Category Archives: justice

How the Left uses the First Amendment to destroy our liberty and our culture

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

When the Constitution was presented to the states in 1787 for ratification, it was quickly noted that while it only delegated certain limited powers to the Federal Government, there was no clear language preventing it from exercising powers beyond those delegated. Some states demanded the addition of a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification. After a long public debate carried out in the newspapers of the day —the eighteenth century equivalent of the Blogosphere— it was agreed that a Bill of Rights would be presented to the states for ratification by the first Congress. The result was the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

In the post-constitution America we live in today, both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are routinely ignored by the Federal government. To add insult to injury, it is not enough that they are ignored by the progressive politicians populating Washington today, over the past century, activists have increasingly learned how to use the Amendments to the Constitution to undermine the historical American Culture and silence opposition. The most egregious distortion of the Constitution is the progressive’s use of the First Amendment to stifle religious liberty and promote its own religious doctrines through legislation, coercion and psychological manipulation. The ultimate purpose is to destroy the Biblical values that are the foundation of the American culture and replace them with the humanistic values that are the foundation of progressivism (American socialism) and other left-wing “-isms”.

Read Entire Article

Advertisements

Senator Leahy’s Plan For Substitute Justices

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) plans law to allow retired Justices to return to Supreme Court on temporary basis.

According to the Legal Time’s blog, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is planning to introduce legislation to allow retired Justices to return to the court to sit in for any Justice who has recused himself from a case. This plan may pass constitutional muster under Article 1.8.10 and Article 3.2.10, but it does not pass the “common sense” test and is definitely bad policy.

Common Sense

In the real world –private sector, for example– when someone retires from a job, they are no longer employed in that position.  If they wish to return to their old job, either temporarily or permanently, they have to be rehired.  Logically the same requirement would apply to Supreme Court Justices. They would have to be re-nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate before they could sit on the Court.

Evidently, President Obama has recused himself (voted present) from responsibility for the Gulf oil spill. Would any Democrat like to persuade Senator Leahy to allow a recall of prior Presidents to the White House– George W. comes to mind– to oversee fixing the leak and cleaning up the aftermath? Probably not.

Any legislative attempt to change the Court in order to institute Leahy’s policy would also require a new law changing the number of Justices on the Court. There are currently nine. A Justice who recuses himself or herself from a case would still be a member of the Court and the retired Justice replacing him would bring the number to ten. If the current Court is increased to ten in order to accommodate the additional temporary Justice you would have an even number, possibly allowing for a split decision, which is the problem the plan is supposed to fix.

Bad Policy

With the upcoming retirement of Justice Stevens, there will be three Justices in retirement available for temporary recall under the Leahy bill.  They are Stevens, O’Connor and Souter. My guess is that should one of the sitting Justices recuse themselves –Roberts, for example– either Stevens or Souter would be asked to fill in for him.

Should Leahy be successful in getting his law passed, we can only imagine the political intrigue that would ensue. Every time a case, important to the welfare of the nation, was scheduled to come before the Court. Progressive Democrats and the mainstream media would be working for months in an attempt to find some excuse to demand one of the constitutionally conservative Justices recuse themselves. The Court would be in a constant state of turmoil.

When and if Leahy’s bill ever sees the light of day, Republicans must see to it that it is killed, buried and forgotten.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Arizona Testing Sanity of the Left

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Arizona is driving the left crazy. What is weird is that almost without exception, opponents to Arizona’s SB1070 show in their proclamations against the bill that Arizona is within its legal rights in what it is doing.

For example, the Chambers of Commerce for a number of Mexican border towns have called for “a day without Mexicans” for May 25.  The idea is for Mexicans to avoid crossing into the U.S. on that day for any reason, including shopping or work. Girón Fernández de Jáuregui, President of the Nuevo Laredo Chamber of Commerce says, “It will be a grand moment of solidarity among border Mexicans”. Nuevo Laredo, of course, is on the border with Texas, not Arizona, and Texas has indicated they do not intend to follow Arizona’s lead.

No matter. According to de Jaueregui, he has already heard that “some legislators are considering carrying a bill that would make criminals out of those without documents.”  Duhh, the Arizona law does not make criminals out of anyone. That is something people do for themselves whenever they choose to break the law. It has been illegal for aliens to be in the U.S. without permission since at least the 1940s. All foreign nationals are required by Federal law to carry proof of their immigration status with them at all times.  That is nothing new.  Failure to carry the proper documentation makes one subject to arrest, and penalties up to and including deportation.

Neither is being stopped and asked for identification, although that is reasonably rare.  I am an average looking Caucasian male, and have been stopped by police on several occasions and asked for identification; once when someone fitting my description had committed a crime and was being sought by the cops. Had I not produced identification I would have gotten a free ride to the closest police station. There is nothing at all unusual about being asked for identification.  It is virtually impossible to carry on any new financial transactions, register for a hotel room, cash a check or any one of a million other actions we engage in every day without producing some type of valid ID.

Another illogical response is by the AFL-CIO. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 organizations, urged the administration to immediately stop cooperating with local law enforcement officials in Arizona. The illogical nature of this protest is included in the letter which says, in part,

“We write to express our deep concern with the Department of Homeland Security’s continued cooperation with state and local law enforcement in Arizona pursuant to Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (”the 287(g) program”) in the aftermath of Arizona’s passage of Senate Bill 1070, and we ask that you immediately rescind all 287(g) program agreements in Arizona.

Section 287(g) is the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing the Immigration Service to train and supervise state law enforcement in enforcing immigration law.  In other words, the AFL-CIO objects to Arizona doing exactly what the decades old immigration law intended for them to do.

And of course, no left wing protest would be complete without pointing out the negative impact on women and children. This one is no exception.  A group called “The Women’s Emergency Human Rights Delegation” released a statement in Phoenix on May 9.

“…We bear witness to the brutal impacts of this legislation on women and children and the threat of similar laws nationally.

The testimony we have heard here makes clear in vivid and haunting detail how SB 1070 constitutes a violation of every principle we hold dear to safeguard women and mothers, workers and leaders.  It has paved the way for assaults on the basic human rights of women who came here simply to support their families, and created an environment in which violence against women and children in every way (physical, spiritual and legal) has been state-sanctioned.

Women and children courageously recalled before us some of the traumatic experiences they have faced. Their testimony reveals the horrific consequences and enduring effects of raids, harassment and detention of family members in migratory communities – as well as their incredible spirit of resistance….”

The same complaint, of course, could be made by the family of any person arrested for the violation of any law. Police and courts routinely separate criminals from their families.  There is no alternative. By definition, illegal immigrants are criminals.  They may not be violent; they may work every day and support their family; they may pay their debts and taxes, but they are nonetheless criminals because they routinely break the law.

America’s immigration laws are designed to allow for an orderly immigration process that facilitates assimilation and the eventual Americanization of those who wish to become a part of the American dream. These and similar laws have allowed America to develop into the “melting pot” that was admired by all the peoples of the world, until the mid-1960s when enforcement of immigration law began to fall apart. The choices we have now is either to once again bring common sense and order to our immigration policies, or turn our backs on all that our forefathers have built and allow our country to be overrun and changed forever by massive, uncontrolled immigration that literally threatens to destroy our way of life forever.

Documents referred to in this post:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/05/14/afl-cio-federal-government-must-cut-ties-with-arizona-law-enforcement/

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/upload/womensrights_05092010.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/janet-napolitano-urged-to_n_576143.html

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/alerts/upload/napolitano_05102010.pdf
SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

An IDIOT'S Guide to the Obama Agenda

liberty-bellThe first thing one has to face if they are to understand the agenda of President Obama is that he does not love America; at least, not as it has existed for the past two centuries.  That does not mean he does not love his country.  I am sure he does, but he does not love its history; its culture; its constitution; its economic system; its political system; its military; its love of liberty; or any of the institutions that has defined America since its founding.  These are the things Obama has dedicated his life to changing.

It’s just that Obama’s mental picture of America is not the same as the one that existed in the minds of the Founding Fathers or in the minds of most Americans today.  His is the one formed under the tutelage of his childhood mentors reinforced by his chosen associates as an adult.

Obama’s picture of America is the one painted by twenty years of indoctrination in the church of Jeremiah Wright.  His vision for its future is one he adopted from his icons, William Ayers, Frank Davis, and other like-minded figures that have affected his life, especially Saul Alinsky.  From these and other left wing thinkers Obama has formed a mental image of what an ideal America would be like.  He has dedicated his adult life to bringing into existence this idealized image, which is in almost every instance the polar opposite of the America established by the Founding Fathers.

He believes the Founders established a deeply flawed system of government that has led to all sorts of social and economic evils over the past two-hundred plus years. The ideal form of government for Obama is one ruled by an elite political class directed by a benevolent, but all-powerful leader of exceptional wisdom and compassion.  In Obama’s mind, the “state” is the ultimate objective of all society.

The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people.  Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government.

The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people.  Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state.

The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans.  Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state.

The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest.  Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth.

The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations.  Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations.

The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts.  Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land.  He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation.  It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated.

Obama’s image of himself as that wise and compassionate leader destined to bring about the utopian America he envisions, motivates his every action as President.  As borderline psychotic as this may sound, his words and actions over the past four months will allow for no other conclusion.

The facts will only permit two interpretations of the Obama Presidency.  Either he is a bumbling incompetent who “smooth-talked” his way into the White House, or he is a dedicated ideologue determined to tear down all the historical institutions of government in order to rebuild and reshape them to reflect his worldview.

Those who hope that with experience he will moderate his views are hoping in vain.  He has an absolute, fanatical faith in the righteousness of his cause, and will not be swayed by public opinion or political pressure.  Adhering to the Alinsky principle that any means are acceptable that furthers the cause, he is willing to visit any misfortune on the American people in order to accumulate more power for himself as the head of state.

The survival of America as we know it will depend on the extent of his cult following and the influence of the coalition of Democrats, socialists, environmentalists, Marxists, fascists, the state media, and other groups that share his statist goals in the next two or three election cycles.

An IDIOT’S Guide to the Obama Agenda

minute-man-2-lithoThe first thing one has to face if they are to understand the agenda of President Obama is that he does not love America; at least, not as it has existed for the past two centuries.  That does not mean he does not love his country.  I am sure he does, but he does not love its history; its culture; its constitution; its economic system; its political system; its military; its love of liberty; or any of the institutions that has defined America since its founding.  These are the things Obama has dedicated his life to changing.

It’s just that Obama’s mental picture of America is not the same as the one that existed in the minds of the Founding Fathers or in the minds of most Americans today.  His is the one formed under the tutelage of his childhood mentors reinforced by his chosen associates as an adult.

Obama’s picture of America is the one painted by twenty years of indoctrination in the church of Jeremiah Wright.  His vision for its future is one he adopted from his icons, William Ayers, Frank Davis, and other like-minded figures that have affected his life, especially Saul Alinsky.  From these and other left wing thinkers Obama has formed a mental image of what an ideal America would be like.  He has dedicated his adult life to bringing into existence this idealized image, which is in almost every instance the polar opposite of the America established by the Founding Fathers.

He believes the Founders established a deeply flawed system of government that has led to all sorts of social and economic evils over the past two-hundred plus years. The ideal form of government for Obama is one ruled by an elite political class directed by a benevolent, but all-powerful leader of exceptional wisdom and compassion.  In Obama’s mind, the “state” is the ultimate objective of all society.

The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people.  Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government.

The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people.  Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state.

The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans.  Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state.

The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest.  Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth.

The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations.  Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations.

The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts.  Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land.  He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation.  It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated.

Obama’s image of himself as that wise and compassionate leader destined to bring about the utopian America he envisions, motivates his every action as President.  As borderline psychotic as this may sound, his words and actions over the past four months will allow for no other conclusion.

The facts will only permit two interpretations of the Obama Presidency.  Either he is a bumbling incompetent who “smooth-talked” his way into the White House, or he is a dedicated ideologue determined to tear down all the historical institutions of government in order to rebuild and reshape them to reflect his worldview.

Those who hope that with experience he will moderate his views are hoping in vain.  He has an absolute, fanatical faith in the righteousness of his cause, and will not be swayed by public opinion or political pressure.  Adhering to the Alinsky principle that any means are acceptable that furthers the cause, he is willing to visit any misfortune on the American people in order to accumulate more power for himself as the head of state.

The survival of America as we know it will depend on the extent of his cult following and the influence of the coalition of Democrats, socialists, environmentalists, Marxists, fascists, the state media, and other groups that share his statist goals in the next two or three election cycles.

Supreme Court Justice Wanted: Social Work Experience Preferred

minute-man-2-lithoWith the upcoming retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, speculation naturally turns to the type of person President Obama will nominate to replace him and who that person will be.  Since the primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to apply the Constitution to laws passed by Congress, to determine its constitutionality, it is also natural that the subject of the Constitution would be a major topic of discussion.

Invariably when it does come up, we are reminded that Obama is a constitutional scholar and a Professor of Constitutional Law.  He did teach constitutional law part time at the University of Chicago, but his title was instructor not professor.  It also seems to me that “scholar” is an exaggeration of Obama’s dept of knowledge concerning the Constitution.

I have no doubt that he understands the Constitution; he just does not accept it.  Obama often professes a love for his country.  I cannot see into his heart to know his feelings, but I can listen to his words and watch his actions.  The evidence is that he rejects America as it is currently constituted and has been for the past 220 years.  He rejects its history.  He rejects its culture. He rejects its historical values and he rejects its Constitution.

In an interview with WEBZ-FM radio in Chicago, September 6, 2001 Obama had this to say about the Constitution.

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, or that the Framers had that same blind spot.  I do not think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way to where we are now, but that it also reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

More recently, he explained the criterion he would use in selecting judges to the federal courts.

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

At a press briefing on Friday President Obama announced the decision of Justice Souter to retire in June.  In discussing the type of person he would look for to replace him, Obama said,

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation,” Obama said. “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

It is obvious from these and other statements by Obama that he bears no allegiance to the Constitution.  The political class of both parties has used the rulings of rogue courts and the application of the English Common Law doctrine of judicial precedent to reduce the Constitution to a meaningless document in limiting the powers of the federal government.  Unless we can find some way to reverse this trend, liberty will become something our grandchildren only dream of as they slave away their lives in servitude to the state.

Murtha Case Thrown Out On Appeal

minute-man-2-lithoThe Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in D.C. took another step Tuesday to immunize federal employees from lawsuits by citizens and exempt them from the basic American republican (small “r”) principle that no one is above the law.  The ruling also leaves citizens without the equal protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.  In addition, it reinforces the Orwellian concept that “all pigs are equal; some pigs are more equal than others” i.e., government officials.

The court’s decision involved a lawsuit brought by Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich against Democratic Congressman John Murtha.  The suit was filed in response to a remark made by Murtha at a press conference in May 2006 accusing Wuterich and his men of killing Iraqi civilians, including women and children, “in cold blood.”  A Marine Corp inquiry later found Wuterich and his men had acted properly during a firefight on Nov. 19, 2005 in Haditha, Iraq in which two Marines were killed.

The Court found that Murtha could not be sued under the 1988 Westfall Act which gives federal employees immunity from lawsuits when acting in the course of their official duties.  The Court’s ruling in this case seems to be improper both on legal and constitutional grounds.  Under the Westfall Act, in order for immunity to be granted, the Attorney General, or his designee must issue a “scope certification” certifying that the “defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose….”

Also, under the Westfall Act, the plaintiff has the right to appeal the Attorney General’s scope certification.  Furthermore, the Act does not grant immunity to the defendant, it transfers liability from the defendant to the government which still allows the plaintiff to get satisfaction in court for the injury incurred.  In this case, it would appear that the fact that Murtha was a member of Congress was not incidental to the case. There is no job requirement that elected officials call press conferences to give their personal opinions on current events.  That is purely a personal or political decision on the part of the individual involved.

The Constitution in Article One, Section Six provides limited immunity for Senators and Congressmen under very narrow circumstances.

“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

Just as Section 8 of Article I, limits the power of Congress by its specificity, Section 6 limits the legal immunity afforded members of Congress for the same reason. Under this Section, Legislators are immune from arrest only while in “attendance”.  In other words, only while the Congress is in session and they would normally be in attendance. They are also immune from arrest while traveling to or from a session of Congress.

Section Six also provides that a member of Congress cannot be called to account regarding any speech or debate in either house.  It is obvious that the reference here is to remarks made in the respective chambers, not in a TV studio or before a microphone at an outside press conference.

Aside from the violation of the “free republic” principle that all men are equally subject to the rule of law and equally entitled to its protections, this interpretation of the law has the potential of incrementally denying citizens any legal redress for actions committed by federal officials between election cycles, no matter how egregious.  Under the present circumstances of one party rule and the obvious intent of the current administration to infringe on the liberties of citizens, this is a dangerous precedent.