’s an interesting thought, though it is not the first time I have had it: why couldn’t Obama or some other Democrat have proposed legislation since 2004? Sure, it would have probably failed when the GOP controlled Congress, and Bush would more then likely have vetoed it from during the time the Democrats controlled Congress up to Barry taking over, but, they could have at least gotten it on record, right?

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Oh, you mean the people that acquired the weapons illegally? How would a ban stop that, Eric? All it will do will be to stop the people who do things legally from acquiring an assault weapon. But, apparently U.S. citizens have to give up their rights (again) for Mexican nationals.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

More States Asserting Sovereignty

loboinok — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:42:08 +0000

Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.

The sentiments to declare themselves legally independent from Washington have swept across as many as a dozen states, renewing a debate over so-called unfunded mandates that last raged in the 1990s. The states question whether the U.S. government can force states to take actions without paying for them or impose conditions on states if they accept certain federal funding.

[snip]

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon introduced a resolution that he said would enable his state to “reclaim its 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10th Amendment.”

Other states pursuing sovereignty resolutions are Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington. Similar measures are likely to be introduced in more than a dozen other states, analysts said.

“The states are sending a message,” said Robert Alt, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

Read the full story here.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post