It’s Better to Look Back Than Forward

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

We all know of the giant $1.2 billion NSA storage facility in Utah. It tops out at over 15 times the size of Giants/Jets stadium and that’s just the part that’s above ground. 200 acres is evidently not enough room to store all the data to “keep America safe”.

In May of this year construction began on an additional 28 acre NSA site outside of Baltimore Maryland (and again, that’s just the part that we can see). Together they are seven times the size of the Pentagon.

But don’t worry; they need all that acreage to “keep us safe”.

Many have complained of all that data being stored, but our government assures us that they aren’t reading our transmissions or listening to our phone calls.

They say they must monitor us all “in general” so they can better find the bad guys. That it is essential for the administration to issue “general warrants” allowing the NSA to spy on everyone.

So the question is, should we allow it to continue? Is it legal or even proper? Good questions. For answers, we conservatives always go back to our original documents: the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist papers as well as the founders actual statements.

But you may say, most of the surveillance is electronic. What did the founders know of that? Well, nothing of course. So what! A “general warrant” is the same, whether it is to intrude electronically or physically.

One has to go no further than the fourth amendment of the Constitution which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by the oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That seems fairly straightforward. But where did it come from? One of the fourth amendment purposes was to prevent the new American government from doing what the British crown had perpetrated on the colonies for so many years.

Prior to the revolution, British courts issued “Writs of Assistance”, a type of general warrant. It gave the crown very broad search and seizure powers. The writs gave customs officials the power to enter private homes and businesses to search for smuggled or untaxed goods.

Writs of assistance not only gave British customs agents the power to search for illegal imports, but as the name suggests, it allowed them to command other government officials and even private citizens to assist them. A holder of a writ had the power to search any building or residence and confiscate any suspected contraband.

Writs of assistance were very similar to the data collected and stored by the NSA. Unlike a standard search warrant it was and is permanent, remaining in effect until six months after the death of the King in power when it was issued. Now that I think about it, NSA stored data is worse than a writ of assistance for a writ does eventually expire where NSA data is truly permanent.

Writs were such a concern to the colonists that in 1756 the colony of Massachusetts banned the use of general warrants, but it did no good for the crown superseded all colonial law.

Attorney and founder James Otis, Jr. describes general warrants as: “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that was ever found in an English law book.”

The issuance of writs had become so egregious as to be included among the specific complaints the signers of the Declaration of Independence laid out against King George III: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

So as is always the case, if one wishes to find the answer pertaining to law or government one merely has to look back, not forward. I’d say the founders would be firmly against the NSA program, wouldn’t you?

The Politics of Instant Gratification

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

The search for immediate results, instant gratification, is everywhere in our society. It has permeated every facet of our lives from professional to personal to political.

Electronic media is a perfect example. Twitter, in my opinion, has become exactly what I thought it would be, a platform for the stupid. It is the epitome of the instant gratification society.

I’m not a fuddy-duddy, unless you ask my children. I just know “you can’t always get what you want” (Rolling Stones) in the time frame you desire.

And thus it is also in politics. How many times have we heard Obama say “we’re out of time” or “we don’t have time for Congress to debate this” or “we must act for the good of the…” fill in the blank. And then he signs and anticonstitutional executive order.

Speaking of executive orders, you may have noticed the president and his people no longer use the term executive order. It is now “Executive Action”, for he is a man of action and action gives us… you got it, instant gratification.

The Republicans are not immune from this disease, except when it comes to taking a stand on or for something. Then we can wait until next time, like the debt ceiling, or a budget battle, etc. But when it comes to things like amnesty, we can’t wait.

Never mind looking down the road to see how it will destroy what so many have fought and died for. No, we must win the next election and nothing else matters.

It seems we no longer need men (and women) of thought and deliberation. No, we need “Men of Action”, who can’t get something done now.

As I stated, many have fallen prey to this myopic approach to life and politics, even real conservatives whom I respect and trust.

I am speaking of the desperate need some have to cling to a party that clearly has abandoned us. Rush Limbaugh has on so many occasions excoriated people for even positing the notion of a third-party. He has always stated that the party can only be fixed, as was Reagan’s view, from the inside.

Well, as controversial as this may be, I believe that portion of the era of Reagan  to be over.

Limbaugh insists, as do many others, we don’t stand a chance if we form a third-party. With an attitude like that, I agree. He’s right though; there may not be the instant gratification of an election victory right around the corner. So what!

At this point, are we not beyond that? Presently, I’m going to guess there are maybe 15 to 25 constitutional conservative Republicans within both Houses. That’s maybe 25 out of 535. Pitiful! And it’s crystal clear that the Republican leadership despises them (and us) more than Al Qaeda.

So again, what are we supposed to do? Just go along to get along? That’s no longer an option.

It’s time to begin doing what is right for our country, our children, because it’s the right thing to do. Let’s stop worrying about just winning the next election. With few exceptions, we all see where that has gotten us.

Mich. Judge Rules Detroit Bankruptcy Unconstitutional

Claims It Fails to ‘Honor’ President Obama

A Michigan judge ruled Friday that Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s Detroit bankruptcy filing is a violation of the state’s constitution and that it fails to “honor” President Barack Obama who “took (Detroit’s auto companies) out of bankruptcy.”

County Circuit Judge Rosemary Aquilina said she hopes Gov. Snyder “reads certain sections of the (Michigan) constitution and reconsiders his actions.”

(Related: Melissa Harris-Perry’s ‘Delusional’ Analysis of Bankrupt Detroit May Stun You)

“I have some very serious concerns because there was this rush to bankruptcy court that didn’t have to occur and shouldn’t have occurred,” Aquilina said.

“Plaintiffs shouldn’t have been blindsided,” and “this process shouldn’t have been ignored.”

County Circuit Judge Rosemary Aquilina Rules Against Bankruptcy Filing, Claims it Fails to Honor President Obama

Kevyn Orr, Detroit’s state-appointed emergency manager, filed for Chapter 9 protection on Thursday after two municipal pension funds moved to sue him in an attempt to protect retiree benefits.

Currently, both pension funds have claims to roughly “$9.2 billion in unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities,” the Free Press reports.

The city’s debt and liabilities, Orr notes, could be as much as $20 billion.

State law protects pension benefits from being “diminished,” but filing in federal bankruptcy court takes away those protections.

After both funds moved to sue the emergency manager so at to protect retiree benefits, Orr had no choice but to file for Chapter 9.

Continue Reading

Obama Commits to Signing UN Arms Treaty

The number one goal of the United Nations is to become the political entity  that rules all nations or in other words, the one world government.  To  accomplish that goal, they have to continue to exert their authority and power  over individual countries and they have been quite successful at doing this in  recent years.

One of the key pieces of international law that needs to be in place before  the UN can take over the world is to control all weapons, including handguns,  rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons and ammunition.   Over the past few years, the UN has been pushing one treaty that will help to  accomplish that goal.  It is the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty is a treaty that would regulate the international  sale and transfer of all conventional weapons throughout the world.   Conventional weapons are sea and land mines, rockets, missiles, cluster  munitions, non-nuclear bombs, shells, small arms and light weapons.  By  small arms, they mean handguns, rifles and shotguns of all kinds, regardless of  their use or design.

A number of Second Amendment supporters and gun rights advocates believe that  this treaty could be used to further regulate guns in the US and infringe on the  rights of Americans to bear arms.  One  hundred and thirty members of Congress jointly signed a letter to President  Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, insisting that they reject the UN Arms  Trade Treaty, saying:

Continue Reading

E Pluribus Krugman

The following are excerpts of a New York Times article from that cerebral giant Paul Krugman. It is his attempt at celebrating Independence Day. Rather laughable, since he and his ilk have pushing for government dependence for decades.

E Pluribus Unum

By 

It’s that time of year — the long weekend when we gather with friends and family to celebrate hot dogs, potato salad and, yes, the founding of our nation. And it’s also a time for some of us to wax a bit philosophical, to wonder what, exactly, we’re celebrating. Is America in 2013, in any meaningful sense, the same country that declared independence in 1776?

Above all, we are still, at root, a nation that believes in democracy, even if we don’t always act on that belief. As usual the lefties like to espouse “democracy” in lieu of what we really are, a constitutional republic. And don’t think he doesn’t know the difference.

America in 1776 was a rural land, mainly composed of small farmers and, in the South, somewhat bigger farmers with slaves. America today is nothing like that, even though some politicians — think Sarah Palin — like to talk as if the “real America” is still white, Protestant, and rural or small-town. Notice how he wrote that. It is to cause the myopic NYT reader to assume that Palin actually said it, which is, of course, a lie. She has never even hinted such a thing. But Krugman, being a mind reader, knows her sinister thoughts.

But the real America is, in fact, a nation of metropolitan areas, not small towns.  In fact, two-thirds of Americans live in metro areas with half-a-million or more residents. What do we do in these dense metropolitan areas? Almost none of us are farmers; few of us hunt; by and large, we sit in cubicles on weekdays and visit shopping malls on our days off. This is what liberals like Krugman do. Spend their whole lives promoting American division, us vs. them, as if  the “metropolitan dwellers”, due to their numbers, are somehow more important than those hick rural citizens. That’s mob rule and that’s pure democracy, which is why they use the term democracy, not republic.

And ethnically we are, of course, very different from the founders. Only a minority of today’s Americans are descended from the WASPs and slaves of 1776. If that’s the case, why must we call all American blacks African-Americans? Just asking.

Yet I would maintain that we are still the same country that declared independence all those years ago. Huh? Have you read the list of grievances in The Declaration of Independence recently? It’s a virtual itemized list of king Obama usurpations.

Today’s America is a place where everyone claims to support equality of opportunity, yet we are, objectively, the most class-ridden nation in the Western world — the country where children of the wealthy are most likely to inherit their parents’ status. It’s also a place where everyone celebrates the right to vote, yet many politicians work hard to disenfranchise the poor and nonwhite.  Krugman is worth about $2.5 million. I assume since he has no children of status to inherit his wealth, he will give it all to the poor, nonwhite and disenfranchised.

But that very hypocrisy is, in a way, a good sign. The wealthy may defend their privileges, but given the temper of America, they have to pretend that they’re doing no such thing. Maybe some think they need to pretend or suppress for fear of mob reprisal. Kind of like the government and the liberal press giving up home addresses to mobs like Occupy Wallstreet, so they may go protest, harass and threaten the “rich” people’s children. Funny that no one ever complains of the liberal rich, like you Paul.

So, yes, we are still, in a deep sense, the nation that declared independence and, more important, declared that all men have rights. Well, how eloquent. It’s nice to know we all have rights, no doubt bestowed upon us by government. In 1776, Krugman would have been a Tory or Tory sympathizer, not a rebel.

United Community of America

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

It’s funny that the left can consistently find things that are clearly not in the Constitution and discount or completely ignore those that clearly are in the document.

Decade after decade we’ve heard the constant drumbeat of the left exclaiming the separation of church and state. That it’s the law and we must take care not to co-mingle religion and the state.

I’ve read the Constitution many times and can state unequivocally that the separation of church and state is not written nor even implied in the Constitution.

What is clear, to anyone who cares to take a peek, is the separation of powers. That is as plain as the nose on my brother’s face.

Yet there doesn’t seem to be a separation any longer. There appear to be no branches of government that are separate but equal. Somewhere along the American timeline our constitutional republic has been replaced with some kind of three-class system.

But what about “we the people”? There is no “we the people”. We are merely indentured servants of the state, lower than the low.

Our federal legislative branch, the House and Senate, have become the lower or serf class. They have to answer to the parliamentarian class, the executive branch, who in turn must ultimately bow to the will of the rulers, the judicial branch.

How did we morph into such a society? Easy; from a single Supreme Court decision. It’s called judicial review and was set up long ago.

The 1803 decision of the Marshall Court in Marbury v Madison  set this country on a path to judicial tyranny.

The eventuality of that one Supreme Court decision has effectively nullified the 10th amendment , states rights and rendered individual state constitutions virtually meaningless.

Yet in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, a review of Article III, section 2  nowhere states or implies judicial review of the Constitution.

Folks (I sound like Bill O’Reilly), the Constitution is quite simple to understand. It’s made to appear complex so that the common man feels reliant upon “scholars” to explain to us idiots what the founders “really” meant.

In fact, it was written and enacted for and by the states thus granting states most of the power. It would not have been ratified otherwise.

That is why, unlike today’s legislation, it is not at all a lengthy document. It didn’t have to be. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government reverts back to the states and thus the people. It’s really that simple.

Yet we have allowed the Supreme Court to usurp their mandated authority.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the danger of the court in 1823: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for the removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction, before anyone has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employing in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

There’s that word, precedent. Makes my skin crawl.

Ditto Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

But with the recent Supreme Court decision nullifying a legally binding California state constitutional amendment on marriage, I’ve concluded that ship has sailed. 

The fix is now in and that decision marks the end of states rights and the 10th amendment. We will soon be known as the “United Community of America”, a centuries-old progressive dream come true.

Disappointed in Rubio

by: the Common Constitutionalist

A few days ago Erick Erickson at RedState wrote of the great immigration debate, particularly the involvement of Senator Marco Rubio.

Senator Rubio, for good or ill, is the talk of the political town, as it were. He has become the face of this battle.

Erickson said that Marco Rubio is either being played for a fool or we are being played by Rubio.

I’m sorry Erick. You are either soft peddling what you know to be true, or stupid. and we know you’re not stupid.

Let’s just say it. A liar is a liar, regardless of party affiliation and Rubio is a bold face liar. What…need proof? Here ya go.

During a recent interview with Latino broadcaster Univision, Rubio said, in spanish: ” Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about  preventing legalizations. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then comes the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residency.”

Now I don’t hablo espanol, but I think I can translate. Millions upon millions of illegals will be immediately legalized. Then there will be plan for border security, but no border security. There will be no fence, or wall erected. They may hire more border agents but  the “no-touchy the illegals” policy will remain so it won’t matter.

It’s painfully obvious that the vast majority of politicians in Washington are not interested in border security. Just look at the failed yet quite reasonable amendment put forth by Senator Chuck Grassley. He wanted legalization to only happen after certifying that the border had been secure for a 6 month period. Only 6 months! It received virtually no support and was tabled by “Dirty” Harry Reid.  So you tell me anyone wants to seal the border.

Glenn Beck made a great point about Rubio. As usual, Glenn is dead-on right.

Beck said that he likened Rubio’s “spanish language” interview to the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah. Their leaders give incendiary speeches to their followers in arabic. They then give a whitewashed speech in english to the rest of the world claiming it was the same speech, but we misunderstood due to the poor translation.

Beck continued by saying that Rubio: “Is not on your side.” He was also disgusted with Rand Paul and Jeff Flake.

Like Beck, Levin and Limbaugh, I too have had enough of these faux-conservatives we all counted on to take the fight to Washington. At this point I wonder if these republicans were ever constitutional conservatives as some of them claimed.

After the last election, I stated unequivocally that under NO circumstances will I ever support any politician who supports amnesty! And don’t fool yourself. That’s what this is.

So, you may say; this is one issue. You can’t expect to agree with politicians all the time, right? Wrongo! Not this time.

The immigration issue is the most important issue of our lifetime. More important than the debt ceiling, the sequester, the deficit, the IRS scandal, Benghazigate, the PRISM program…anything; even Obamacare.

We will not and cannot survive the onslaught of 10, 20, 30 million instant citizens. And this will be a perpetual amnesty program. It will not end. Don’t believe the lies to the contrary.

I hate to be such a downer but we better wake up and fast. Call, write, talk to your friends. Whatever, but this must be stopped. If it is allowed to take hold, we are done.