Warning: U Turn or Crash

U-Turn to right permitted

For a very short time in the history of the world, America was an oasis of liberty in a global desert of humanistic oppression. That era is rapidly coming to an end. Furthermore, it appears more evident each day that we may have passed the point of no return. No matter what decisions our leaders make in the next few months, we cannot defy the laws of economics and math. Eventually, we will end up in financial bankruptcy and social chaos. At that point, based on the lessons of history and the law of cause and effect, order can only be restored to the chaos by draconian government intervention.

When that happens, we will have lost all hope of ever returning to a constitutional republic. America will lose its place as the “leader of the Free World”. We will no longer be the “policeman of the world” helping to maintain world order. The disorder and confusion we now see in the Middle East and Europe will continue to spread until chaos extends throughout the world, requiring the same solution, draconian government intervention. Conditions will then be ripe for establishing the long sought after goal of humanists, socialists, communists and other left wing groups, for a one-world government; the “New World Order” spoken of by George H.W. Bush many years ago.

Many of my readers are probably thinking to themselves, “The old man has finally lost it”. In 2008 when I first began to write about the dangers of an Obama Presidency, the most common response from my friends was, “that could never happen here, the American people would never stand for it.” I was also chided by my friends when I labeled Barack Obama as a socialist when he first appeared on the political scene. For some reason, I do not hear those criticisms so much today. Anyway, before you click off this page, let me assure you these thoughts are not original with me. They are gleaned from political philosophers, news accounts of current events, and the writings of commentators on political and religious history. For example, the modern progressive goal of a one world government dates back to the utopian thinkers of the twentieth century as a means for ending war, curing world hunger and furthering the socialist idea of “social justice”.

A number of groups have long sought to bring global trade, finance, transnational businesses and natural resources, under international control. The vehicle through which they hope to exercise control is the United Nations. The most active of these groups are the American Humanist Association and the Unitarian Universalists Association; both recognized United Nations NGOs with consultative status on a number of UN committees. The ultimate goal is a secular federated world government as stated in the 1973 doctrinal statement of the American Humanist Association.

“We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.” Humanist Manifesto II (1973)

If we understand this, we are closer to understanding those who work for open borders, amnesty and a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants, not to mention such UN programs as Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Protocol. It also helps to explain the thinking of those who advocate the power to tax for the UN. Our national sovereignty is being attacked and slowly chipped away by the UN, issue by issue, and with the full support of too many in Washington; much in the same manner as the federal government has worked for years to destroy the sovereignty of the states.

America is on the verge of social and economic collapse. Once that happens, it will be a simple thing to surrender our sovereignty to the “democratic” protection of a world government. A large segment of our population — perhaps even a majority — have already been conditioned to accept it, through amoral secular education and the alluring promises of humanistic socialism. Any reform or reversal of our current trend must take place before we reach that point. Once we allow a societal collapse, through apathy or avarice, there will be no hope of returning to the America past generations sacrificed so much to build and preserve. As we prepare for the struggles ahead, it would be well to remember that our battles are not only fiscal and political; they are spiritual as well; “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Eph. 6:12.

This nation was founded by the Providence of God and it can only be salvaged by the Providence of God. Our government must return to our plainly written founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and our churches must return to the authority of the Holy Scriptures if we are to see true reformation. A Biblical passage that has been quoted so frequently lately, that it has almost become a cliché, is “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” II Chronicles 7:14. Cliché or not, it is a promise from God that America cannot afford to ignore.

Advertisement

Another Big Lie of the Left

One of the most absurd and dangerous ideas ever sold to the American people is found in the oft repeated slogan, “Our diversity is our strength”. We have heard this a lot lately with the push for open borders and sodomite marriage. A little reflection mixed with a little common sense quickly shows the fallacy of this cliché. “How can two walk together except they be agreed?”  The problem is that it has been repeated so often and sounds so appealing that many if not most of our fellow citizens have accepted it as the gospel truth. Consequently, they are not too alarmed when the Democrat Party uses the many diverse groups that make up the American society to divide us into voting blocks designed to keep them in power.

The Hallmark of the American socialists who make up today’s Democrat Party, is their success in dividing the American people into groups along racial, ethnic, economic and social lines, and then pandering to those groups through legislation designed to secure their loyalty in dependable, organized voting blocs. Often proponents of this tactic use the motto, “E Pluribus Unum”, Latin for, “Out of many, one,”  inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States, to show that diversity has always been an American ideal.

As is usual when progressives attempt to use language to support their causes, the motto on the Great Seal has a meaning opposite to what the left would have us believe. At the time it was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1781, it had nothing do with the population makeup of the thirteen colonies. Rather it was a graphic illustration of the unity of those colonies in their opposition to British tyranny under King George III.

On the face of the Great Seal immediately above the banner containing the motto, we see a constellation of thirteen stars representing the unity of the thirteen colonies. The shield has thirteen stripes, again representing the thirteen colonies. The olive branch, a universally recognized symbol of peace, held in the eagle’s claw, has thirteen leaves and thirteen berries. The thirteen arrows, held in the other claw represent the Iroquois symbol of war. Together, they form a graphic illustration of a line found in the Declaration of Independence, “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends. (End of next to last para.)

On the reverse side of the seal, we see an unfinished pyramid with thirteen levels representing the yet unfilled potential of the Union. Above the pyramid we have the all-seeing eye of Divine Providence watching over its progress, another reference to the Declaration; “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (Last sentence in Declaration of Ind.)

The Great Seal of the United States was officially adopted by the new Congress on September 15, 1789 when it ordered, “that the seal heretofore used by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be, and hereby is declared to be, the seal of the United States.”  The motto inscribed on the seal became the unofficial motto of the U.S. until Congress adopted “In God We Trust” as the Nation’s official motto in 1956. U. S. coins today have both mottoes inscribed on them, one on each side. It is important to recognize that in the thinking of the Founders the emphasis was on the unity, “One”, not the diverse, “Many”.

It was not diversity that supplied the strength to build the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth. Our unity was, and is our strength. When we lose that unity, we become correspondingly weaker as a nation. Neither does our history support the proponents of multiculturalism and diversity. There were several other colonies on the North American continent at the time of the Revolution in 1776. The largely French speaking colonies of Canada did not join in the Revolution or in the formation of the new government, although the Articles of Confederation made provision for their inclusion. Of course, the Spanish speaking colonies to the south did not participate, leaving the thirteen English speaking colonies along the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Georgia with one culture, one language and one God. It was the unification of this group that was illustrated by the Great Seal.

In Matthew 12:25 Jesus spoke the self-evident truth that, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:”  That will be America’s fate, if we continue to allow the left’s efforts to divide us to succeed, as it has been doing for the last several decades. We must reject the ideas of multilingualism and multiculturalism if we are to regain the liberties we have lost and once again take control of our government. That does not mean that we should reject immigration or that we deny the many blessings of citizenship to the diverse sub-cultures that make up our society. It means that new immigrants and the positive elements of the sub-cultures must be assimilated into the overall American culture, as they were by our forefathers during the founding and expansion of America for the first four-hundred or so years of our existence. America is a nation of former immigrants who wished to become Americans. America afforded them the opportunity and encouragement to do just that, and we must do so again or we will be brought to “desolation” and “shall not stand” as a nation.

Obama Presidency Most Lawless in History

The Obama government is the most lawless government in American History. When the fifty-five delegates to the Philadelphia Convention debated and crafted the U.S. Constitution their intention was to write the rules for the operation of the federal government. Their task was to preserve the principles of government identified in the Declaration of Independence, while at the same time, drawing up a plan that would provide the new government with the powers necessary for carrying out their legal functions and preserve the sovereignty of the participating states. A crucial goal of the Constitution was to limit the power and scope of the federal government and prevent it from encroaching on the legitimate powers of the states.

Article VI of the Constitution established the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land”. More specifically, it established the Constitution as the supreme law governing the operations and scope of the federal government. Only to the extent that the government is in compliance with the Constitution can it make any claim to being a government “of laws and not of men”.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to clarify portions of the Constitution and give emphasis to its limited powers. The limit on the powers of the federal government was given further emphasis in the Tenth Amendment. From the beginning, many power-hungry elected officials, tried to expand their powers beyond those granted. For the first hundred years Presidents and the Supreme Court were somewhat effective in defending the integrity of the Constitution. However, in the presidential elections of 1892 and 1896 conscious decisions were made by all the major political parties to begin testing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

The most important proposed departures from the original plan was to allow the federal government to collect a graduated income tax, and elect Senators by popular vote rather than by appointment of the state legislators as the Constitution required. The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments ratified in 1913 during the “progressive era” opened the floodgates, allowing for the wholesale violation of the Constitution. The sixteenth Amendment allowed for a direct income tax on individuals, making it possible for socialists and progressives in government to engage in income redistribution through a graduated income tax. The Seventeenth Amendment shifts the election of Senators from the state legislatures to the general population of each state, effectively neutralizing the Tenth Amendment placing the real government power in the hands of political “bosses” of the Parties in power.

Since that time the powers of the federal government and violations of the Constitution have increased exponentially to the point that it is questionable whether we are any longer a Constitutional Republic. Every administration since 1896 has violated the Constitution, both Democrats and Republicans. However, none have so blatantly refused to acknowledge the authority of the Constitution as Barack Obama, beginning with the first sentence of the first Article.

Article 1.1.1 “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This clause makes it clear that the Executive and Judicial Branches do not have the power to legislate or make laws. Yet, most of the laws enforced by the federal government today that infringe on our liberties originate in the Executive and Judicial Branches and not in the Legislature. The legitimate functions of the various departments in the Executive Branch are to implement the laws and policies established by the Legislative Branch. The Treasury Department, State Department, Interior Department, Justice Department, and Defense Departments exist under the “necessary and proper clause” of the enumerated powers section. Others are unconstitutional because they do not relate to the limited powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Today we have a plethora of Executive Branch bureaucracies, reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, making laws affecting every aspect of our personal and business life. These bureaucracies are headed by “Secretaries” who are illegally authorized by Congress to make laws at their discretion. This is a double violation of the Constitution; (1) Most are unconstitutional because their jurisdictions are not authorized by the Constitution; (2) Congress does not have the authority to delegate its legislative powers to another branch of government.

President Obama has taken this egregious violation of the Constitution to a new height by appointing Czars over the various bureaucracies who answer directly to the President, and have the authority to “dictate” to the Secretaries and department officials the “rules” to be made and enforced by the full power of the federal government. Department Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate and are accountable to it. The Czars are appointed directly by the President and are not confirmed by or accountable to Congress. This situation cannot be allowed to continue if we are to maintain any fragment of our liberty in the future. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to cut funding for these unconstitutional departments until they are forced out of existence.

****

Article 1.3.6 “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

This clause makes the Vice President the Chief Executive Officer of the Senate. The phrase, “but shall have no vote” has been interpreted by Senate Political Parties to turn the office of President of the Senate into a ceremonial position with no executive authority. Contrary to the belief of Vice President Biden, The Constitution places the office of Vice President in the Legislative Branch not the Executive; its position in the line of Presidential succession not withstanding. As a matter of fact, Presiding over the Senate is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution. The office of Majority Leader, an unconstitutional office created by the Senate in 1921, has been allowed to usurp the authority of the Vice President with impunity for almost a hundred years. The Senate is the primary check on the Executive Branch of government. This departure from the Constitution upsets that balance of power in favor of the Executive Branch. There is no historical or Constitutional justification for the office of Majority Leader in its present form.

****

Article 1.7.1:  “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;”

1.7.2:  “but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

This clause gives the House of Representatives the “power of the purse” since revenue can only be raised to fund the legitimate functions of government and all revenue bills must specify the purposes for which the revenue is to be allocated.

Article 1.9.7:  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Since budgets, revenue and allocations are inseparably linked, budgets are to originate in the House although the Senate may propose amendments. The President can make budget recommendations to Congress under Section 2 of the Constitution.

Article 2.3.1:  “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”

The undisciplined and often unconstitutional methods of budgeting, allocating funds and raising revenue are a primary culprit in our present financial crisis.

Congressional authority for taxing and spending is further explained in section eight, Article I.

Article 1.8.1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

1.8.2:  but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1.8.3:  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Here Congress is given the power to tax and spend for three specific purposes; pay debts, provide for the general welfare and common defense. This is followed by a list of sixteen specific items for which revenue may be raised and spent, clarifying the general phrases “general welfare” and “common defense”.

****

One of the ways Party leaders ensure their choice of candidates for President and Vice President is to manipulate primary dates in violation of Article II of the Constitution. When we cast our votes in a primary election, we are actually voting for an Elector, and only indirectly for the candidate that Elector is pledged to support in the Electoral College. By manipulating the dates on which primaries are held, party leaders are able to influence the outcome through the power of suggestion, with support building for candidates who appear to have the most popular appeal. Article II, Section 1, clause 16, was included in the Constitution specifically to prevent prior voting by one state from influencing the votes in other states.

Article 2.1.16:  “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

This clause is a single compound sentence broken only by a semicolon. The rules of English indicates that the Framers intended for the “time of choosing the Electors” and the “day on which they shall give their votes” to be on the same day respectively. The primary system and the primary dates are the creation of Political Parties and not the Constitution. The current primary system often results in candidates being chosen that do not represent the real choice of the voters.

****

Article3.2.9:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

This clause gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases in which a state is one of the parties involved. However, due to the number of cases involving states because of the federal government’s overstepping of its Constitution role, for efficiency, cases involving states are handled in the same way any other federal lawsuit is handled; they are first heard in district courts, then appealed to the appellate courts, and eventually to the Supreme Court. We currently have several cases involving states winding their way through the court system; involving immigration, Obama care, and several other matters. Meanwhile the Constitutional issues these cases relate to continue unabated. The Constitution does not give either Congress or the Supreme Court the authority delegate these cases to a lower court.

****

One of the functions of the Executive Branch is to enforce the federal laws through the Justice Department.

Article 2.3.4:  [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The Obama Justice Department picks and chooses the laws it will enforce and ignores those the President disagrees with.  The most obvious laws that Obama refuses to enforce are immigration laws.

4.4.1 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

4.4.2 And shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

By any definition, the yearly influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. amounts to an invasion. Although “invasion” does not necessarily need to involve a foreign military, there have been several instances where foreign military have invaded U.S. territory while the Justice Department does nothing. There have been many instances where armed criminals have invaded our territory and committed murder and kidnapping, again with only a cursory response from the federal government. Example, instead of supplying protection to the State of Arizona when requested, and as the Constitution Demands, the Justice Department brought suit against the state for attempting to enforce the law themselves.

These are just some of the illegal acts committed by the federal government against the original Constitution. When we add violations of the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, the list becomes too long to discuss in detail in a blog post. They would include violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, expression and assembly; the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right of self-defense; Amendment Four protecting against illegal searches and seizures; and Amendment Five, the double-jeopardy Amendment. Last and most important is the constant and continuing violation of Amendment Ten.

Amendment 10-0:  “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.”

Who Enforces The Constitution?

By Jerry McDaniel

The number of people calling for Constitutional Amendments and Conventions seems to be growing along with America’s increasing dissatisfaction with Barack Obama and the direction his administration is taking the country. I have never quite understood the call for adding more amendments to the Constitution, but since so many of our fellow citizens seem to think that would solve our problems, why not give it a try.

We could start with an amendment listing what it is that we want the government to do for us, and then we could add one forbidding them to pass laws not related to those functions. How about one that says government cannot tax us except for what is necessary to carry out the functions listed? While we are at it, why not pass an amendment allowing us to keep firearms for the protection of our families and perhaps even allowing us to carry them when we go out in public? We could also pass an amendment forbidding government to interfere with our right to express our own mind when it comes to politics and religion. In fact, we could just tell the government our religious practices are none of its business. We could also pass an amendment that allows only Congress to make law, not the President, bureaucrats or judges.

My point is that calling for more constitutional amendments is like Mayor Daley of Chicago asking for more gun control laws to control crime. It is obvious that criminals who commit crimes with firearms are not particularly intimidated by laws against robbery, murder, assault and so on. So why would we expect them to be intimidated by more laws against guns. The same thing applies to adding more amendments to the constitution in the hope that they will in some way influence what government does. Adding another amendment to the Constitution is simply adding another law to regulate government to those already contained in the Constitution.

Any law is effective only when there is a very real likelihood that a penalty will be exacted for its violation. When the criminal knows there is little chance of their being punished for what they do, the fact that it is illegal will not prevent them from committing the crime. The same thing is true with members of government. The Constitution, along with its amendments is the law for government; therefore it applies mainly to politicians and government officials. The only penalty for its violation is removal from office, either through impeachment or through the ballot box. Expecting Congress to impeach its members for violating the Constitution is like deputizing Jesse James to apprehend train robbers or John Dillinger to arrest bank robbers.

The reason illegal immigration is the problem it is today is because those who are responsible for enforcing immigration law are not doing their job. Most thinking Americans realize that simply adding more laws will not correct the problem. The reason government’s violation of the Constitution is the problem it is, is because those responsible for enforcing it are not doing their job. Virtually every elected official who has been in office for any length of time is guilty of violating the Constitution. It is a crime to violate the Supreme Law of the Land, and yet, ninety to ninety-five percent of all incumbent politicians are returned to office by the voters to continue their criminal activities.

It is not the role of the Supreme Court or the Justice Department to enforce the Constitution any more than it is responsibility of drivers to enforce traffic laws. It is their duty to follow the law not to enforce it. When it comes to the enforcement of the Constitution, we, as voters, are the Prosecutor, Jury, Judge and Executioner. We are solely responsible for enforcing the rule of law on government. Until the American people realize and accept this fact, we can add all the amendments we want to the Constitution and it will make no difference. As long as we shirk our duty as the watchdogs of government, we have no right to expect someone else to do our work for us.

The voters of Arizona, while bemoaning the out-of-control problem with illegal immigration, again nominated John McCain as their candidate for Senate in the November elections. McCain has been one of the leading advocates for “comprehensive immigration reform” and amnesty for years. Illinois voters nominated progressive Mark Kirk as their candidate, again one of the most constitutionally criminal republicans on the ballot. Are we really sincere when we demand a return to Constitutional government and then go into the voting booth on Election Day and vote for a candidate that we know from experience, will not honor his oath of office and defend the Constitution?

The Mystery Of SB1070

I’m stymied. For days, I have been pondering the question of why United States vs. State of Arizona was filed in Federal District Court in Arizona instead of the Supreme Court in D.C. I cannot come up with a reasonable answer. Is the fact so obvious that the District Court has no jurisdiction in this case that everyone assumes that everybody connected with the case must be aware of it, and therefore, there must be a valid reason why the case was filed in a District Court instead of before the Supreme Court?

According to the American Bar Association, there were 1,143,358 lawyers in the U.S. at the end of 2007. My guess is that thousands of them have had some exposure to the U.S. Constitution at some time during their career. Many of them may have actually read it, and some of them are surely intimately familiar with its requirements. Yet, from what I can find out, only one lawyer, a retired attorney in Tennessee has raised the question. In an article in the Canada Free Press, Publius Huldah asserts that only the Supreme Court has the authority to hear the Case involving Arizona and its law, SB1070.

Ms. Huldah bases her theory on Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which reads.

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

The Framers intent and purpose is expressed so concisely and clearly in this clause, it is hard to imagine that even the most skilled lawyer could find a loophole invalidating its meaning. This clause is not affected by the Eleventh Amendment giving states sovereign immunity from suits brought by citizens of other states or countries in federal courts. In fact, this clause has never been amended under the Article V process.

By trying this case before a lower court judge rather than before the Supreme Court, as the Constitution requires, the status of state legislatures and the states in general, is significantly diminished in relation to the federal government. By precedent, it further damages the concept of federalism and state sovereignty. More importantly, it marks the end of Constitutional government in the United States. I cannot think of any case in which the clear wording of the Constitution has been so brazenly ignored.

In most instances of judicial activism, hidden meanings, nuances, or heretofore-undiscovered meanings or principles, are found in the Constitution to lend some justification to the court’s activism. This clause does not lend itself to such speculation. To make matters worse, Governor Brewer has indicated a willingness to “tweak” the law in order to make it more palatable to the federal government.

It seems to me, the best course of action by Arizona would be to simply ignore the ruling of the lower court and continue with its plans for enforcement. Doing so would not be in defiance of “the rule of law”; to do otherwise will be. Since the Constitution is the ultimate authority for or against actions by the federal government, to submit to the authority of a lower court in this case is a denial of constitutional law. If there is no constitutional law there is no law, period; and without law, there can be no liberty.

Another Shot To The Left Foot

Fortunately for America, the left keeps shooting itself in the foot; this time, with said foot firmly implanted in its mouth. I am talking, of course, about the ruling on Wednesday by activist judge Sarah Bolton on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration bill. While her ruling might seem to be a setback for patriots opposed to the open borders policy of the Obama Administration, it does stoke the fire in the belly of conservatives and other patriots everywhere. If nothing else, the left seems intent on keeping the passions of patriots white hot until the November elections. We need to thank them for that.

More than 70% of the voters support Arizona’s law and a majority of voters nationwide wants their Legislatures to pass similar laws. That is a large voting block for the left to alienate, and is another bone-headed action that could help lead to the destruction of the Democrat Party in the coming two election cycles.

While the court’s ruling is only a temporary injunction until the full case in presented in court, it does for the time being, neuter the Arizona law. The court forbade the police from questioning the immigration status of suspects picked up on other charges. It also prohibited the enforcement of the federal requirement that immigrants have their immigration papers on their person at all times. It also struck down the part of the law dealing with the illegal immigrant’s ability to seek employment and perform work. It leaves in place, however, the right to bring civil suit against sanctuary cities that refuse to allow enforcement of immigration law in their jurisdiction.

Drug dealers, rapists, muggers, carjackers, and so forth can now be bailed out and put back on the street instead of being turned over to ICE for processing and possible deportation, as has been the custom. I suppose that if an illegal immigrant flags down a police car and confesses to being an illegal immigrant, the officer can still provide taxi service to ICE headquarters, although that might be risky since the illegal can always change his mind and claim the officer demanded his “papers”.

This is by no means the final chapter in Arizona’s fight against illegal immigration. All eyes are now on Sheriff Arpiao to see what he will do. He already has a planned crime and immigration sweep scheduled to take place regardless of the outcome of the court case today. Some have suggested that Arizona officials ignore the court ruling and continue with its enforcement plans. This would trigger a constitutional crisis and no one knows what the outcome would be. Frog marching Governor Brewer out of the Governor’s Mansion would certainly be an attention grabber guaranteed to provide at least a couple of day’s material for our friends in talk radio and the talking heads on TV. Even members of the MSM like the New York Times and MSNBC would find it hard to ignore. The next few days are going to be quite interesting.

Obama vs Arizona Distorts Constitution

Arizona SB1070 tries the ability of the federal government’s propaganda arm.

Few things are more detrimental to American liberty than the distortion of facts and history by the propaganda arm of the federal government, i.e., the mainstream media. With the avalanche of unconstitutional actions dumped on the American people since the Obama Administration came to power it is difficult to pick out one that is more egregious than another. A case in point is the media’s handling of the Arizona immigration law supporting federal legislation.

An article in USA Today provides a prime example of the subtle ways used by the media to shade facts and distort constitutional issues. In its opening paragraph it attempts to frame the debate as the ongoing struggle to enforce, “The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority.” This description is the exact opposite of the truth. The struggle, even preceding ratification of the Constitution, has always been to keep the federal government from usurping the authority of the states in matters that affect the welfare of their citizens.

Another example is the claim that the Arizona law “makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents.” It is federal law that requires immigrants residing, working or visiting in the U.S. to carry documents identifying their immigrant status. Federal law requires all immigrants to have their immigration documents with them at all times, and to produce them when asked to do so by law enforcement. The Arizona law does not change that, it merely requires its law enforcement personnel to aid in the enforcement of federal law.

The statement by the writer that really gets to the heart of the matter is, “But courts have ruled that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is pre-empted. Federal law, the framers said, ‘shall be the supreme law of the land‘.” I challenge anyone, including the writer, law professors, or anyone else to point to or quote any source where the Framers or the Constitution declares federal law to be “the supreme law of the land.”

It is true that courts have ruled, “that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is pre-empted”. However, that is not what the Constitution says, and it is not what the Framers intended. Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution says “This Constitution, and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.”

It is unconscionable that persons who earn their daily bread by stringing words together into coherent sentences could so misuse the English language, the primary tool of their trade. According to Article VI, federal law supersedes state law, only when the federal law is necessary and proper for carrying out a power delegated to it by the Constitution. (Art. I, Sec. 8). In all other cases, state law supersedes federal law. This is made clear by 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 Constitution only gives the federal government the power to set uniform rules as to the qualifications for citizenship. It is silent on the matter of immigration, which is different from citizenship. Common sense and sound policy requires that federal and state governments cooperate in making and enforcing immigration law, but the Tenth Amendment gives the states the primary power.

Battle of the Century: Obama v. Brewer

Barack Obama to Jan Brewer: “See you in court”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Friday, in an Ecuadorian TV Interview, that the Obama Administration will sue the state of Arizona over SB1070, Arizona’s new Immigration Law.

“President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy…and the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act,” Clinton said.

Both Hillary and Barack are lawyers so when they agree on something it should be right.  After all, Obama is a Constitution Scholar, according to his press clippings.  Nevertheless, it is a good idea to seek other lawyers’ opinions when considering a legal issue of this magnitude. Therefore, we decided to look at what other lawyers around the country were saying on the matter.

We first read an Op-Ed piece in the Casper Wyoming Star Tribune written by Ryan Frost of the Wyoming Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Frost wasn’t much help since his opinion on the law was mostly clichés like, “Creating a Police State”— his title for the article, “it betrays fundamental American values” and, “in America, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty”. He did get into the meat of the matter, however, with, “this law is un-American because it invites discrimination and undermines our values of fairness, equal protection under the law, and inalienable rights for all”.

To strengthen his argument, he also threw in the reminder that, “America’s history and culture is one that was created largely by immigrants”. Finally, he makes an appeal to the Constitution stating that the law “violates the Constitutional allocation of authority between federal and state governments; the Supremacy Clause makes this clear”, he wrote. Pretty powerful stuff.

Next, we turned to the Charleston, West Virginia Gazette and an article by Sean W. Cook an attorney for Meyer Ford and Glasser in Charleston.  Mr. Cook presented an argument that is a little more convincing. He writes,

“…Beyond the rallies and political battles, though, the Arizona law raises questions involving fundamental constitutional principles that have governed our nation since its inception. Most notable are issues regarding the balance of power between federal and state government and the most sacred individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution…. [It] invokes the legal doctrine of federal preemption derived from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Preemption trumps all state laws directed at specific legal areas already federally regulated or addressed by Congress through legislation, as well as those state laws that conflict with or frustrate the purpose of federal law…”,

Finally, we looked at the Atlanta Journal Constitution and an article by Luis A. Velez, a magna cum laude graduate of Georgia State College of Law. Mr. Velez presents a more balanced view, citing as compelling interests the unemployment rate for U.S. citizens and the increasing Arizona crime rate, but concludes that,

“… [While] these are compelling interests, …since they are federal, not state, matters, I believe they render SB 1070 unconstitutional. The Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution states that federal law preempts, or ‘trumps’ state law… [U]nder Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, regulation of immigration and national borders are federal, not state, matters…”

As with these three lawyers, the principle argument against the Arizona law by members of the legal profession is that it violates the Supremacy clause in the Constitution, and to bolster that argument it is claimed that constitutionally, immigration is a federal issue, not state.

I suppose we should cut these lawyers some slack for their shortcomings in understanding the Constitution since law schools do not teach the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they teach case law about the Constitution. That’s kind of like the old parlor game where the guests are lined up and the first person in line is given a message, which he whispers in the ear of the person next to him. That person then whispers the message to the next person, and so on, continuing to the last person, who then repeats the message aloud. Invariably, there will be little resemblance between the message heard by the last person and the message given to the first person.

That basically is how the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis” or binding precedent works. Each time an appellate court hands down a ruling on a constitutional matter it becomes a precedent that must be considered by other courts whenever a similar case comes before it. After over two hundred years of precedents, each building on a previous ruling in a similar case, it is no wonder that there is often little resemblance between the court’s opinion and the text of the Constitution.

For example, Article 1.8.4 gives Congress the power to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization”. Naturalization is not the same as immigration. The former deals with citizenship while the latter deals with residence. The Constitution says nothing about immigration and until the early twentieth century immigration matters were left to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

An objective reading of the “Supremacy Clause” yields a similar result. The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI of the Constitution which reads,

(6.0.2-3) “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land…and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding”.

The first thing we should notice about this passage is that it is the Constitution, not federal law per se, that is the “supreme law of the land”. In order for federal law to take precedence over state law it must first meet the Constitutional requirement of the Supremacy Clause. That is, it must be a law that is made in “pursuance” to the Constitution. In other words, it must be a law that is necessary for “carrying into execution” one of the enumerated powers. (Art 1.8.18) Immigration law does not meet this Constitutional threshold since it is not necessary for the federal government to control immigration in order to set an uniform rule for becoming a U.S. citizen.

Since immigration is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution it is a power that is “reserved to the states and to the people“. (Amendment 10) In the end, whether the courts rule in favor of Arizona or the federal government will depend on whether they follow the doctrine of stare decisis or the plain text of the Constitution. It will be an interesting and important case to watch.

Anchor Babies – Arizona’s Next Target

To turn a progressive into a “strict constructionist”,  just ask them to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to a Friday Time Magazine article, the next target in Arizona’s battle to keep from being overrun with invaders from south of the border, will be “anchor babies”.  According to the article, State Senator Russell Pearce, architect of SB1070, —which appears to be America’s favorite piece of legislation— says a bill dealing with birthright citizenship will likely be introduced this fall.  Like SB1070, any new bill is expected to face court challenges as soon as it is signed into law.

Author of the article, Adam Klawonn writes, the bill “would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.” How is that for objective reporting? Whether children of illegal immigrants born in America are legal citizens or not is something the courts have not yet decided. There are hundreds of legal experts that would take exception to Mr. Klawonn’s assertion.

Most of us have been taught that the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of how they came to be here in the first place.  It is practically the only part of the Constitution where progressives insist on a literal interpretation. They consider the language of Article I, Section 8, and the First, Second and Tenth Amendments as flexible. However, on this Amendment they all seem to become “strict constructionists”.  The problem is that even a strict constructionist’s interpretation does not support their contention.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” It was first proposed to the states by Congress in 1866. The part that creates a problem for proponents of birthright citizenship is the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.  The meaning of, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, is explained by a Senator who was a part of the debate leading up to the proposal.

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”  Senator Jacob Howard (R-Mi) 1866

Howard was one of the Senators responsible for the inclusion of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and certainly should know the intention of the wording. Bear in mind, this statement was made on the floor of the Senate two years before the Amendment was ratified in 1868, and would have been part of the information available to the states, explaining its meaning, at the time ratification was under consideration.

Another member of the same Senate confirmed Howard’s meaning.

“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”  Senator Edgar Cowan, (R-Pa)

In the 1884 Supreme Court Case “Elk v. Wilkins”, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was interpreted to exclude, “children of ministers, consuls and citizens of foreign states born within the United States”.

The progressive’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is completely illogical.  If the Amendment grants citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants, then it would also have to grant citizenship to children born to tourists, persons in the country on business, and all other foreign nationals no matter the reason they happen to be here.  Children of foreign nationals born in America are normally granted citizenship in their parent’s homeland. Would they then have dual citizenship?

It is important to the long-term progressive agenda to establish a permanent underclass in the United States that will form a power base for keeping them in office. Since a large percentage of this underclass would be dependent on the federal government for a major part of their livelihood, it is assumed they would be easily manipulated into voting for progressives in their own self-interest.  That explains why progressives usually will only make an issue of “birthright citizenship” when it involves illegal  immigrants from the third world countries of South and Central America or one of the Caribbean islands. “Anchor babies”, along with welfare, health care, state run education and other segments of the welfare state are all used as a means to the same end, to gain and hold onto power.

How the courts decide on this issue if far from certain, but there can be little doubt of the original intent of the Congress who proposed the Amendment and the State Legislatures that ratified it.

It’s Not Just Mexicans Crossing Our Borders

This video documents the fact that many of the illegal immigrants coming into our country across the Southern border are from Middle East countries know to be supporter of international terrorism.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

posted with vodpod