Thanks To Bush The Bad Guys Are Getting Caught
Oct 12, 2009 Political
The Patriot Act was enacted after 9/11 to provide law enforcement with a means to track those who would do us harm. There are many aspects to the PA and some of them are not very controversial. There are however, some items which remain controversial to this day (and some parts have been ruled unconstitutional). Democrats voted for the Patriot Act when Bush was President but later claimed that it infringes on the rights of American Citizens. Democrats are particularly worried about roving wiretaps which allow the government to monitor communications between suspected terrorists. The wiretaps (in various forms) have been used for decades by Presidents from both parties and the courts have ruled that they are legal and do not violate Fourth Amendment rights, a fact on which Al Franken was recently schooled.
Now that they are in charge of everything Democrats are taking a closer look and deciding that the things they opposed are not so bad after all. The Obama Justice Department has asked that three controversial items in the PA be reauthorized (they are scheduled to expire at the end of the year).
The three portions relate to roving wiretaps, seizing business records and monitoring suspected “lone wolf” terrorists.
“We also are aware that members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans,” Mr. Weich wrote. “Therefore, the Administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.” Washington Times
Perhaps the Democrats had a change of heart now that law enforcement agencies have uncovered terrorist plots by using the techniques they long opposed. Because of the PA, terrorists were found and arrested. A few of them tried to detonate phony bombs (provided by undercover law enforcement officers) to blow up buildings. Imagine the hit this country would have taken had these guys been successful.
Maybe that was not enough to sway them. Perhaps it is the arrest of a nuclear engineer who was working at a nuclear research center. The 32 year old man was arrested along with his brother after it was discovered that he was passing lists of potential targets to al-Qaeda members in North Africa. The pesky PA helped to catch them:
US monitors picked up the exchange between the scientist and his contact in the militant group, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. The north African group regularly targets government and security forces in Algeria, and occasionally attacks foreigners. Guardian
Whatever the reason, the Democrats seem more willing to reauthorize the PA, including the controversial portions, by the end of the year.
There is no guarantee that they will be reauthorized but members who opposed the re-authorization must now be considering it given the recent arrests.
Interestingly, most of them supported it and then opposed it later when people began complaining about violation of rights. The PA is specific about who may be surveilled and under what circumstances and the courts have ruled these methods legal but Democrats saw a way to bash Bush. Their actions are no different than with the war on terror. Most of them voted for it and later said they were tricked by Bush, a man they believe to be dumb. The switch was politically motivated and put their desire to win above the safety of the nation.
I am not worried about the PA. If they reauthorize it fine and if they do not, fine though they will be making us less safe. I do not live in an area considered to be a high value target so I will not likely be affected.
Those who do will suffer should plots like those that were recently uncovered be successful. Members of Congress have to see this but then again they have a skewed idea about safety. They work in secure buildings that are guarded by armed officers and the air space around them is guarded by anti aircraft systems.
They will likely not suffer should they decide to make America less safe.
And that, is a shame.
Perhaps Bush should have gotten that Peace Prize. Not only did he hope to make us safe, he actually did…
[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: Bush, Congress, constitution, patriot act
Al Franken And The Constitution
Oct 5, 2009 Political
Al Franken was questioning Assistant Attorney General David Kris with regard to the Patriot Act and Franken was particularly interested in the roving wire taps. Franken asked a few questions and then pulled out the copy of the Constitution that he received when he was sworn in and cited the Fourth Amendment. He then asked if Kris believed that the roving wire taps were in accordance with the Amendment. Kris explained that they were and cited the courts that have ruled on the issue.
Kris further explained that they actually go above and beyond what the FISA courts require.
It is also important to remember the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.
I wrote long ago about the wire taps and the precedent as well as the court rulings. Carter, Clinton and a host of other presidents have done the same thing because it has been ruled as Constitutional and not unreasonable.
I agree with John at Powerline when he states:
Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he’ll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens’ health care.
I commend Franken for reading the Constitution even if he is fuzzy on what he has sworn with regard to it (“And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it”).
I have a copy of the Constitution that I carry with me. Every citizen should have one and every citizen should actually read it.
I would like to know how Franken weighs in on gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if they get to that debate if he will wave his Constitution and cite the Second Amendment (which is the one that ensures all the others) while proudly affirming that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Or will he decide that this Amendment is different and does not deserve support. You see, Franken has been against gun ownership and for tighter control and only changed his views when he ran for office:
Franken has expressed past reservation about private gun ownership and admitted to attending marches for gun-control; in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations, he wrote that having guns in the home was “too dangerous” and included mocking language about needing a shotgun for every room of the house. In 2003’s book Oh, The Things I Know! he also wrote that those who donate to the NRA should volunteer at hospitals that treat gunshot victims. During the campaign, Franken took a more moderate stance, saying he supported the right to own and bear arms for protection and hunting, but it’s unclear how those statements will transfer to his Senate votes. Who Runs Gov
So it would seem that Franken is one of those folks who waves the Constitution but believes that only parts of it apply. He, like many liberals, believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment, so I wonder if Al will have his Constitution when that debate ensues.
I also wonder if Al could find that passage in the Constitution that allows abortion (Franken is strongly pro-abortion). Perhaps he could find the part that allows the government to take money from people and give it to other people (he is a proponent of heavily taxing the wealthy to pay for government largess). Like John, I would like to know what part allows government to own car companies and I am particularly interested in where the Constitution first defines the right to free health care and then where it says that the government has the right to force other people to pay for it. I would also be interested in the part that gives government the authority to force people to buy it.
I would like Franken to reconcile his positions that run contrary to the Constitution since he has waved his copy and decided that it should be followed (even if he does not understand when things are being legally followed).
Anyone who has Franken’s ear, please ask him how he can put on such a charade when his positions run contrary to the Constitution.
I would be interested in how he answers the questions though I have a feeling he would rationalize his unconstitutional positions.
Totally unrelated link to The Other McCain
[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: al franken, constitution, fourth amendment, gun control, Second Amendment
It’s Time For Constitutional Convention
Sep 26, 2009 Political
For many years, our government has been getting increasingly more powerful, and our various liberties have been shrinking, a normal, if deplorable condition. Governments have a natural tendency to grow their power, because it is true that power corrupts- you only have to look at Charlie Rangel to see that. and absolute power corrupts absolutely- that would be the Resident and his czarlets, commisars, and running dog lackeys.
Take this alleged “Healthcare” debate- it is really not about “health” or “care”, but power- power over the citizens that the liberal progressives believe are too ignorant to look after themselves. Citizens that only the Progressives are wise enough, and smart enough to rule. They will force you to do as they wish- a good example is the mandate to buy insurance- if you choose not to buy it, you will be charged an “excise tax” of $1900.00- if you refuse to pay that, you could be sentenced to one year in jail, and a $25,000 fine.
These A**holes are going to use the IRS, already a hated institution, for the additional purpose of extorting money from citizens? That is what it is- Extortion, no matter that it is your government doing the extorting, it is wrong, and illegal. But when has that stopped this administration before?
These traitors have become expert at avoiding the constitutional requirements or limits that were written into the law, but then they counted on having a complicit Congress aiding this dictator in his takeover of this country. All the Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and just plain old liberals who voted for this POS are sure going to be surprised when their world also turns to mud, and they discover that good old Barry Hussein Obama doesn’t give a rat’s A** about them either. Just gotta love that Change! Everybody can be miserable! Now that’s Democracy!
The sixteenth amendment was created to allow the government to collect taxes, (which at that time were assessed at one percent)- but it also led to the creation of the IRS,and the beginning of the most tortuous legalisms in the world, to the point that even the IRS doesn’t really comprehend its own tax code. Lewis Carroll couldn’t have written Jabberwocky any more incomprehensibly.
And then there is Article one, Section eight of the Constitution, generally known as the interstate commerce clause, and this catchall has been misused and abused more than a single child at a pedophile convention. Everytime a member of Congress wants to ram a law down our throat, and the Constitution stands in his way, he just crafts the language enough to justify the law through this one ambiguous clause in the Constitution- this must change.
It is time for all the states to call for a Constitutional Convention for the narrow purpose of amending these sections of the Constitution, and no more than that.
I am so tired of our Constitution being treated as a Handi- Wipe by those traitors in government who want to “Fundamentally Transform our Country”. I believe our country is the greatest country on Earth, and we do not have to apologize to anyone, nor do we need to remake our country to suit the preconceived ideas or attitudes of any other country.
If we, as individuals, being a part of our respective States, do not act as one, uniting in the call for a Constitutional Convention for the sole purpose of closing these loopholes through which these traitors are destroying our great country, we will not have a country that we recognize, and by taking the easy road of doing nothing, we will have truly gotten the government we deserve.
Freedom, once lost, is rarely regained. Do not allow this opportunity to slip away- our path to continued freedom is fraught with pitfalls, but we must take this path. To take any other is to lose our way, and once we are lost, we may be lost forever.
Is that what you would have for your children’s legacy? Is that how you want them to remember you? That you played it safe, and spent their liberty for your momentary comfort?
That is not only selfish, but cowardly.
And surely you are not that.
[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: amendments, constitution, convention, invertebrate Congress, traitors
The Constitutionality of Mandatory Healthcare
Sep 19, 2009 Political
I had a call from a friend of mine yesterday- he knows I blog online, and he called me spittin’ mad because he had just heard that the Healthcare plan(s) all have a mandatory aspect to them- it was Hussein’s only way to get the Insurance companies onboard, to mandate millions more people to be required to carry health insurance. The insurance companies like the fact that more people would be required to sign up, because that increases their customer base- they are too stupid to realize when they are being jacked around by Hussein and Co.
And jacked around they will be- because there will be, if ANY of this passes, a single payer option, sooner or later- and because in the end, it will have to play out in the courts as to the Constitutionality of this issue. I have yet to find where it says ANYTHING in the Constitution about government- required healthcare. Did they have it way back then? Or did they have something called- Gasp!- Personal Responsibility?
Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.
An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.
online.wsj.com
Even when people do not pay “full freight”, and get a discount, as I do, because I pay cash, I get that discount because the Doctor’s office does not have to go through the time- consuming paperwork necessary to insurance companies. Is anyone ignorant enough to believe that the paperwork would decrease under a government mandate? Of course not- you’d have to be an utter fool to believe that. Still, there are some people who think this “requirement” would be a good thing. Not so at all.
The mandate’s real justifications are far more cynical and political. Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health-care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. In effect, this mandate would be one more giant, cross-generational subsidy—imposed on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government’s prior spending sprees.
Politically, of course, the mandate is essential to winning insurance industry support for the legislation and acceptance of heavy federal regulations. Millions of new customers will be driven into insurance-company arms. Moreover, without the mandate, the entire thrust of the new regulatory scheme—requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and to accept standardized premiums—would produce dysfunctional consequences. It would make little sense for anyone, young or old, to buy insurance before he actually got sick. Such a socialization of costs also happens to be an essential step toward the single payer, national health system, still stridently supported by large parts of the president’s base.
online.wsj.com
Well said, and should be memorized by all the members of Congress who are going to vote on this (these? those?) bill, whenever it is put into coherent form- God knows that is not the case now. Now, they face the wall of the Constitution, and it is there for a reason such as this.
The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: “[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.” Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.
These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.
But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not “regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity.” Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any “activity,” such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.
Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a “tax” rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus’s (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an “excise tax” of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.
online.wsj.com
This is how people like these socialists have been subverting the Constitution for years- by semantics. You can’t call it one thing and be legal, well OK then, we’ll just call it something else that skirts the legality. You just have to applaud how hard they work at being dishonest, don’t you?
But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a “tax” that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables. [emphasis mine]
This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution’s Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.
online.wsj.com
One last thing- the Constitution has lasted longer than many documents because our founding fathers took their time and brainpower to get it right- and while I am sure the debate was heated at times, everyone there knew that this was too important to allow partisan, petty politics to rule the day. Now should be another occasion as important a that one- if we, as a people, truly want healthcare reform, we are ALL going to have to forego the power games we have been playing. This plan, whatever comes out of committee, should adhere to the rules and boundaries of the Constitution, because if not, we could see so many court cases that it literally clogs the system.
And that would be bad for everyone, but particularly for reformers, the progressives- for the Supreme Court has not been kind to cases such as this-
Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate “regulatory” taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress’s constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress’s power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.
online.wsj.com
We can just stop this debate altogether, or the progressives can try to cram what they will down the throats of America, or we can scrap what we know won’t work, and try for a true compromise- it is really up to the Resident and his band of cronies, because the rest of us are just waiting to see the final form, and if it isn’t what we can see is good for our country, we will reject it- you will not believe how decisively we can reject it, but go ahead-
Make My Day.
[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: checks and balances, constitution, personal responsibility, supreme court
Liberals Looking For Control
Sep 6, 2009 Political
The country is looking at the upcoming flu season with worry about the H1N1 (swine) flu and what an outbreak might mean. Will it be as bad as the 1918 Pandemic that killed millions? Will it fizzle out? Will the vaccine that is being rushed trough cause as many problems as the flu?
There are many questions and the government is trying to determine the best course of action.
In Massachusetts that course of action includes a violation of the rights of the people who live in that state. The Legislature is considering a bill that would give government unchecked power to violate citizen’s rights based on a public health emergency as determined by the politicians in charge. Some of the troubling items the state is considering include:
- to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;
- to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;
- to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material;
- to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
- to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority;
- to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
- to procure, take immediate possession from any source, store, or distribute any anti-toxins, serums, vaccines, immunizing agents, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutical agents or medical supplies located within the commonwealth as may be necessary to respond to the emergency;
- to require in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of any individual as a condition of licensure, authorization, or the ability to continue to function as a health care provider in the commonwealth;
[emphasis in original] World Net Daily
It is not difficult to see that some of these measures violate Constitutionally protected rights. Another issue is what constitutes an emergency? With a law written in such a fashion, the government of Massachusetts could declare an emergency in order to control the population. A public health emergency could be declared to prevent people from assembling for an anti government health care rally.
There are certainly contingencies that need to be in place but no law should take away Constitutionally protected rights. If this is going to happen then they should declare martial law and be done with it.
This proposed law is a chilling reminder of what an unchecked government can do. Massachusetts is a liberal state so where are all the liberals who supposedly oppose violation of their rights? Where is the ACLU?
Imagine how this would have played out if a state with a conservative legislature and Republican governor had proposed the same kind of law.
Elections have consequences and Massachusetts has elected a liberal majority that will do whatever it can to control people.
That is not freedom.
[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, freedom, liberals, martial law, Massachusetts, rights