Quote of the Day - Shelia Jackson Lee Edition

Frankly, maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman, and others for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not. The Enforcement Act is not constitutional, but it gives us an opportunity to raise these issues. That’s what freedom is, that’s what the opportunity of democracy is all about.

 I go out for a few hours yesterday and all of a sudden The Constitution is now 400 years old.  I had no idea I was out for that long.  

Yes, she really said this on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Oh my.  

Sadly, there is no chance she will lose re-election in November.  Obviously it doesn't matter to her voters that she is as dumb as a box of rocks.  

Happy Constitution Day

Read it, learn it, live it.

Because it matters.  If you don't know what your rights are, you don't know when they are being taken away from you.  Make no mistake, they are being taken away.

Obamacare Upheld as a Tax

Believe me I am not happy about the mental gymnastics that Chief Justice Roberts did to reach this choice.  But as Ian's Wife below has pointed out, there is some silver lining to our misery.

I do agree with him that it isn't their job to deem something good or bad strictly on a policy basis.  I also agree that it is not their job to save us when we vote idiots into office.  Their only job is to deem something within the parameters of constitutional or not constitutional.

One of the most interesting things I have come across since the ruling is this:

Today’s conservatives frequently complain about the dangers of judicial activism. Perhaps now they’ll be more alert to the dangers of judicial restraint.

The argument being that Justice Roberts is a constructionist.  He believes in the written constitution and abides by stare decisis.  Therefore, he had no choice but to uphold the law.  The case-law is clear, in a tie the government wins.  The constitution was set up to give latitude to the legislators as they were voted in by the will of the people.  They also to go onto to explain that it is very possible that Bork would have voted exactly the same way, or at least would have felt compelled to by his own standards.

Does this mean that I accept the ruling?  Well no, but I also realize that this is the last word on the matter, at least in the manner that Obamacare was being fought out in the courts.  The litagation on this law is far from over.  We have a long way to go, especially when it comes to rights of Church and State.

One of the things that I have found most interesting in all of this is:

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce,

Senator Barack Obama on why he vote against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts.  In a small way, Chief Justice Roberts flipped the president the bird.  He very clearly crafted his opinion to limit the use the commerce clause.  An issue that always appeared to be part of who he is.  Roberts was a member of The Federalist Society.  Much of his career was spent trying to limit the over-reach of the federal government and protect the rights of the states.  Which in many ways makes this decision even that much harder to take.

I, for the most part, expected to the law to be upheld.  I had hoped that the mandate would go, and the law would stay.  I too felt that they would leave it up to the legislature to deal with the aftermath of the mandate being gone.  I also must admit that I called it tax many times.

The strangest thing in all of this is that they can't mandate us to purchase a product and impose a fee.  But, they can tax us for not buying something that they want us to.  That is an oxymoron is it not?

I had read an article by some left leaning person that made a very compelling argument that it would be Scalia of all people that would uphold the law.  Sadly, I can't find the link to it.  But in this article it went through some case law that had Scalia normally siding to increase the use of the commerce clause.  Something that I had no idea about.  This same article also said that they had hopes that Roberts would vote on their side.  1 out of 2 is not so shabby.

Our job now is to educate the people in this country to what their choices mean.  When we go to the ballot box we are not voting for prom king/queen.  We are voting for people who will be handling very serious issues that do effect our everyday lives.  Obamacare may seem good to some on the surface.  After all they are getting all kinds of "free stuff".  But all these free things have a cost.  These costs will be seen in higher premiums, and entire new class of the uninsured.

CBO and JCT’s projections of health insurance coverage have also changed since last March. Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured. The extent of the changes varies from year to year, but in 2016, for example, the ACA is now estimated to reduce the number of people receiving health insurance coverage through an employer by an additional 4 million enrollees relative to the March 2011 projections. In that year, CBO and JCT now estimate that there will be 2 million fewer enrollees in insurance exchanges. In the other direction, CBO and JCT now estimate that, in 2016, the ACA will increase enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP slightly more than previously estimated (but considerably more in 2014 and 2015), and it will reduce the number of people with nongroup or other coverage by 3 million less and the number of uninsured people by 2 million less than previously estimated.
To recap, the CBO now predicts that Obamacare: 1) will force millions more Americans out of their current employer coverage than originally advertised; 2) will force millions more Americans onto Medicaid than originally advertised; 3) will force millions more Americans to pay fines for not obtaining health care; 4) will force businesses to pay billions more in mandate fines; and 5) will leave millions more Americans without insurance than originally advertised.

So the goal of getting everyone insurance is a fantasy.  It is not going to happen.  It is going to be much more expensive than we were orginally told, and many people (myself included) who did have a policy that they really liked, will not be able to keep it.

Another clear irony of all this, Nanny Pelosi told us we had to pass it to find out what was in it.  Guess what?  It was a tax.  You own it.  It is a tax.  No spin will allow you to get past that.  No spin will allow you to say that you didn't raise taxes on people who made less than $250K, you did.  No spin is going to change the fact that your assurances that the mandate was constitutional were wrong.  No spin is going to change the fact that this is much more expensive than orginally packaged.

The law is still unpopular.  The supreme court decision is not all that much better.  This has become one of the most clear and concise issues of the presidential campaign.  When you vote in November do you vote Obama and keep Obamacare, or do you vote Romney and for any other republican running for a federal seat and to try and get a repeal?  That is the choice.  It is clear and it will decide which direction this country chooses to go.

Juan Williams Jumps the Shark....Again

The relevant point is that the court may do irreparable harm to is reputation with anotehr highly political split between justices appointed by Democrats and justices appointed by Republicans.  A 5-4 defeat of the healthcare law will erode trust in the justice system.  

So says Juan Williams.  I guess he has forgotten this:

The poll also asked respondents if they think the individual mandate is constitutional or unconstitutional. Seventy-two percent said it is unconstitutional. Though there were some partisan differences, a clear majority of even Democrats, 56 percent, think it is unconstitutional. Ninety-four percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents said the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

And this has been constant throughout the debate on healthcare.  The difference is that democrats, for the most part, don't seem to care that it is unconstitutional.  They want Obamacare and it matters none if it violates my rights or hurts the healthcare industry in this country.  


The real question that Juan Williams should be asking is why possibly 4 justices that were appointed by dems would so blatantly disregard the constitution and say that the federal government has the right to force us to by a product simply because we are alive?  When you are willing to answer that question Mr. Williams, then we can talk.  

Isn't The Tea Party Standing Up for the Constitution?

As you may have figured out I am very active on social media.  I am on every presidential candidate's email list, I get emails from all types of conservative groups, and I have twitter and facebook accounts as well.  I get all kinds of things sent to me about the conservative movement.  Many of which mention the constitution.  I have been doing reading and going to different events to learn more about the constitution.

So I was very surprised today when I was told that The Tea Party Mission didn't include the rally that is being held on March 23 to preserve religious freedom.  The posting I put up on this rally was removed and I was given a warning for breaking the "rules".  Really?  I would like to know what exactly I have been doing for the past three years then.  Wasn't the entire point of learning more about the constitution was to be able to elect officials that would actually follow it?

I am in agreement that social issues are not necessarily the purview of The Tea Party, but how exactly do you separate an issue of the first amendment and The Tea Party?  The entire reason we are in the place that we find ourselves in now is because the federal government has been trampling all over our constitutional rights for several generations now.  The federal government has grown well beyond what the founders ever intended.  As such they involve themselves in things that are none of their business and are better left for the states and local governments to decide.  When they do this they waste more and more of our resources in terms of time and money as well as stripping our freedoms away; bit by bit.

The Tea Party was also formed to let our government know that we were no longer going to stand and allow them to take more and more of our freedoms away.  Mandating to the church that they have to violate their consciences in order to provide free birth control is all about freedom.  It doesn't matter what you personally feel about birth control and/or abortion because they are not the issue.  This is strictly a first amendment issue.  It is just being discussed in terms of birth control and women's health.

You need to ask yourselves if the government is allowed to take this protected right away from the church what is next?  If the Tea Party isn't going to stand up and protect this then they may as well just fold up the tents and go home.  Because we are done.

And your thoughts on the matter?

Then Move to France if You Think the Consitution is the Problem

I'll even pitch in for your airfare. 

Jesse Jackson Jr.'s Version of the Constitution

Life, Liberty, and an IPod:



While there can be no doubt that we have a homeless problem in our society, the vast majority of people have a place to live. So my question is what does decent mean? We are living through the aftermath of government involvement in homeownership with the Community Reinvestment Act and lowering the standards of home loans. Does he want to continue down that road?


What student in this country is not offered an education in this country? While I am the first to say that our public schools stink, no one is denied the right to go. I don't think the issue is that we need to build more schools; we need to give parents more choice to attend the school that is going to fit their child’s needs.

But hey what let’s make a constitutional amendment to give everyone an IPod and laptop. I don't happen to have an IPod, so let me know where I can pick mine up

Video from Weasel Zippers

Obamacare Unconstitutional Part II

The lawsuit that was filed in Florida representing more than half of the states ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.  The decision was much longer than the one from Virginia, this is 78 pages.  This specifically goes to the heart of the matter about the individual mandate.  The judge stated:

“Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.”

This is something that conservatives have been saying since day one.  If the government can do this they can do anything.  The reality is it doesn't matter that this bill happens to be about healthcare, because if this is allowed to stand anything can be forced upon the American people through the commerce clause.  It is a very dangerous and slippery slope into a totalitarian government.  I am not one to buy into conspiracy theories or I rarely buy into overly vitriolic statements that Obama is trying to turn the US into the Soviet Union.  But, this bill gives someone who does the perfect opportunity to do so.  It is an over-reach and a violations of our individual  rights.  Does healthcare need reform?  No doubt about it.  Do we need to do more to help the working class poor to get proper coverage?  Yes.  This law is not the way to do it unless you are willing to give up your liberties.  Sorry, Nanny and Uncle Obammy, I am not.  Lets get to work and pass some laws that will actually solve the problems without giving away our freedoms. 

If you need an argument that the left can understand, Ken Cuccinelli put it best.  Imagine the uproar on the left in this country if every person was mandated to buy and keep guns in order to maintain control and protection of the state.  This is no different, it is just about healthcare, an issue that too easily manipulated to get sympathy and pull at the heart strings.  No one should die because they can't afford a doctor.  No one is saying that they should.  But, as Americans we have rights.  Those rights must be protected.  This law cannot stand, and today we took a big step in seeing that happen. 

The White House released it stament calling the ruling:

Odd and over-reaching. 

Really, the fact that you passed a law that violates our consitutional rights isn't odd and over-reaching, but the courts calling you out on it is?  That is how I define odd. 

You can read the decision here:

Vinson Ruling

Does The New York Times Still Want to Say Reading the Constitution was a Waste of Time? Elected Officials fail Quiz on Constitution

Well, the really sad state of this poll says that it really wasn't.  It doesn't breakdown what offices these people hold, while that matters, it is still very scary that how badly they did. 

But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question. Examples:



•Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.


•Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war -- 54 percent of the general public knows that.


•Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase "wall of separation" appears in Thomas Jefferson's letters -- not in the U.S. Constitution -- compared with 19 percent of the general public.


•And only 57 percent of those who've held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for "training those aspiring for higher political office.")

Does the left want to rethink the jokes that they are making about Bachmann arranging lectures on the Constitution?  Seems to me they are sorely needed. 

You can take the quiz yourself and see how you do.  I got 100% correct. 
H/T Jill

Women aren't Persons?

Huffington Post is running with an interview that Justice Scalia gave to a legal magazine. 

This doesn't happen all to often, but I kinda got go with HuffPo here. 

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Here is the wording of the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Am I not a person because I am female?  Seriously, I would like someone to explain to me what he means by this.  I get the fact that in the 1860's women were not considered equals, but the wording says person.  Wouldn't that include any human?  I am normally inclined to agree with Scalia, but I am thinking he jumped the shark here. 

Ezra Klein on his Comments on the Constitution

Mr. Klein felt the need to clarify his comments about the consitution:

This morning, I gave a quick interview to MSNBC where I made, I thought, some fairly banal points on the GOP’s plan to honor the Constitution by having it read aloud on the House floor. Asked if it was a gimmick, I replied that it was, because, well, it is. It’s our founding document, not a spell that makes the traitors among us glow green. It’s also, I noted, a completely nonbinding act: It doesn’t impose a particular interpretation of the Constitution on legislators, and will have no practical impact on how they legislate.


The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn’t. That’s bunk, of course: It’s arguments over how the Constitution should be understood, not arguments over whether it should be followed, that cleave American politics. The Constitution was written more than 223 years ago, and despite the confidence various people have in their interpretation of the text, smart scholars of good faith continue to disagree about it. And they tend to disagree about it in ways that support their political ideology. I rarely meet a gun-lover who laments the Second Amendment’s clear limits on bearing firearms, or someone who believes in universal health care but thinks the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause doesn’t leave room for such a policy.

But my inbox suggests that my comments weren’t taken that way: The initial interpretation was that I’d said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that I’d said the document itself is nonbinding. I went back and watched the clip — or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above — and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours. So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment. And no, reading the document on the floor of the House will not make the country more like you want it to be, unless your problem with the country is that you thought the Constitution should be read aloud on the floor of the House more frequently. In which case, well, you’re in luck!

Here is the part of what he said earlier in the day:  I couldn't find the entire interview. 

112th Congress To Begin with Reading of the Constitution

One of the first orders of business of the new congress will be to read the Constitution on the floor of the house.  A document that our federal government has been forsaking for quite some time.  While this is nothing more than window dressing, I still look at as a good start.

The republican controlled congress has realized that the Tea Party is going to accept nothing less.  Many in the media have characterized the tea party as just being against Obama.  While they certainly don't like Obama's policies, they don't like the government in general.  The distrust isn't just about the democrats.  This is an equal opportunity kind of thing.  We don't particularly trust either side to be on the side of the American people, as they are spending too much time worrying about power than about the constitutional limits of the offices that they hold. 

So while I look at this reading as an appeasement of sorts, I still like it.  Just maybe some of it will sink in. We will have to wait and see.

Schooling the Newbies - Michele Bachmann Will Be Holding Classes on The Constitution for Congress

Congresswoman Bachmann has promised to start holding weekly classes on The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence. She will be inviting all newly elected members as well as encouraging the existing members to attend as well. She will be inviting in experts to hold these classes that will be one hour before they are required to be on the floor for the first vote of the day. Now, while I think that this is great news, but shouldn't they have known all this information before they took the oath saying that they will be defending it?







Bachmann started The Tea Party Caucus, so this will be very popular among them, but I wonder how popular it is going to be among the members of congress. The sad truth is that we have people in office on both sides of the aisle that have zero interest in the defending the constitution if it gets in the way of party and ideology. This coming election is not going to change that. While we have more republicans in office, not all of them will be on the side of the constitution, therefore not really being on the side of the everyday American.






I have been going to a constitution class that meets monthly for a while now. If you actually read the constitution you will find that the federal government is doing things on a daily basis that they have no power to do. This isn't something that can change anytime soon. This is a generational change that has to be made to our government. The federal government uses outright bribery to get what they want. One great example of this is the legal drinking age. The federal government has no ability to create a federal drinking age. But, if you notice we have one. While the laws are passed by individual states, they were forced into making that change virtually by force. The federal government put restrictions on the money that is given to them by the federal government for state roads and other transportation issues. Back in the early 80's MADD was very active and pushed legislators to make this change. Now, I am not saying that it is a bad law, I am just saying that the individual states should have the right to decide for themselves what that age is. Any state that did not raise its drinking age to 21 by a date certain would no longer qualify for the federal funds. Since the states rely on this money they are not in the position to turn it down, they all capitulated and raised the drinking age to 21. This is completely unconstitutional, yet we see it happen over and over again. Will this change by simply having a weekly class? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Read The Constitution Day

This Saturday is Read the Constitution Day.  The goal is get people together to read the entire Constitution out loud.  The entire reading should take about an hour, when including the preamble and all the amendments. 

There will be events held all over the country, some in private homes and others out in the public square. 

We have not quite figured out where we will be holding ours, but we will be out on Saturday.

My personal belief is that if we don't understand what our rights are, we won't realize that they are being taken away by a government that has more power than ever intended by the framers. 

I sometimes read this blog by a Constitutional Attorney.  I would say that he is left of center.  The people who comment on his blog are much more to the left than he appears to be.  They don't like it when he takes a more "conservative" approach to a certain topic.  From what I can gather most of the people who regulary comment also believe that our rights are being usurped, especially by an executive branch that has become way too powerful and the Congress is aiding in increasing that power.  So, there is hope that we can get our country back to the principles on which is founded on. 


If you want to find a location near you, go here.  If you don't find one, invite your neighbors, it could be fun. 

Defend the Constitution Rally - Old Town Manassas Virginia

Rally on Friday!!







We're just a few days away from the Defend the Constitution Rally, a historic event to be held at Harris Pavilion in Old Town Manassas, Friday, June 25th 2010 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. We are expecting a big turnout so make sure you come out and help us make some news!






And make sure you keep spreading the news to friends, family and co-workers! Make phone calls to people at your kids' school ... tell the neighbors ... print out a few fliers and pass them out ... tell them all to bring the whole family for a fun night.






Here are some important updates for the event:






COME A LITTLE EARLY: We strongly suggest you beat the last minute rush by getting to Old Town by at least 6:30 pm. Come as early as 6 pm and relax on the lawn, grab a bite to eat at the Chick-fil-A tent, enjoy the music and let the kids see the firetruck.






PARKING: There is lots of parking all around Old Town. There are the Manassas train depot parking lots, the Old Town parking garage, overflow lots down the street, the BB&T parking lot across the street and street parking back in the residential side of Old Town. All parking is free.






BRING YOUR OWN CHAIRS! This will be a very engergetic event and will likely have a lot of folks standing but if you want to sit, please bring a portable folding chair.






BRING SMALL FLAGS AND/OR SIGNS TO WAVE!






SPEAKERS: Along with Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Delegate Bob Marshall, Jamie Radtke and Sonnie Johnson, we are honored to have Dr. John Bruchalski, Manassas City Councilman Marc Aveni and VA State Delegate Jackson Miller all on the speakers platform Friday night, each addressing some aspect of the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the federal healthcare mandate, the lawsuit, the impact of "Obamacare" on the medical community and its patients and the Tea Party movement's vital role in our upcoming November elections.






REFRESHMENTS: Chick-fil-A sandwiches, chips, soft drinks and bottled water will be available for sale (Sandwich with chips - $4, drinks - $1). Part of the proceeds will go to benefit Manassas Tea Party.






MUSIC: A DJ wil be spinning discs from 6 pm to 7 pm. We'll be treated to classic rock from the 50s, 60s and 70s, country music, big band, and patriotic standards.






FOR THE KIDS: The Manassas Volunteer Fire Department will be on hand with a fire engine for the kids to get their hands on. Also, General George Washington will be on hand in full military regalia to meet the attendees and lead us all in the invocation.






RAFFLE: We will be raffling off two books Friday night. One is Sean Hannity's latest and is signed by Sean. The other is the book on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address by Jack Levin and it is signed by his son, constitutional scholar and radio powerhouse Mark Levin. Tickets are $1 each or free with a Manassas Tea Party registration (which requires a $10 annual dues fee -- forms available at the Rally).






OTHER STUFF: Manassas Tea Party will be selling their "Freedom is Brewing" Tea-Shirts for $15 apiece and taking pre-orders for the "Freedom is Brewing" bumper stickers at $3 apiece. Other vendors will be on hand selling American flags, Gadsden flags and Don't Tread on Me car flags. Organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Defundit.org, NoVa Patriots Academy, Campaign for Liberty and numerous others will have booths as well.






We encourage you to stay afterwards and visit Mackey's American Pub in Old Town. Mackey's is a gracious sponsor of the rally.






COME HAVE A BLAST WITH YOUR FELLOW PATRIOTS! We'll see you on Friday night.

Warning Labels and The Constitution

This book is a product of it's time and does not represent the same values as if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race,gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
Wilder Publications


Wake Up America.  Progressives are actively trying to change the fabric of our country.

Janine Turner's Love of Our Constitution

Janine Turner, self proclaimed tea partier, has started a non proft organization that is teaching people about the constitution and the federalist papers: Constituting America.  There is also a contest for kids.  It is an interesting way of getting children to be interested in our Constitution.  If you have children, please check it out as your kids can win a 2,000 scholarship and learn about our founding documents. 

Here is some info from her website:

Mission Statement







The American Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, is as great a miracle as the ultimate victory from the British in 1782. Providence prevailed in both theatres. It was a monumental feat to beat the British in the Revolutionary War. Equally as awesome was the accomplishment of finding common ground amongst the varied American beliefs in writing the Constitution. Though our forefathers differed, they united in their mission, their vision: A republic; a democracy; America, the beautiful; America, the hope.






The American Constitution was the work of brilliant men with a vast knowledge of history and a thirst for righteousness. They believed that in order for American liberty to survive, her people must be educated. To quote John Adams, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge of the people.”






Thus, the mission of Constituting America is based upon this principle: America will not and cannot survive unless her citizens, her children, and her students, are educated about the validity, necessity and Providential Divinity of the Constitution.






The Constitution should not be dismissed or relegated to obsolescence, for as surely as this is done, democracy will meet its demise. Knowledge of the contents of the Constitution and the values of our founding fathers is pivotal to enduring these challenging times.






A renewed, rekindled enthusiasm and a patriot’s desire for the understanding of our Constitution begins with its accessibility. Challenging the mindset of those who consider our Constitution to be antiquated, is our mission. An enlightened America regarding her roots, her basis, and her thesis is the key to America’s pertinent survival. Americans have rights. Americans must have knowledge to understand them.






Constituting America’s mission is to reach, educate and inform the youth and all citizens through modern technology and modern means, because we must not let those who devalue freedom dominate the debate.


~ Janine Turner






“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge of the people.”


~ John Adams

A Constitutional View of HR 3200

Constitutional Lawyer critiques Health Care Reform (HR 3200)











by Michael Connelly of Carrollton, Texas, retired Constitutional Lawyer, having read the entire health care bill (HR3200), has some comments, not about the bill, but about the effects on our Constitution. It's a broader picture than just health care reform.






THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILLS






Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, Constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.






To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.






The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface.






In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead, it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.






The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.






This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.






You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.






If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.






So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out of the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.






The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.






I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress, I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.






For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.










Michael Connelly


Retired Attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor


Carrollton, Texas

Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

I have had about enough of your administration's characterization of me. I am not a nut, an extremist, domestic terrorist, or a protester who is being paid by the insurance companies. I am not now nor have I ever worked in any capacity in the medical or insurance fields.

I am nothing more than a concerned citizen who is deeply afraid of what you are trying to do to this country. The people who are showing up at these town halls are people who have grandparents, parents, and children. We are concerned about the direction the health care debate is taking. The different versions of these bills are on-line and accessible for us to read. Some of us have actually taken the opportunity to do so.

We are not lawyers nor lawmakers so the language can be a little difficult to understand; but we get the gist. We understand that care as you get older will be more difficult to come by, we understand that abortion will be on demand with tax-payer funds, we understand that government will audit companies that are self-insured, we understand that money will be cut from medicare, and we don't like it. We are standing up and saying no.

Mr. President we also understand that the bills are not being read. We understand that CBO changed the price tag on the bill after meeting with you at the White House. We understand that Speaker Pelosi is trying to strong arm the more moderate/conservative members of your party to get her way. We understand that you are simply not telling the truth when you say you are not looking for single-payer system. We have the video that proves it. Try as you may, you can not back away from your own words. We are not stupid.

Mr. President, I have never said a word when people from Code Pink were out protesting the war. They are Americans, they have a constitutional right to protest. You did not hear the Bush Administration dismiss Cindy Sheehan for her anti-military views. Please stop dismissing mine.

You and I will find almost no common ground; as I disagree with virtually everything that you stand for and believe in. But I have never said that you don't have the right to stand up say them. All I am asking that you, The President of the United States, realize that when you took an oath to uphold the constitution it included my right to protest.

If you and your administration want to paint me as right-wing nut, than so be it. But it seems to me that I am more willing to stand by your constitutional rights than you are of mine. That is a truly sad commentary of the man who is my president.

Just a Conservative Girl

Dancing with the Czars

Here is the very long list of Czars. No one is sure if this is all of them. None of these people have been approved by the Senate. We do not know if they have been investigated by the FBI. Some of these people may be hearding classified information, how did they get security clearances so quickly? Did the President just give them clearance? This is unconstitutional. This is increasing the power of the presidency in a way that the framers never intended. There is no oversight. They answer directly to the President. Where are the budgets for these people coming from? We need to ask our senators to investigate this and demand that checks and balances of our government are properly administered.

Richard Holbrooke
Afghanistan Czar
Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Jeffrey Crowley
AIDS Czar
Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy

Alan Bersin
Border Czar
Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs

David Hayes
CA Water Czar
Deputy Interior Secretary

Todd Stern
Climate Czar
Special Envoy for Climate Change

Lynn Rosenthal
Domestic Violence Czar
Adviser on violence against women

Gil Kerlikowske
Drug Czar
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

Paul Volcker
Economic Czar
Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board

Carol Browner
Energy Czar
Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change

Joshua DuBois
Faith-based Czar
Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Cameron Davis
Great Lakes Czar
Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan

Van Jones
Green Jobs Czar
Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality

Danny Fried
Guantanamo Closure Czar
Special envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay

Nancy-Ann DeParle
Health Czar
Director of the White House Office of Health Reform

Vivek Kundra
Information Czar
Federal Chief Information Officer

Dennis Blair
Intelligence Czar
Director of National Intelligence

George Mitchell
Mideast Peace Czar
Special Envoy to the Middle East

Dennis Ross
Mideast Policy Czar
Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia - Different, unnamed position now

Kenneth Feinberg
Pay Czar
Special Master on executive pay

Cass Sunstein
Regulatory Czar
Director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

John Holdren
Science Czar
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology

Earl Devaney
Stimulus Accountability Czar
Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board

J. Scott Gration
Sudan Czar
Special Envoy to Sudan

Herb Allison
TARP Czar
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability

Elizabeth Warren
TARP Oversight Czar
Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the $700B Bailout Fund

Aneesh Chopra
Technology Czar
Chief Technology Officer

John Brennan
Terrorism Czar
Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security

Adolfo Carrion, Jr
Urban Affairs Czar
Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs

Ashton Carter
Weapons Czar
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics

Gary Samore
WMD/Terrorism Czar
Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism

Ron Bloom
Car Czar
Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers