Daily Archives: 16/08/2010

Feburary

Posted on 16/08/2010 | 2 Comments

18th

Tennessee (Declaring Tenth Amendment)          Gov. Phil Bredesen[R]
Timeline:
Signed by Governor                                                                                                                                                                    06/23/2009
Enrolled; Signed by S. Speaker (S) ; transmitted to Governor; Concurred (S) (Ayes—31, Nays—0)                         06/12/200
Rec. for concur by S. FW&M Comm ref to: S. Cal. Comm. (S) (Ayes—10, Nays—0)                                                 06/09/2009
Rcvd. from H., ref. to S. F,W&M Comm.(S)                                                                                                                          05/28/2009
Engrossed; ready for transmission to Sen.;Adopted as am. (Ayes—85, Nays—2, PNV—3)
H. adopted am. (Amendment 1 of 0 – HA0536)                                                                                               05/26/2009
Rec. for pass if am. by s/c ref. to Judiciary Committee                                                                                                       05/05/2009
Action Def. in s/c Civil Practice and Procedure of JUD to 5/5/2009                                                                                 04/28/2009
Action Def. in s/c Civil Practice and Procedure of JUD to 4/28/2009                                                                               04/21/2009
Action Def. in s/c Civil Practice and Procedure of JUD to 4/21/2009                                                                               04/15/2009
Action Def. in s/c Civil Practice and Procedure of JUD to 4/15/2009                                                                               04/14/2009
Action Def. in s/c Civil Practice and Procedure of JUD to 4/14/2009                                                                               04/07/2009
Action Def. in s/c Civil Practice and Procedure of JUD to 4/7/2009                                                                                 03/31/2009
Assigned to s/c Civil Practice and Procedure of JUD                                                                                                            03/17/2009
Intro., ref. to Judiciary                                                                                                                                                                                    02/19/2009
Introduced                                                                                                                                                                                                        02/18/2009

House Joint Resolution (HJR) 0108
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Lynn[R] , Maggart[R], Hawk[R], Niceley[R], Swafford[R], Campfield[R], Dennis[R], Haynes[R], Watson[R], Dunn[R], Eldridge[R], Coley[R], Bell[R], Floyd[R], Mumpower[R], Cobb J[R], Casada[R], Hill[R], Evans[R], Rich[R], Montgomery[R], Sargent[R], McDaniel[R], Harrison[R], Hensley[R], Carr[R], Halford[R], Harwell[R], McManus[R], Lollar[R], Brooks H[R], Shipley[R], Faulkner[R], Ramsey[R], Matheny[R], Lundberg[R], Johnson P[R], Dean[R], Brooks K[R], Weaver[R], Todd[R], McCormick[R]

SUMMARY OF BILL—Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the puppet, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of Tennessee’s Congressional Delegation A RESOLUTION to affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to demand the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the States for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the states; and WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the States are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and WHEREAS, many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States; and WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that we hereby affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We also demand the federal government to halt and reverse its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed by the Speaker of the House and of the Senate, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolution to the legislatures of the several States, to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and to call for a joint working group between the States to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the puppet, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of Tennessee’s Congressional delegation.

Nebraska—(Employee Free Choice Act)             Gov. Dave Heineman[R]
Timeline:
Notice of hearing for Mar 5                  02/26/2009
First Read, Referred to Judiciary Comm; Referred to reference Com.; laid over; Introduced    02/18/2009
One Hundred First Legislature—First Session

Legislative Resolution (LR) 26
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Lautenbaugh, Carlson, Christensen, Dubas, Fulton, McCoy, Price, Schilz

WHEREAS, The puppet, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new administration is to sign into law the “Freedom of Choice Act”, not yet introduced to the 111th Congress, but previously introduced to the 110th Congress as H.R.1964 and S.1173, which purports to classify abortion as a “fundamental right”, equal in stature to the right to free speech and the right to vote – rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution; and WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would invalidate any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, State, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “discriminate against the exercise of the right…in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information”; and

WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would nullify any federal or State law “enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of its enactment” and would effectively prevent the State of Nebraska from enacting similar protective measures in the future; and WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would invalidate more than five hundred fifty federal and State abortion-related laws, laws supported by the majority of the American public; and WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would specifically invalidate the following common-sense, protective laws properly enacted by the State of Nebraska: Sections 28-325 to 28-345, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska; and

WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” will not make abortion safe or rare, but will instead actively promote and subsidize abortion with State and federal tax dollars and do nothing to ensure its safety; and WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” will protect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology of unregulated abortion-on-demand, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion and debate over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ONE HUNDRED FIRST LEGISLATURE OF NEBRASKA, FIRST SESSION:

1. That the Legislature strongly opposes the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” and urges Congress to summarily reject it. 2. That the Legislature strongly opposes the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” because it seeks to circumvent the States’ general legislative authority as guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3. That the Legislature strongly opposes the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” because it seeks to undermine the right and responsibility of the states and the people to debate, vote on, and determine abortion policy. 4. That the Legislature strongly opposes the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” because the protection of women’s health through State regulations on abortion is a compelling State interest that should not be nullified by Congress. 5. That the Legislature strongly opposes the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” because its enactment would nullify sections 28-325 to 28-345, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska, laws that the Legislature and the people of Nebraska strongly support. 6. That the Secretary of State of Nebraska transmit a copy of this resolution to the Governor of Nebraska, the puppet, President of the United States Senate, and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

19th

First Foreign Trip http://conservativeoasis.com/obamas-first-100-days/2009/04/26/

Canada. Good idea. I like it. Start small. Baby steps. Everything else is going so damn well for you so far.

20th

Attorney General calls America a “Nation of Cowards!”
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

“Though this Nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a Nation of cowards.”—Eric Holder, the puppet’s Attorney General. [So, he wants to talk about race relations? He’s brave and we’re all cowards? He’d like to start an open and honest debate about racial tension in the United States? Okay. We’ll bite.]

Campaign Stiffed City of Chicago—His own Hometown
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

Chicago Sun Times—Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of the puppet’s victory celebration in Grant Park—despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.

Mileage Tax Super Fast Flip-Flop
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

The puppet’s Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, suggests motorists be taxed based on how many miles they drive. Fox News reports that mere moments later, his own spokeswoman, Lori Irving shot the idea out of the sky. “The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be the puppet administration policy.” [Who is running this show? The puppet, LaHood or Irving? You’re still not safe to drive though as some States are considering this tax!]

Broken Tax Promise
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

Within days of taking office, the puppet breaks promise not to raise any taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year! The puppet approves tax hike of 61-cents a pack on cigarettes after saying as a candidate—“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” UPDATE—Februrary 24—the puppet repeats the lie saying those who make less than $250,000 will not pay higher taxes, “Not one Dime!” UPDATE—March 5—the puppet’s budget raises 45% of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured. UPDATE—March 25—Neil Cavuto on Fox reported the puppet’s budget raises taxes on those making above $209,000.

Arkansas (Declaring Tenth Amendment)         Gov.Mike Beebe[D]
Timeline:
HCR1011—Read the third time and failed (Ayes—34, Nays—54, Non-Voting—12)          04/03/2009
HCR1011—Placed on second reading for the purpose of amendment; Amend No1 read and adopted; Engrossed; reported correctly engrossed     04/02/2009
SR18—Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment        05/01/2009
HR1031—Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment            05/01/2009
HCR1011—Returned by the Committee with the recommendation that it do pass as amended 1 04/01/2009
SR18—Introduced; first read; Rules suspended; read second time; sent to Senate; referred to Senate comm.on State Agencies & Gov Affairs         3/09/2009
HR1031—Introduced; read first time, Rules suspended, read second time; referred to comm. on State Agencies & Gov Affairs     03/09/2009
HCR1011—Read the first time; Rules suspended; read second time; Referred to Comm on State Agencies & gov Affair     02/23/2009
HCR1011—Introduced       02/20/20098
7th General Assembly, Regular Session, 2009
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 1011
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Hobbs[R], Woods[R], Ragland[R], Barnett[R], Hopper[R]; Sen(s) Altes[R]
House Resolution (HR) 1031
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Hobbs[R], Woods[R], Ragland[R], Barnett[R], Hopper[R]
Senate Resolution (SR) 18
Sponsored by: Sen(s) Altes[R]

SENATE RESOLUTION—TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING ARKANSAS BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EIGHTY-SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The purpose of this resolution is to affirm the rights of all States including Arkansas based on the provisions of the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION—CLAIMING STATES’ RIGHTS UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the States; and WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States; and WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States,

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EIGHTY-SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN—THAT the State of Arkansas hereby claims rights under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution serve as a request to the federal government, as our agent, to refrain from mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the clerk of the House of Representatives distribute a copy of this resolution to the puppet, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each State’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Arkansas Congressional delegation.

22th

Becomes third Bush Term!
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerica.org

[As we have posted, the puppet seems to be the third Bush Term he warned us McCain would be!] Alternet reports—the puppet administration has now taken action, and it’s appalling. He’s backed the Bush administration claim that terror suspects held at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan have no Constitutional rights. [And that’s what the Democrats think of him!]

23rd

Pledges to Reduce Deficit—Half by the End of his First Term

http://conservativeoasis.com/obamas-first-100-days/2009/04/26/

Yes, that deficit. The one he just doubled. In effect, he is saying, “I will get you back to where you were before I was elected, four years from now.” Thanks Barry. The puppet also assigns Biden to be the ‘Sheriff” of the stimulus provisions. Personally, I think this is one of those “give the overactive mouth something to do so he will shut up” moves.

Indiana (Declaring Tenth Amendment) Gov. Mitch Daniels[R]
Timeline:
SR0042—Senators added: Charbonneau, Head, Miller, Landske, Long; Second reading: adopted
(Roll Call—336, Ayes—44, Nays—3, Excused—3)    04/09/2009
SR0042—Senators added: Alting, Hershman       04/07/2009
SR0042—Committee report: do pass, adopted (Ayes—8, Nays—0); Senators added: Skinner, Deig, Becker, Arnold, Taylor, Yoder    04/02/2009
SR0042—Senators added: Delph (Second Author) Kruse (third author), Stutzman, Buck, Waltz, Boots, Steele, Waterman, Nugent, Paul, Leising, Holdman, M. Young        03/26/2009
SR0042—Authored by Senator Walker; First Reading; Referred to Comm on Commerce and Public Policy& Interstate Cooperation            03/19/2009
SCR0037—Added Delph, Stutzman, Buck, Waltz, Boots, Steele, Waterman, Nugent, Paul, Leising, Holdman, M. Young; Stutzman removed as second author      02/24/2009
SCR0037—Introduced; first read; referred to comm. on Rules and Legislative Procedure 02/23/2009
First Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2009)
Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 0037
Sponsored by: Sen(s) Delph[R], Kruse[R], Walker[R], Boots[R], Buck[R], Holdman[R], Leising[R], Nugent[R], Paul[R], Steele[R], Stutzman[R], Waltz[R], Waterman[R], Young[R]
Senate Resolution (SR) 0042
Sponsored by:  Sen(s) Delph[R], Kruse[R], Walker[R], Alting[R], Arnold[D], Becker[R], Boots[R], Buck[R], Charbonneau[R], Deig[D], Head[R], Hershman[R], Holdman[R], Landske[R], Leising[R], Long[R], Miller[R], Nugent[R], Paul[R], Skinner[D], Steele[R], Stutzman[R], Taylor[D], Waltz[R], Waterman[R], Yoder[R], Young[R]

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. _____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED RESOLUTION

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the puppet, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State’s legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people ”; Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more; Whereas, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and State governments and is widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science; Whereas, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”; Whereas, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government”;

Whereas, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments. ” He believed that “this balance between the national and State governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them”; Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various States; Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government;

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States; and Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring: SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers. SECTION 3: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the the puppet the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.

24th

First Address to a Joint Session of Congress

http://conservativeoasis.com/obamas-first-100-days/2009/04/26/

Once again, we hear about how he is not one to pass the buck, and is in charge, but, alas, feels it is imperative to note that he “inherited” this or these problems. Hmmmm…I thought every President inherited all the good and bad of the previous administration. We all know what you inherited [like a safe country], but we all also know that your hand is up the puppet’s a** so far now with that stimulus bill you just burdened us with—that’s the problem you “inherited” that you now “own,” and you just made it worse.

Energy Lies
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

The puppet tells a Joint Session of Congress, “We will double this Nation’s supply of renewable energy in three years so 16.8 percent of our energy comes from hydro, solar and wind by 2012. Fox News—Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to [just] 12.5 percent. The puppet says, “We import more oil today than ever before.” Fox News says that isn’t true—Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over five billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The Nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and Government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades. [And tell your friends we get most of our oil from Canada (it’s true!).] The puppet—We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. [Really? Our entire survival depends on this one thing? Are you sure? And we have known this for decades? Maybe we should drill here, drill now.]

Questionable History
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

The puppet promises to save the United Auto Workers Union, “The Nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” Many question that version of history saying Karl Benz of Germany invented the automobile in roughly 1885.

Broken Tax Promise
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

The puppet told Congress he lived up to his promise to give a tax cut to 95 percent of all Americans. That’s a lie and a broken promise and he knows it. Forty percent of all Americans don’t make enough money to pay any Federal Income Tax at all. That means even a tax cut for everyone else would only be a tax cut for 60 percent of Americans. What he actually did was use your tax dollars to provide a welfare check to the 40 percent by giving them $13 a week in their paycheck starting in April. If his math is right and another five percent are to get tax hikes, then the remaining 55 percent of Americans actually will get that whopping $13 tax cut and the rest of us are screwed. UPDATE—Apr. 19—David Axelrod—amazed people could be upset enough to hold Tea Parties, repeats the lie—The thing that bewilders me is this President just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. So, I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere because he certainly understands the burden that people face.

Big Government Lie
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

“Not because I believe in bigger Government—I don’t.” [The next day he proposed a budget with the biggest increase in the size of Government ever!]

Health-care Spending Lie
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

…and in a bizarre statement, he claimed using tax dollars to create a socialist medicine program would reduce the deficit (he made no attempt to explain that). UPDATE—May 3—the puppet—The more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road….If we’re making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term. Fox News says not so fast—The New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that “sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching.” It said that “although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.” And a study released in December (2008) by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care “could improve people’s health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame.”

Kentucky (Declaring Tenth Amendment)   Gov. Steven Beshear[D]
Timeline:
BR54—Rep. Stan Lee prefiled      06/02/2009
HCR168—Posted in committee         02/26/2009
HCR172—Sent to Elections, Const. Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs   02/25/2009
HCR168—Sent to Elections, Const. Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs     02/25/2009
HCR172—Introduced in House               02/24/2009
HCR168—Introduced in House              02/24/2009
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 168
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Stacy[D], Bratcher[R], Comer Jr[R], DeCesare[R], Koenig[R], Lee S[R], Montell[R], Napier[R],
Osborne[R], Webb-Edgington[R], Westrom[D], Wuchner[R]
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 172
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Floyd[R], DeCesare[R], Koenig[R], Osborne[R]
Bill Resolution (BR) 54
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Lee S[R]

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION claiming sovereignty over powers not granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution; serving notice to the federal government to cease mandates beyond its authority; and stating Kentucky’s position that federal legislation that requires States to comply under threat of loss of federal funding should be prohibited or repealed. Declare State sovereignty over powers not given to the federal government by the U. S. Constitution; demand the federal government to cease mandates beyond constitutionally delegated powers; prohibit federal legislation requiring state passage of laws under threat of penalties or sanctions; direct the Clerk to distribute copies of the Resolution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the State; and WHEREAS, today, in 2010, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” and the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States; and WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

NOW, THEREFORE, Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Senate concurring therein. Section 1. The Commonwealth of Kentucky hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. Section 2. This Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. Section 3. It is the position of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that all compulsory federal legislation that directs States to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or requires States to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed. Section 4. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall distribute a copy of this Resolution to the puppet, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate of each State’s legislature of the United States of America, and to each member of Kentucky’s congressional delegation.

25th

Biden doesn’t Know Internet “Number!”
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

[Another Gaffe for Joe Biden.] Fox News—During a Feb. 25 interview on the CBS Early Show, Biden encouraged viewers to visit a Government-run website that tracks stimulus spending. When asked for the site’s web address, Biden could not remember the site’s number. “You know, I’m embarrassed. Do you know the website number?” He asked an aide standing out of view. “I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m actually embarrassed.”

Democrat Warns the puppet about Constitutional Violations
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

America’s Watchtower: Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, sent a letter to the puppet warning him that he is pushing the Constitution’s limits in regards to the puppet’s appointment of all of these ‘czars’ to oversee issues (health reform, energy, climate change, urban issues) that are supposed to be handled by the Legislative Branch of the Government. UPDATE—Apr. 18—Byrd still upset.

Appointment Scandal—Kathleen Sebelius
by Peter Andrew—conservativeamerican.org

[Late-term abortion proponent put in charge of Health!] In yet another poor character judgment, the puppet names Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be in charge of Health and Human Services. She’s only interested in keeping some Americans healthy, not all. Reports say this abortion extremist once had a reception attended by a late-term abortion provider who now faces criminal charges. She’s also the Governor who threatened not to send out State tax refunds owed to citizens. UPDATE—Apr. 14—AP reports Sebelius lowballed donations she received from late-term abortion provider “Dr.” George Tiller-the-Killer. She said it was $12,450 in eight years, AP says there was more than $23,000 in just three of those years! UPDATE—Apr. 21—Sebelius gets approved by a Senate subcommittee to protect the health of most, not all, Americans. Still needs full Senate approval. UPDATE—Apr. 23—Michael Steele calls for Obama to withdraw Sebelius’ name from consideration the same day she vetoes a law that would have changed the late-term abortion rules in Kansas. UPDATE—Apr. 29—the puppet and Emanuel, not letting “a good crisis go to waste,” use the Swine Flu outbreak to scare wimpy Republican Senators into confirming Sebelius. The Sebelius Rebelius fails.

26th

Reveals 2010 budget

http://conservativeoasis.com/obamas-first-100-days/2009/04/26/

The ringmaster in the spotlight screams out to the eager crowd in the seats, “Watch as he implements universal comprehensive health care, all at the same time promising to cut a multi-trillion dollar budget in half by 2013!”

Bipartisan Lie “I won.”|
by Meghan Clyne New York Post

The puppet soared to victory on the hopeful promise of a new era of bipartisanship. During his inaugural address he even promised an ‘end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.’ Listening to Republican concerns about overspending was a nice gesture—until he shut down any hopes of real dialogue by crassly telling Republican leaders: ‘I won.’ (and advising them to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh) And who could forget the Rush Limbaugh flap—in which the puppet’s top advisers, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, orchestrated a public relations campaign meant to undermine the RNC chairman, Michael Steele, by framing talk-radio personality Limbaugh as the real head of the Republican Party.

Virginia (Declaring Tenth Amendment)          Gov. Tim Kaine[D]
Timeline:
Referred to Committee on Rules Failed; No action taken by Rules by voice vote                                                        02/28/2009
Introduced; referred to comm. on Rules                                                                                                                                 02/26/2009
House Resolution (HR) 61
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Peace[R], Fralin[R], Byron[R], Cline[R], Cole[R], Gilbert[R], Landes[R], Lingamfelter[R], Marshall R[R],
Morgan[R], Ware R[R], Wright[R]
Summary
HR 61 State sovereignty; urging Congress to honor under Tenth Amendment of U. S. Constitution. Summary as introduced: State sovereignty; Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Honoring state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and claiming sovereignty for the Commonwealth under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the States specifically to be an agent of the States; and WHEREAS, the States today are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign State of the United States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government,” and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations, and other proposals that may be anticipated, may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, That the Congress of the United States be urged to honor state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Commonwealth of Virginia hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. The Commonwealth by this resolution serves notice to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. Further, the Commonwealth urges that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires States to pass legislation or lose federal funding shall be prohibited or repealed.

27th

Claims End to Iraq Combat by Aug. 31, 2010

http://conservativeoasis.com/obamas-first-100-days/2009/04/26/

That’s good, Barry. Way to be bold. Most of it is already done. Job well done! Basically all Barry said was that we won’t be doing the fighting, but Iraqi’s will. He did not say all the troops would be home. In fact, he has found that most of his promises about Iraq are untenable, and will have to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq past that point, which will in effect, break his campaign promise. “Man, this President stuff is soooo much harder than that Candidate stuff!”

West Virginia (Budget)            Gov.
Timeline:
Completed legislative action; House Unfinished Business Calendar; Reported by the Clerk; Amendment
adopted; Amendment rejected; House adopted; calendar; Amendment adopted, voice vote;
Reported by the Clerk; On Unfinished Business House Calendar      03/04/2009
Be adopted                 03/03/2009
To House Rules; Introduced in House; To Rules      02/27/2009
HOUSE RESOLUTION (HR) 18|
ENGROSSED
Sponsored by: Rep(s) Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thompson, and Delegates Klempa, Anderson, Argento, Azinger, Barker, Beach, Boggs, Brown, Butcher, Campbell, Cann, Canterbury, Caputo, Crosier, Eldridge, Ellem, Ennis, Evans, Ferro, Fleischauer, Fragale, Frazier, Givens, Guthrie, Hall, Hamilton, Hartman, Hatfield, Hunt, Hutchins, Iaquinta, Ireland, Kominar, Lawrence, Longstreth, Louisos, Mahan, Manchin, Manypenny, Marshall, Martin, McGeehan, Michael, Miley, Miller C, Moore, Morgan, Moye, Paxton, Perdue, Perry, Pethtel, Phillips, Poling D, Poling M, Porter, Reynolds, Rodighiero, Romine, Ross, Rowan, Schadler, Schoen, Shaver, Shook, Shott, Skaff, Smith, Spencer, Stephens, Stowers, Sumner, Susman, Swartzmiller, Tabb, Talbott, Varner, Walker, Webster, Wells, White, Williams, Wooton

Expressing the will of the House of Delegates regarding Congress and the puppet planning a taxpayer-sponsored economic recovery package and the spending of economic recovery plan moneys. Whereas, The economic downturn is having a critical impact on everyday Americans who are struggling to maintain or find jobs in an increasingly difficult environment; and Whereas, Those same Americans are the taxpayers that provide the revenue needed to operate essential government services; and Whereas, Congress and the puppet are planning a taxpayer—sponsored economic recovery package that will provide billions of dollars to help economically devastated cities and States, immediately provide jobs to millions of out-of-work Americans through considerable infrastructure rebuilding, green energy projects and other projects that will require manufactured components; and

Whereas, Any domestically produced products that are purchased with economic recovery plan moneys will immediately help struggling American families and will help stabilize our greater economy; and Whereas, Any economic recovery plan spending should—to every extent possible—include a commitment from the State of West Virginia to buy materials, goods and services for projects from companies that are produced within the United States, thus employing the very workers that pay taxes for the economic recovery plan spending in the first place; therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Delegates: That the State of West Virginia will work to maximize the creation of American jobs and restoring economic growth and opportunity by spending economic recovery plan funds on products and services that both create jobs and help keep Americans employed; and, be it Further Resolved, That we commit to purchasing only products and services that are made or performed in the United States of America whenever and wherever possible with any economic recovery moneys provided to the State of West Virginia by the American taxpayers; and, be it

Further Resolved, That as Legislators of the State of West Virginia, we commit to publicize any requests to waive these procurement priorities so as to give American workers and producers the opportunity to identify and provide the American products and services that will maximize the success of our nation’s economic recovery program; and, be it Further Resolved, That, because all West Virginians have the right to full and free disclosure of the manner in which their hard-earned tax dollars are used, all expenditures of funds provided to the State of West Virginia through the federal economic recovery program should be open and transparent, and should be publicized and made fully accessible to all citizens.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in 2009 Articles

Tagged America, American Government, Louisiana, politics

Separation of Powers: Checks and Balances

Posted on 16/08/2010 | Leave a comment

post information borrowed from Cornell University’s Law School Website

Article 1—The Separation of Powers—Checks and Balances

Section 1—The Constitution nowhere contains an express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances. Yet, it does grant to three separate branches the powers to legislate, to execute, and to adjudicate, and it provides throughout the document the means by which each of the branches could resist the blandishments and incursions of the others. The Framers drew up our basic charter against a background rich in the theorizing of scholars and statesmen regarding the proper ordering in a system of government of conferring sufficient power to govern while withholding the ability to abridge the liberties of the governed….

Thus the Constitution of Virginia of 1776 provided—“The legislative, executive, and judiciary department shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other; nor shall any person exercise the powers of more than one of them, at the same time[.]“

That the doctrine did not demand absolute separation provided the basis for preservation of separation of powers in action. Neither sharply drawn demarcations of institutional boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient. Instead, the security against concentration of powers “consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” Thus, “[a]mbition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”

[Made simple—each Branch can check up on the other. They can't be totally shut out from each other.]

The Great Compromise, one of the critical decisions leading to a successful completion of the Convention, resolved the dispute about the national legislature by providing for a House of Representatives apportioned on population and a Senate in which the States were equally represented. The first function served, thus, was federalism. Co-extensively important, however, was the separation-of-powers principle served. The legislative power, the Framers both knew and feared, was predominant in a society dependent upon the suffrage of the people, and it was important to have a precaution against the triumph of transient majorities. Hence, the Constitution’s requirement that before lawmaking could be carried out bills must be deliberated in two Houses, their Members beholden to different constituencies, was in pursuit of this observation from experience.

Events since 1787, of course, have altered both the separation-of-powers and the federalism bases of bicameralism, in particular the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment resulting in the popular election of Senators, so that the differences between the two Chambers are today less pronounced.

Two important doctrines of constitutional law—that the Federal Government is one of enumerated powers [Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and other protections found in the Constitutional text.] and that legislative powers may not be delegated—are derived in part from this section. The classical statement of the former is that by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland—“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”

The doctrine is severely strained by Marshall’s conception of some of these as set forth in his McCulloch v. Maryland opinion. He asserts that “the sword and the purse, all the external relations and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation, are intrusted to its government;” he characterizes “the power of making war,” of “levying taxes,” and of “regulating commerce” as “great, substantive and independent powers;” and the power conferred by the “necessary and proper” clause embraces, he declares, all legislative “means which are appropriate” to carry out the legitimate ends of the Constitution, unless forbidden by “the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”

[The opened door for what is happening today in 2010 began here. Because the wording of Article I was not so clear. The push for Presidents to appoint Supreme Justices has a reason. And I find it odd that when this liberal radical came into office, suddenly he's appointing not one, but two Supreme Justices to our Supreme Court. This Articles' original meaning has been weakened so much over the years that today, the liberals are taking advantage of a meaning that didn't really exist but was put into place by liberal Justices. And the American people weren't paying attention.]

Nine years later, Marshall introduced what Story in his Commentaries labels the concept of “resulting powers,” those which “rather be a result from the whole mass of the powers of the National Government, and from the nature of political society, than a consequence or incident of the powers specially enumerated.” Story’s reference is to Marshall’s opinion in American Insurance Co. v. Canter, where the latter said, that “the Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union, the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty.” And from the power to acquire territory, he continues arises as “the inevitable consequence,” the right to govern it.

Subsequently, powers have been repeatedly ascribed to the National Government by the Court on grounds that ill accord with the doctrine of enumerated powers: the power to legislate in effectuation of the “rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined” by the Constitution; the power to impart to the paper currency of the Government the quality of legal tender in the payment of debts; the power to acquire territory by discovery; the power to legislate for the Indian tribes wherever situated in the United States; the power to exclude and deport aliens; and to require that those who are admitted be registered and fingerprinted; and finally the complete powers of sovereignty, both those of war and peace, in the conduct of foreign relations. Thus, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., decided in 1936, Justice Sutherland asserted the dichotomy of domestic and foreign powers, with the former limited under the enumerated powers doctrine and the latter virtually free of any such restraint. That doctrine has been the source of much scholarly and judicial controversy, but, although limited, it has not been repudiated.

At least three distinct ideas contributed to the development of the doctrine that legislative power cannot be delegated—The first idea is the doctrine of separation of powers, the idea that the law-making power is vested in the legislative branch, the law–executing power in the executive branch, and the law-interpreting power in the judicial branch. The second idea is a due process conception precluding the transfer of regulatory functions to private persons, a distinct specie of the delegation doctrine not relevant usually in the field of administration, of delegation to another public agency.

The third idea concerns the maxim delegata potestas non potest delegari. The well–known maxim delegata potestas non potest delegari, applicable to the law of agency in the general and common law, is well understood and has had wider application in the construction of our Federal and State Constitutions than it has in private law. The Federal Constitution and State Constitutions of this country divide the governmental power into three branches…[I]n carrying out that constitutional division…it is a breach of the National fundamental law if Congress gives up its legislative power and transfers it to the President, or to the Judicial branch, or if by law it attempts to invest itself or its members with either executive power or judicial power.”

“It will not be contended,” wrote Chief Justice Marshall in 1825, “that congress can delegate to the courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. But congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself.” At issue in Wayman v. Southard was the contention that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated power to the federal courts to establish rules of practice, provided such rules were not repugnant to the laws of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall agreed that the rule-making power was a legislative function and that Congress could have formulated the rules itself, but he denied that the delegation was impermissible. Since then, of course, Congress has authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of procedure for the lower federal courts. Filling up the details of statutes was long a popular version of the nature of permissible delegations.

[Here Marshall again interferes in the original meaning of the Constitution for Congress to have more power then it should.]

And in a 1957 opinion generally hostile to the exercise of the investigatory power in the post–War years, Chief Justice Warren did not question the basic power. “The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” Justice Harlan summarized the matter in 1959. “The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”

Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. The power of investigation may properly be employed only “in aid of the legislative function.” Its outermost boundaries are marked, then, by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, clear “that neither house of Congress possesses a ‘general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen’; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house ‘has jurisdiction’ and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to ‘a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding’ it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.”

In McGrain v. Daugherty, it ratified in sweeping terms, the power of Congress to inquire into the administration of an executive department and to sift charges of malfeasance in such administration.

Section 2—Clause 2—No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty–five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.

Writing in The Federalist with reference to the election of Members of Congress, Hamilton firmly stated that “[t]he qualifications of the persons who may…be chosen…are defined and fixed in the Constitution; and are unalterable by the legislature.” But in Powell v. McCormack, it was conclusively established that the qualifications listed in cl. 2 are exclusive and that Congress could not add to them by excluding Members-elect not meeting the additional qualifications.

[Powell was accused of taking funds for his personal use and altering documents. Though he was stealing, it did not impair the Constitutional oath that he took to represent his district. The court ruled that Congress had no right to exclude him from exercising his duties to his district, that only those who voted for him could remove him from his position.]

The unanimous Court noted the views of Madison and Hamilton on the exclusivity of the qualifications set out in the Constitution and alluded to Madison’s view that the unfettered discretion of the legislative branch to exclude members could be abused in behalf of political, religious or other orthodoxies. The First Amendment holding and the holding with regard to testing the sincerity with which the oath of office is taken is no doubt as applicable to the United States Congress as to state legislatures. Powell’s continuing validity was affirmed in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) , both by the Court in its holding that the qualifications set out in the Constitution are exclusive and may not be added to by either Congress or the States, id. at 787–98, and by the dissent, which would hold that Congress, for different reasons, could not add to qualifications, although the States could. Id. at 875–76.

[What this means to us today is that if you go to the United States Congress website and watch the House and Senate votes, there are quite a few times where votes are being done without members present. This is, to me, exclusion. Even if a member has an excuse not to be there, the vote should be postponed until the ALL members are present. The people elect the members of both house and expect both houses to be present when votes are cast. There are a lot of bills and legislation being passed with the vote "not present" or "absent" by member's names. This tells me, these people we are electing to office are getting paid with our money but they are not doing what they are hired to do.]

The long-debated issue whether the States could add to the qualifications that the Constitution prescribed for Senators and Representations was finally resolved, by a surprisingly close vote, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. Arkansas, along with twenty-two other States, all but two by citizen initiatives, had imposed maximum numbers of terms that members of Congress could serve. In this case, the Court held that the Constitution’s qualifications clauses. Establish exclusive qualifications for members that may not be added to either by Congress or the States. The four-Justice dissent argued that while Congress had no power to increase qualifications, the States did.

Clause 3—Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. While Sec. 2 expressly provides for an enumeration of persons, Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only of the free persons in the States, but also of those in the territories, and has required all persons over eighteen years of age to answer an ever-lengthening list of inquiries concerning their personal and economic affairs. This extended scope of the census has received the implied approval of the Supreme Court; it is one of the methods whereby the national legislature exercises its inherent power to obtain the information necessary for intelligent legislative action. Although taking an enlarged view of its power in making the enumeration of persons called for by this section, Congress has not always complied with its positive mandate to reapportion representatives among the States after the census is taken.

[The meaning of the words "free persons," I would interrupt this as American citizens. In this last Cenus, every single person living in the United States was warranted to fill out the Cenus form. I received a card in the mail from the Cenus people and they had every language you can imagine on it, when America's official language is English and the Cenus is part of the United States government which should be the first and foremost to recognize and set the example that the official language in this country is English. The Cenus tells Congress if there are any changes in districts in the United States which affects how many electoral delegates each State gets and how many Representatives each State gets to have. It also helps Congress determine how to divide the money (which is our tax dollars that we pay and suppose to go into a bank account then split up among us) proportionally.

The Cenus is for the American citizens only. The Cenus is to determine fair voting and fair legislation. Our Cenus has nothing to do with illegals hiding in America. They can't vote. The Constitution says they can't vote. They have no American citizen rights. So, how did the federal government and this liberal man in office get away with counting every single soul in America when it doesn't involve every single soul in America? This shows you the corrupting in Congress. The 1920 and 1990 Cenus clearly shows this. Now you can add the 2010 Cenus to the list, but this time it was totally illegal.]

Section 4. Clause 1.—The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

Under the Enforcement Act of 1870, and subsequent laws, false registration, bribery, voting without legal right, making false returns of votes cast, interference in any manner with officers of election, and the neglect by any such officer of any duty required of him by state or federal law were made federal offenses. In 1907, the Tillman Act, prohibiting national banks and corporations from making contributions in federal elections. The Corrupt Practices Act, first enacted in 1910 and replaced by another law in 1925, extended federal regulation of campaign contributions and expenditures in federal elections and other acts have similarly provided other regulations. [Act of February 28, 1925, 43 Stat. 1070 , 2 U.S.C. §§ 241-256. Comprehensive regulation is now provided by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 86 Stat. 3 , and the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 1263 , as amended, 90 Stat. 475 , found in titles 2, 5, 18, and 26 of the U.S. Code. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).]

As we have noted above, although Sec. 2, cl. 1, of this Article vests in the States the responsibility, now limited, to establish voter qualifications for congressional elections, the Court has held that the right to vote for members of Congress is derived from the Federal Constitution, and that Congress therefore may legislate under this section of the Article to protect the integrity of this right. Congress may protect the right of suffrage against both official and private abridgment. Where a primary election is an integral part of the procedure of choice, the right to vote in that primary election is subject to congressional protection. The right embraces, of course, the opportunity to cast a ballot and to have it counted honestly. Freedom from personal violence and intimidation may be secured. The integrity of the process may be safeguarded against a failure to count ballots lawfully cast, or the dilution of their value by the stuffing of the ballot box with fraudulent ballots. But the bribery of voters, although within reach of congressional power under other clauses of the Constitution, has been held not to be an interference with the rights guaranteed by this section to other qualified voters.

[The 2008 election should be re evaluated. Congress hold the responsibility to ensure that voters can exercise their right to vote in a safe and secured manner. Congress holds the responsibility to ensure that no injustice is done during times of official voting. Congress has the single responsibility to investigate every single allegation that happened during this election from the ACORN, to ballot counting, to corporations and foreign countries contributing to the democratic campaign, to the harassment experienced by Michigan and other States to vote for the democratic candidate. Political party has to be disregarded in matters as serious as this. These were federal offenses that were overlooked by Congress who was responsible for keeping a fair and just vote.]

Section 5. Clause 4—Each House, in judging of elections under this clause, acts as a judicial tribunal, with like power to compel attendance of witnesses. In the exercise of its discretion, it may issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness to procure his testimony, without previous subpoena, if there is good reason to believe that otherwise such witness would not be forthcoming. It may punish perjury committed in testifying before a notary public upon a contested election. The power to judge elections extends to an investigation of expenditures made to influence nominations at a primary election. Refusal to permit a person presenting credentials in due form to take the oath of office does not oust the jurisdiction of the Senate to inquire into the legality of the election. Nor does such refusal unlawfully deprive the State which elected such person of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Section 6. Clause 1.—Congress in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, altered both the pay–increase and the cost-of-living-increase provisions of law, making quadrennial pay increases effective only after an intervening congressional election and making cost-of-living increases dependent upon a specific congressional vote. Litigation of the effect of the Amendment is on-going.

Section 6. Clause 1.—It does not apply to service of process in either civil or criminal cases. Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case.

Justice Harlan explained the significance of the Speech-or-Debate Clause, “In the American governmental structure the clause serves the additional function of reinforcing the separation of powers so deliberately established by the Founders. The immunities of the Speech-or-Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators.” [Bu...] Public dissemination of materials outside the halls of Congress is not protected, the Court held, because it is unnecessary to the performance of official legislative actions. Dissemination of the report within the body was protected, whereas dissemination in normal channels outside it was not. Bifurcation of the legislative process in this way resulted in holding unprotected the republication by a member of allegedly defamatory remarks outside the legislative body, here through newsletters and press releases. The clause protects more than speech or debate in either House, the Court affirmed, but in order for the other matters to be covered “they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.” Press releases and newsletters are “[v]aluable and desirable” in “inform[ing] the public and other Members” but neither are essential to the deliberations of the legislative body nor part of the deliberative process.

[This is very important because outside the House walls when liberal Congress members make statements against conservatives or people trying to protect the United States Constitution, they open themselves up for lawsuits from the people. Very interesting right.]

In United States v. Brewster—“Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator…Nor is inquiry into a legislative act or the motivation for a legislative act necessary to a prosecution under this statute or this indictment. When a bribe is taken, it does not matter whether the promise for which the bribe was given was for the performance of a legislative act as here or, as inJohnson, for use of a Congressman’s influence with the Executive Branch.” In other words, it is the fact of having taken a bribe, not the act the bribe is intended to influence, which is the subject of the prosecution and the Speech-or-Debate Clause interposes no obstacle to this type of prosecution. Applying in the criminal context the distinction developed in the civil cases between protected “legislative activity” and unprotected conduct prior to or subsequent to engaging in “legislative activity,” the Court in Gravel v. United States, held that a grand jury could validly inquire into the processes by which the member obtained classified government documents and into the arrangements for subsequent private republication of these documents, since neither action involved protected conduct. “While the Speech-or-Debate Clause recognizes speech, voting and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that might otherwise attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts.”

[This should raise a lot of questions.]

In Kilbourn v. Thompson, Dombrowski v. Eastland, and Gravel v. United States—“None of these three cases adopted the simple proposition that immunity was unavailable to House or committee employees because they were not Representatives; rather, immunity was unavailable because they engaged in illegal conduct which was not entitled to Speech-or-Debate Clause protection…[N]o prior case has held that members of Congress would be immune if they execute an invalid resolution by themselves carrying out an illegal arrest, or if, in order to secure information for a hearing, themselves seize the property or invade the privacy of a citizen. Neither they nor their aides should be immune from liability or questioning in such circumstances.” This second part of the second clause elicited little discussion at the Convention and was universally understood to be a safeguard against executive influence on members of Congress and the prevention of the corruption of the separation of powers.

Section 7. Clauses 1-3—Insertion of this clause was another of the devices sanctioned by the Framers to preserve and enforce the separation of powers.

The President’s actual desires may be frustrated by the presentation to him of omnibus bills or of bills containing extraneous riders. During the 1980s, on several occasions, Congress lumped all the appropriations for the operation of the Government into one gargantuan bill. But the President must sign or veto the entire bill; doing the former may mean he has to accept provisions he would not sign standing alone, and doing the latter may have other adverse consequences. Numerous Presidents from Grant on have unsuccessfully sought by constitutional amendment a “line-item veto” by which individual items in an appropriations bill or a substantive bill could be extracted and vetoed. More recently, beginning in the FDR Administration, it has been debated whether Congress could by statute authorize a form of the line-item veto. In 1996, Congress approved and the President signed the Line-Item Veto Act.

Although Congress in passing the Act considered itself to have been delegating power, and although the dissenting Justices would have upheld the Act as a valid delegation, the Court instead analyzed the statute under the Presentment Clause. In the Court’s view, the two bills from which the President subsequently struck items became law the moment the President signed them. His cancellations thus amended and in part repealed the two federal laws. Under its most immediate precedent, the Court continued, statutory repeals must conform to the Presentment Clauses’s “single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure” for enacting or repealing a law. In no respect did the procedures in the Act comply with that clause, and in no way could they. The President was acting in a legislative capacity, altering a law in the manner prescribed, and legislation must, in the way Congress acted, be bicameral and be presented to the President after Congress acted. Nothing in the Constitution authorized the President to amend or repeal a statute unilaterally, and the Court could construe both constitutional silence and the historical practice over 200 years as “an express prohibition” of the President’s actio

INS v. Chadha—he Court held a one-House congressional veto to be unconstitutional as violating both the bicameralism principles reflected in Art. I, §§ 1 and 7, and the presentment provisions of Sec. 7, cl. 2 and 3. The provision in question was Sec. 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorized either House of Congress by resolution to veto the decision of the Attorney General to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the country. Justice White, the Court in Chadha “sound[ed] the death knell for nearly 200 other statutory provisions in which Congress has reserved a legislative veto.” Justice Powell concurred separately, asserting that Congress had violated separation of powers principles by assuming a judicial function in determining that a particular individual should be deported.Justice Powell therefore found it unnecessary to express his view on “the broader question of whether legislative vetoes are invalid under the Presentment Clauses.” Id., 959.

The other major component of the Court’s reasoning in Chadha stemmed from its reading of the Constitution as making only “explicit and unambiguous” exceptions to the bicameralism and presentment requirements.Thus the House alone was given power of impeachment, and the Senate alone was given power to convict upon impeachment, to advise and consent to executive appointments, and to advise and consent to treaties; similarly, the Congress may propose a constitutional amendment without the President’s approval, and each House is given autonomy over certain “internal matters,” e.g., judging the qualifications of its members. By implication then, exercises of legislative power not falling within any of these “narrow, explicit, and separately justified” exceptions must conform to the prescribed procedures—“passage by a majority of both Houses and presentment to the President.”

Section 8. Clause 1.—By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. In recent years the Supreme Court has restored to Congress the power to tax most of the subject matter which had previously been withdrawn from its reach by judicial decision. But the principle underlying that decision—that Congress may not lay a tax which would impair the sovereignty of the States—is still recognized as retaining some vitality. The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause—Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.

[The difference between Hamilton and Madison was extreme. Madison was born here in the United States and was raised with American agenda at heart. He was conservative and understood fully what the Founding Fathers wanted. Hamilton, on the other hand, was not born in the United States. He came here as a young boy. His family were not natives and they did not have the American agenda at heart. Hamilton was more radical to say the least. He was totally against George Washington. You will see here that the Courts are moving towards the more extreme liberal side by siding with Hamilton. Because of this, our country is in the state its in today.]

In United States v. Butler, Che Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court—“Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”

Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to “purchase compliance” with regulations “of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.” Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were “weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States,” the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for State taxes bore a reasonable relation “to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,” since State unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury. The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax “if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.”

An Unrestrained Federal Spending Power—Little if any constitutional controversy marks the debate over the modern exercise of the spending power. There are, of course, “general restrictions,” the first of which is that the power must be used in pursuit of the general welfare. However, great deference is judicially accorded Congress’ decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and the Court has suggested that the question whether a spending program provides for the general welfare may not even be judicially noticeable. Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.

In 1937, the Steward Machine Company case, it was a taxpayer who complained of the invasion of the state sovereignty, and the Court put great emphasis on the fact that the State was a willing partner in the plan of cooperation embodied in the Social Security Act.

To be continue….

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Words to Live By

Tagged America, American Government, christians, Louisiana, politics, U.S. Constitution

Tyranny Ruling the Military

Posted on 16/08/2010 | Leave a comment

post by Retired Vice Admiral Bob Scarborough, of Arlington , Va.

[This a plead to all those in the American South. We have to take our stand!]

I wanted to give you all some disturbing information on our wonderful the puppet. I work with the Catch-A-Dream Foundation which provides hunting and fishing trips to children with life-threatening illnesses. This past weekend we had our annual banquet/fundraiser event in Starkville. “As a part of our program, we had scheduled Sgt. 1st Class Greg Stube, a highly decorated U.S. Army Green Beret and inspirational speaker who was severely injured while deployed overseas and didn’t have much of a chance for survival to come. Greg is stationed at Ft. Bragg, N.C. and received permission from his commanding officer to come speak at our function. Everything was on go until the puppet made a policy that No U.S. Serviceman can speak at any faith-based public event’s anymore. Needless to say, Greg had to cancel his speaking event with us. Didn’t know if anyone else was aware of this new policy. Wonder what kind of news we all will receive next. You’re just starting to see the Obamanation. Your religion is on the list next.? I don’t know about you, but this makes me furious. This is just how the Nazis did it in the 30′s, slowly, one step at a time. If you don’t see the similarities you are truly blind.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Breaking the Rule of Law

Tagged America, American Government, christians, Louisiana, Military, politics

U.S. Missile Defense Logo: Islamic Cresent

Posted on 16/08/2010 | Leave a comment

post by unknown author

The puppet administration’s determined effort to reduce America’s missile defense capabilities initially seemed to be just standard leftist fare—of a piece with the Democratic base’s visceral hostility to the idea of protecting us against ballistic missile threats. A just-unveiled symbolic action suggests, however, that something even more nefarious is afoot. The former would be bad enough, starting with Candidate the puppet’s pledge to block “unproven missile defenses.” Once in office, he cut over a billion dollars from the Missile Defense Agency’s budget. He canceled the deployment of interceptors and radars in Eastern Europe designed to defend this country, as well as our allies over there.

Among other reprehensible actions, Team the puppet terminated the nation’s only program capable of providing a near-term ability to intercept ballistic missiles early in their flight (i.e., the boost-phase). This Airborne Laser Program nonetheless was successfully tested earlier this month—destroying not one but two missiles similar to those arrayed against us and our friends today and making the case that such systems should be operationalized and deployed as a matter of the utmost urgency. Then, there are the persistent reports that the puppet is going to accede to Russian demands to re-institute bilateral restrictions on missile defenses as part of the new START follow-on treaty now being finalized with the Kremlin. Moscow lost its effective veto over such U.S. systems when George W. Bush withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and the Russians have been as anxious as its American fellow-travelers to be able to exercise it again.

Now, thanks to an astute observation by Christopher Logan of the Logans Warning blog, we have another possible explanation for behavior that—in the face of rapidly growing threats posed by North Korean, Iranian, Russian, Chinese and others’ ballistic missiles—can only be described as treacherous and malfeasant—Team puppet’s anti-anti-missile initiatives are not simply acts of unilateral disarmament of the sort to be expected from an Alinsky acolyte. They seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah. What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo. As Logan helpfully shows, the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the puppet’s campaign logo.

America's MDS's Old Symbol.

The puppet's egotistically designed logo. Notice the cresent shape at the top in blue.

Islamic-America's New MDS. And there's the Islamic cresent. Going to fight now?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Invading America

Tagged America, American Government, christians, Impeachment, Louisiana, politics, treason

Daily Archives: 16/08/2010

Feburary

18th

19th

20th

22th

23rd

24th

25th

26th

27th

Separation of Powers: Checks and Balances

Tyranny Ruling the Military

U.S. Missile Defense Logo: Islamic Cresent

Things Just Don’t Change

Find It Here!

The Latest Inquiry

Blogroll

News To Go!

One At A Time!

Comments To Go!

Past Endeavors

Just me!

Subjects of Concern!

See What They Really Like!

Speak Loud America!

What's Been Said

By Date!

August 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jul				Sep »
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Daily Archives: 16/08/2010

Feburary

18th

19th

20th

22th

23rd

24th

25th

26th

27th

Share this:

Like this:

Separation of Powers: Checks and Balances

Share this:

Like this:

Tyranny Ruling the Military

Share this:

Like this:

U.S. Missile Defense Logo: Islamic Cresent

Share this:

Like this:

Things Just Don’t Change

Find It Here!

The Latest Inquiry

Blogroll

News To Go!

One At A Time!

Comments To Go!

Past Endeavors

Just me!

Subjects of Concern!