Obama; A One Man Supreme Court
Feb 25, 2011 Political
Barack Obama has become a one man Supreme Court by instructing his Justice Department to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton and it forbids federal recognition of same sex marriages.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996. Newsmax
What kind of renegade administration will ignore the law because it does not think the law is Constitutional? The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on the Constitutionality of a law. If Obama and his drones think that it is not Constitutional then they should defend it less vigorously and lose the issue in Court but the end game is that the court should decide.
We have three branches of government and Obama heads the Executive branch. That branch is responsible for enforcing the law. The Judicial branch decides on the Constitutionality of the laws that have been enacted through a collaboration between the Legislative and Executive branches. End of story.
Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich made valid points when they stated that this kind of act, should it stand, would allow future presidents (read Republican presidents) to decide that laws are not Constitutional and fail to defend them.
The example they both gave is to suppose a future President Palin (Rush picked her because the left goes rabid at the mention of her name) decided that Roe Vs., Wade was unconstitutional and would no longer be defended by the federal government.
Gingrich indicated the left would go absolutely bonkers and be demanding impeachment, implying that the same fate could await Obama.
The left called George Bush King George and claimed he led like some kind of king rather than president. The reality is that Barack Obama has ignored the courts (the Gulf drilling moratorium and the unconstitutional Obamacare) and now is ignoring the Constitution by failing to defend laws that have been enacted in accordance with the Constitution and acting like he is the Supreme Court.
I will not, however, equate Obama to a king.
He is acting more like a dictator…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, defense of marriage, dictator, gingrich, king, lies, Limbaugh, Obama, palin
I Could Support This Individual Mandate
Feb 2, 2011 Political
I know that Judge Roger Vinson has ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and I agree completely with his ruling. Of course the Obama regime is ignoring the ruling and pressing on with implementing this disaster even though they should be putting an end to it. Judge Vinson made it clear that the federal government was expected to follow a ruling and therefore he did not need to make an additional ruling telling them to do so. Obama and his people do not obey the courts or any other legal entity that interferes with their agenda.
I know that this decision can be overturned in a higher court and it is obvious that it will eventually be decided in the Supreme Court. So while I am happy that this was ruled unconstitutional, I know that it can be back as quickly as it left.
I do find that I might be in favor of an individual mandate. Several lawmakers in South Dakota have introduced a bill that would require all adults age 21 or older to buy a gun:
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
One of the lawmakers admits that the bill has no chance of passing and he does not expect it too. The bill was introduced to demonstrate the absurdity of the government forcing people to buy things.
Then again, the detailed and well researched decision by Judge Vinson demonstrated the absurdity of the government’s action all by itself…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, gun, obamacare, roger vinson
Obama’s Words Come Back To Haunt Him; For Now
Feb 1, 2011 Political
Federal Judge Roger Vinson struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional dealing a blow to the liberal plan of taking over health care in this country. Judge Vinson wrote a detailed ruling which basically eviscerated the claims of those who pushed this monstrosity on us. Though the ruling correctly dispels the notion that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to force people to buy a product, the most interesting part of it comes in the form of a note at the end where Vinson uses the words of Barack Obama against him:
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday. Washington Times
Obviously this is not a reason to make the ruling (and the ruling was based on the Constitution) it is interesting to see the judge use Obama’s words to remind people that he opposed the idea when running for office. It is a historical record that shows how Obama said one thing as a candidate and then did another. Future historians will see one more piece of evidence of the failure that is Obama.
This ruling is but one step because no matter what happens this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. This might get more interesting because Justice Kagan might have to recuse herself from the issue if she had anything to do with it while Solicitor General. If that is the case then there is a possibility the court will end in a 4-4 tie on the issue (depending on Justice Kennedy). If that is the case then the lower court ruling stands. There have been two rulings that state the law is Constitutional so the first one to the SCOTUS might decide the issue.
If Kennedy rules with the conservative side of the Court (which he does more than not) then it matters not which appeal gets there first.
This law needs to die a quick death and today’s ruling is a first step in that endeavor.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, lies, obamacare, roger vinson, supreme court
How Much Of The Constitution Should They Have Read?
Jan 7, 2011 Political
The US Constitution is a contract between the government and those governed. It delineates the powers that We the People allow our government to have. It is the law of the land and it is unique in the history of the world.
The House of Representatives opened with a reading of the US Constitution. The Republicans chose to have read the current document leaving out the items that had been changed. This upset liberals and among them was Jesse Jackson, Jr. who believes that reading the current, amended Constitution, glossed over history, particularly the part that dealt with slavery.
While the Constitution does not mention slavery (in the original document) there is no doubt it was addressed. Article 1, Section 2 discusses representation and how people are counted. In it, there is the three-fifths clause. The document says that the number of people will be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.
Notice that it does not say slaves but there is no doubt, and history supports the fact, that the three-fifths applied to them. This part was changed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
According to Jackson, not reading this clause shows that the Republicans glossed over the racist part of the document where slaves were only considered to be three-fifths of a human.
Of course the clause does not make slaves three-fifths of a person. It was a method to count the census and determine how Representatives would be apportioned. It was made this way as a method to end slavery and not to mark slaves as less than a full human.
Slave owners wanted all slaves counted so that they would have greater representation in Congress. If all the slaves were counted, the southern slave owners would have many more members in the House and any efforts to end slavery would have been defeated based on the numbers. By reducing the population, the Founders were able to reduce the number of Representatives from the slave states. This was a balance between those who wanted no slaves counted (because they could not vote) and those who wanted all of them counted so they would have greater numbers of Representatives.
It is important to note that the three-fifths number is from an earlier attempt to organize when the Articles of Confederation were being revised. The slave owners did not want any of their slaves counted when it came to taxing because they would have had to pay more taxes. At that time the three-fifths rule was a compromise agreed upon though the measure eventually failed.
When it came time to compromise on the population used to determine representation, the three-fifths rule was a method that had previously been agreed to so it was inserted to gain passage of the Constitution and to limit the number of Representatives from slave owning states.
Glenn Beck has mentioned that our Constitution is a great document because the Founders gave us a way to change or add to it. This allows us to correct injustices and to add things necessary to run our country. The beauty is that we leave the changed parts in the document so that anyone reading it at anytime can see what we did and how we changed. The three-fifths clause changed because of the Fourteenth Amendment just like the Twenty-First Amendment changed the Eighteenth. The beauty is that both of the changed parts remain but are superseded by newer parts.
Beck thinks that the entire document should have been read to show our scars and how we advanced. Jackson thinks we should have read it in its entirety as well though his reason is to show the racist part of the Constitution. The reality though, is that Jackson is incorrect because Article 1, Section 2 was not racist. It was merely a method to count people or representation and to limit the power of slave owners. If he took the time to learn he would see that this was a brilliant move to eventually end slavery.
I do not disagree with Beck or Jackson about reading the entire thing if the purpose of the exercise was an educational one. Then each section could be read and people could see why we did what we did and how it was changed.
But the reading in the House was designed to present the document in its current form, the form in which we must apply it. The Republicans were simply reading the rules as they now apply.
The Founders wanted to end slavery and they worked on that. Yes, it is true some of them were slave owners but about 70% of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were not slave owners and most of our Founders released their slaves.
George Washington’s will freed his slaves upon the death of his wife, Martha, and provided for the care and education of their children until the age of 25 out of funds from his estate.
As an educational tool the Constitution should be read in its entirety so that people can understand our history.
But for the exercise that took place in the House the only parts that needed to be read are those that currently apply because it is those to which we will hold our members of Congress accountable.
UPDATE: The usual suspects are upset. Seems they want to take the country back to slavery.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, glenn beck, jesse jackson jr, slavery
Well Maryland, You Asked For It
Jan 6, 2011 Political
The People’s Republic of Maryland decided that it would like to have slot machines to increase revenue to the state. Former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich introduced the idea but the Democratically controlled legislature failed to approve slot machines saying that gambling was no way to balance budgets. Some were opposed to gambling in general so each time the measure was introduced, it failed.
The state operates a number of lottery games but somehow slots were bad.
Once Martin O’Malley defeated Ehrlich and a Democrat was back in control the idea of slots was not such a bad one. Even O’Malley, who opposed slots when Ehrlich was governor, liked the idea and touted slots as a needed venture.
The Democrats in the legislature decided that they did not want to be on record as voting for slots so instead of legislating them they put the matter before the people in the form of a referendum. The people were not allowed to vote via referendum on the issue of taxes, which Democrats raised to historic levels, but the issue of slots was a different story.
At the time I commented that putting the matter to referendum was insane because the measure would become part of the state Constitution. The people passed the measure and the state Constitution had slots as part of it. I did not like this idea because the slot parlors would have to be in the locations spelled out in the Constitution and any change would have to go to referendum. If the legislature would have enacted slots via the legislative process then any changes could be made the same way.
There have been issues with the process and so far only two slots locations have opened (five were authorized).
Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos has decided that he would like to buy the Rosecroft racetrack which is not operating and is going through bankruptcy. He would like to open it and put slots there.
There are a few problems that need to be addressed. Angelos is the owner of a Major League Baseball Team and Major League rules say that team owners cannot own gambling entities. Since Angelos is an attorney and runs one of the major law firms here I am sure he has that angle taken care of.
The real problem is that Rosecroft racetrack is NOT on the list of authorized locations for slots. This means, as I pointed out when this was first discussed, the change must be done via referendum. The next time that can take place is November of 2012. Angelos wants to have things taken care of by December of 2012.
In Annapolis this morning, Senate President Mike Miller told WBAL News that the Angelos offer is”a win-win” for Maryland racing. However, he is not sure if lawmakers would agree to let Rosecroft have a slots license. Miller also points out that any license for Rosecroft or any other slots parlor would have to be approved in a referendum vote, and the earliest that could take place is November, 2012. [via the linked article]
Will Angelos take the chance and buy the racetrack when voters might reject the placement of slots there? If the measure is rejected he will be stuck with a racetrack that went bankrupt because it did not attract gamblers. Slots were originally discussed to beef up the ailing horse race industry and they might help Rosecroft greatly.
But Angelos would have to buy the place now and hope that voters allow Rosecroft to have slot machines and that depends on the legislature putting the matter on the ballot.
If the legislature had done this through the legislative process then they could use that very process, right now, to add Rosecroft and allow Angelos piece of mind.
This kind of nonsense from cowards in elected office stymies growth and hinders development.
And I called this from day one.
As an aside, the first slots parlor to open is about five miles from my house but I refuse to play slots in Maryland so I have not gambled there. Gambling was bad when a Republican wanted it so it must still be bad even though a Democrat decided it was A-OK. I have been there to eat and the food is good. I recommend it if you get the chance.
I rarely play slot machines but when I do Delaware gets my business.
Thanks to a bunch of cowards in the Maryland General Assembly whose chickens have come home to roost.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, legislature, Maryland, peter angelos, referendum, slots