Democrats illustrate disregard for US Constitution

During my morning reading of various news sources I came across an article on Yahoo! titled Dems Strike Back on Hobby Lobby Case With 'Not My Boss's Business Act' (http://news.yahoo.com/dems-strike-back-hobby-lobby-case-not-bosss-182210871--abc-news-politics.html) In the article, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray is quoted, "We are here to ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to healthcare. I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Ameircans to make their own decision about their own health care and their own bodies."

Sen. Murray, healthcare is not a right afforded Americans under the United States Constitution. The decision by the Supreme Court to uphold  the owners of Hobby Lobby's US Constitutional Right to be able to exercise their religious views is a Right guaranteed all Americans. While I understand the attempt of this legislation is to score political points; rather than to observe the restrictions our Constitution places on Congress, the President and the Judicial branch.

Nothing in the Hobby Lobby cases is preventing any American to ability to make their own decisions on their own health care or bodies. Ironically, the Affordable Care Act does as it mandates all Americans to have health care coverage or face additional taxation for not. Thus taking away the option for any American to self-insure.

Another point getting lost in the conversation is healthcare, at least until the ACA, is a benefit offered by an employer to attract and retain employees. Benefits offered to employees by employers are not a right of employment thus can be changed at anytime. No one denies people the right to pursue their own happiness and success; rather people need to understand that when you trade your services for money and benefits you give up some of your rights afforded you under the US Constitution while performing the duties of said job. Prime example is the three paragraphs every computer displays when one has to sign into a work station that essentially states that by hitting ok you, as the employee, are giving up your right to illegal search and seizure protection is so far as the use of the computer.

Sen. Boxer (D-CA) quips in the article, "The court's majority has decided that corporations are entitled to more rights than individual Americans." Again a chirp to score quick political points rather than actually reading the application of the decision. Why does Sen. Boxer think it is okay for Congress to pass a law and the President of the United States to sign said law that curtails one ability to practice their religious beliefs without fear of retribution from the Government?

Yes, Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation. A reason people will incorporate their business is to limit their liability and protect their personal assets. By doing that, does an American give up their Rights afforded to them by the US Constitution?

Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women's Law Center, is quoted at the end of the article, "Bosses should stick to what they know best: the boardroom and the bottom line. Stay out of the bedroom and the exam room." Now, I did read the opinions rendered in the Hobby Lobby decision, all sides, and I don't recall a single sentence that  authorized a boss to dictate to employee what they are to or not to do in the bedroom or the exam room. I wonder too if Marcia Greenberger understands that when, at least prior to the ACA, employer offered healthcare as a benefit of employment it never translated to a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Now, if real change wants to occur the Senators need to look to the US Constitution to make that change otherwise they can waste taxpayer money debating a law that is already Unconstitutional. The only reason why ACA is allowed to remain in effect is that Congress has the power to tax.

Embrace the news!

Last week President Obama announced that he is looking to reduce the military force troop levels to levels below those prior to World War I. Since that announcement I am shocked that real Conservatives don't see this as an opportunity to promote the US Constitution. Instead they are out there complaining that President Obama is going to hurt our readiness.

Stop, pause, take a breath! President Obama is handing real Conservatives a gift here. For decades our State National Guards have been at the mercy of the President. Remember we are a collection of States that have seen their Rights eroded since the ratification of the United States Constitution. The time is now to regain those Rights given the States in the 10th Amendment.

Governors, Senators and House of Representatives its time to pass legislation that brings back the control of the National Guard. Then it is time to exploit the 2nd Amendment by keeping readiness in the expansion of the National Guard and Militia's within our States. When a President comes calling for our National Guard or Militia we will then have the ability as a State to say - Yes or No.

Allow the President's Budget and the cuts to take place in exchange for giving the States back control of the deployment of the National Guard and Militias. Real Conservatives ought to pick up this mantra. By picking up this mantra, States will regain control of a Right they were given to start with and we gain more standing for the 2nd Amendment.

Status Quo

Yet again, President Obama via Executive Order alters the Affordable Care Act by waiving the requirement that businesses with less than 100 employee provide health insurance until after the next Presidential election cycle. The ACA was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama with the notion that it would mandate that all Americans have health insurance coverage by January 1, 2014.

The latest Executive Order violates that United States Constitution as the Executive Branch doesn't have the power to legislate or alter enacted law. Sen Mike Lee (R-UT) claimed on FoxNew Sunday today that, "the president knows this is wrong" and doesn't see anyway to stop President Obama. Really!?!?

Trouble is that Sen. Lee and others, except perhaps Rep. Rand Paul, wants to be on record of leading the charge of impeachment against the first black president. There is no clearer violation of the United States Constitution by these Executive Orders that are waiving the requirement and pushing back the date of the mandate.

By allowing President Obama to get away with a clear violation of the powers granted the Executive Branch does pave the way for future Executive Branches to further violate the United State Constitution. Perhaps that is the real reason why Sen. Lee, and others, are not moving forward with impeachment proceedings. America its time to wake up and demand that our Constitution be upheld and not allow any branch of government to usurp it.

Letter from the White House

I opened up my email this morning and found a letter from Dan Pfeiffer, Senior Advisor to President Obama, previewing the State of the Union speech coming up next week by President Obama. In reading through the email a few points really concern me and should concern all Americans.

In this year of action, the President will seek out as many opportunities as possible to work with Congress in a bipartisan way. But when American jobs and livelihoods depend on getting something done, he will not wait for Congress.

President Obama has a pen and he has a phone, and he will use them to take executive action and enlist every American -- business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country -- in the project to restore opportunity for all.

It will be an optimistic speech. Thanks to the grit and determination of citizens like you, America has a hard-earned right to that optimism. Five years after the President inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, our businesses have created more than eight million new jobs in the past 46 months, and they're primed to create more.

Within these three short paragraphs lies plans if followed through to transform our Republic form of government into something far worse; a socialist state. It is true that President Obama came into office during the worst economic conditions seen in the United States since the Great Depression and it is accurate that since he has taken office five years ago that 8 Million jobs have been filled. Despite these facts the policies of President Obama have created uncertainty in the work force resulting in over 90 Million American's leaving the job force.

President's over time have attempted to expand the use of Executive Orders to side step Congress and ignore the United States Constitution. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled on the expansion of powers with varying degree of outcomes based mainly on the prevailing ideology of the Court. Yet this is the first time in our nations history that a President is so bold and reckless in the threat of Executive Order.

The Affordable Care Act, despite not being passed as a tax was upheld by SCOTUS based on it being so, is a debacle. While elements of it are progress in dealing with the escalating health care costs it created more questions and uncertainty in the market. Without rehashing the debate, President Obama by stroke of the pen waived the mandate for the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Big Business and Unions. Thus re-writing the ACA which is not a power the Executive Branch has; yet Americans sit idly by and allow it to happen. 

President Obama needs to understand that the Executive Branch doesn't have the power to create legislation nor re-write legislation signed into law. If the President Obama is serious about getting people back to work then remove the uncertainty of the ACA.

The other part of the email that is concerning and more than likely puts a smile on Karl Marx face is the part of " [enlisting] every American -- business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country -- in the project to restore opportunity for all." The government's role is not to create jobs; rather the government is to ensure employers don't exploit the employees. 

I look forward to listening President Obama speak on Tuesday. My hope is that he will finally earn that Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded after being elected.

Restoring the Senate

In Chapter 3, Mark Levin proposes the following Amendment that would restore the Senate (p33):


Section 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article 1.

Section 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Section 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder  of the term.

Section 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures to represent their State in Congress. Perhaps when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified was the end of the Statesman in Congress. In recent years, money is spent insanely by outside sources - on both sides of the aisle - to help elect a Senator that the National parties want to see in Congress.

Returning back to the original intent of electing the Senate returns a vital State right Perhaps if this was in place, Minnesotans would have seen their Senators vote for placing a tax on medical device companies when Minnesota is home to one of the largest and respected medical device communities in the United States.

Some may attempt to argue that keeping the Seventeenth amendment in place protects our Democracy. Trouble is that we don't live in a pure Democracy; rather we are a Republic that uses elected officials to represent our interests. And one of those interests is to keep politics local which is lost when Senators are elected by popular vote.

Levin surmises (p 46), "However, it will be opposed by the Statist, for he may pose as a democrat, but it is democratic tyranny that he favors." Levin continues (p 47), "Furthermore, state sovereignty is not a top priority for most senators because the state legislatures hold no sway over them. Therefore, situations arise where senators vote for major federal legislation over the strenuous objections of their own state." Guess that is why Sen. Franken and Klobuchar voted for the Affordable Care Act!

Source: Mark Levin's  The Liberty Amendments

A case for Term limits

As I write this blog post this morning the United States government is still on shutdown and we are only days away from the Federal Government hitting the debt ceiling yet again. President Obama has repeatedly said over the past few weeks that raising the debt ceiling is not raising the debt of the nation. If it really is not then we should never have to raise the debt ceiling. Over the weekend I purchased a book - yes an actual hardcover book - The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.

The premise of the book is a look at a series of proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution to bring us back in line to intent of our nation forged by the Founding Fathers. The fact that we are under a shutdown and dealing with $17 trillion is debt illustrates that our Federal system of government has become too centralized and beaucratic.

Over the course of the next several weeks I'd like to take each Amendment proposed by Mark Levin and discuss it hear. The original post, as all my posts, are to be a starting point of conversation. My blog is not an echo chamber.

Mark Levin's first proposed Amendment deal with establishing term limits on members of Congress:

Section 1: No person may serve more that twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.

Section 2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress

For much of my life I rejected the notion of term limits being placed on elected officials, outside of the President of the United State, but with greater observation of what transpires in Washington D.C. my leanings tend toward limiting the time of those seeking office. In the beginning of our nation, holding office was seen as a service to our fellow citizens and at some point along the way those elected to office would return to private life.

Mark Levin, page 11-12, illustrates this by quoting Benjamin Franklin, "It seems to have been imagined by some that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In Free Governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors & sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them, to keep them always in the State of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the Masters."

In the 21st Century, and I'd argue for the better half of the 20th Century, those seeking political office do not see the "mass of people" as their superiors; rather they see them as their serfs. I know I paint a broad brush with that last statement but why else do 20 year Congress members feel justified in seeking another term? Granted turnover may not bring about the change one desires but knowing that the knucklehead in office can only be there for 12 years at the most gives us assurances that a bad apple doesn't have enough time to take root.

Syria: Obama wants War, defers to Constitution.

The United States Constitution is clear that Congress is the only body that has the power to enact war. Then in 1973, Congress passed and was signed into law legislation commonly known as the War Powers Act which gave the President limited powers to engaged American Armed Forces into conflict without prior Congressional approval.

The caveat to this lies in Sec 2 subset C:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Today, President Obama came out to announce that after seeing the evidence - yesterday presented by
Secretary of State John Kerry - that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had crossed the line in using chemical weapons against his own people. The United Nations earlier today held a press conference that discussed the time table of the assessing the samples taken from Syria in regards to the use of chemical weapons. Now, the UN Inspector did state that the results will in no manner determine who used chemical weapons; rather it will simply confirm the use of the chemical weapons.

In his address today, President Obama made it clear he is prepared to go to war despite the fact that he wouldn't put "boots on the ground" or it wouldn't be "an open time table." Trouble is Mr. President that you don't have the power to engage Syria on your own. The War Powers Act, see above, is very clear that an imminent danger or a national emergency exists that will result in an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or armed forces.

That said, Syria is not a colony of the United States nor do we have armed forces on the ground there either. While the use of chemical weapons appears conclusive the deliverer of those weapons is still open for debate. I know some will point to the evidence that Secretary of State Kerry spoke about the other day but we must look at the Arab League source with a grain of salt.

I applaud President Obama for finally recalling his Constitutional law classes  when he said, "under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress." I also agree with President Obama that the use of chemical weapons on ones own people is an "assault on human dignity." But I don't agree with, "It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons." Why is that many in the East, namely the Middle East, hate the West and namely the United States? Because we use our imperial might to right wrongs that WE feel exist.

No one will deny the use of chemical weapons is bad. The trouble is that Syria is mired in a Civil War and with war comes a natural "assault on human dignity". As Gen. Patton famously coined, "War is Hell!" Now, the United States should do everything diplomatically that we can to help bring an end to the Civil War; diplomatically not military.

Reactions on MSNBC after the speech today had a number of people surprised that President Obama would defer to Congress. It is President Obama's Constitutional duty to defer to Congress. Now the question is: What will President Obama do if Congress doesn't give him authority to engage in war?


**** I had to revise my original post to replace Vice President Biden with Secretary of State Kerry - I was watching the reply when typing with VP Biden in the background. I apologize for the oversight. ***

Happy 4th of July America

"It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonefires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to other from this Time forward forever more." - John Adams 

John Adams wrote the above quote in a letter to his wife, Abigail, discussing the importance of the Declaration of Independence and his vision of commemoration. While the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed on July 2, 1776, it took the  Continental Congress two days to approve thus spawning July 4th as the birth of our nation. The United States of America will turn 237 years old today. Think about that for a second. 237 years old! 

The United States is but an infant when compared to the other 195, or so, countries. Egypt, which has its own issues right now, tops the charts as the oldest country in the world. King Menes founded Egypt in 3150 BC. That is over 5000 years ago! Other old countries include - India (3000 BC), Ethiopia (2500 BC), China (2100 BC), Iran (625 BC), San Marino (301 AD), France (486 AD), Bulgaria (632 AD), Japan (660 AD) and Turkey (900 AD). I know what you are thinking...Where is San Marino? I too.

So I Binged it and went to the CIA website to learn more: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html. It exist in Europe. 

Despite our infancy, the United States has quickly become a Super Power. As with any nation, the United States is not without the sins of birth; yet it is among the freest nations in the world today. Our Founding Fathers, despite their faults, crafted a form of government to protect the liberties of its citizens by limiting the powers of government while ensuring the periodic change in leadership took place in a peaceful manner.

Over the past 237 years, the United States has endured growing pains. With many of America's early sins  addressed - slavery,suffrage, religious intolerance -  new sins have emerged as America transitions into adolescence. The adolescent America feels entitled, invincible and arrogant. To humble the adolescent America is not to destroy it or to pacify it; rather time is upon us to remind the adolescent America that with power comes responsibility and decorum. July 4th enables America to pause and take inventory of our responsibilities and decorum. Take time today to re-read the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Take your own inventory.

Earlier this week a poll mentioned the Supreme Court's approval rating hit an all-time low. Why I bring this up is it is important to the adolescent America taking an accurate count of inventory.

The Supreme Court's role, in our form of government, is to be a check on the actions of the Legislative and Executive Branch as it pertains to the Constitution. Unfortunately, over the past 50 or so years - perhaps longer - the Supreme Court has seen Chief Justices ego's and partisan politics override that duty of the office they hold. Justices of the Supreme Court ought check the ego and politics at the door prior to entry as they have an immeasurable responsibility to uphold the Constitution and nothing more. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, only 57 years old, last year handed down an opinion that many observers view as a defining moment of the Supreme Court under his reign. The issue at hand was the Affordable Care Act; commonly known as ObamaCare. The 5-4 decision paved the way for the United States government to mandate that every American purchase a product or face a tax for not doing so. Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion acknowledge that Congress doesn't have the power to mandate such a purchase still ruled ObamaCare Constitution based on Congress power to tax. The stretch by Chief Justice Roberts to interpret the power to tax by Congress illustrates the arrogance of the adolescent America we endure today.

As we embark on celebrating our Great nation birthday with parade's, BBQ's, parties, and fireworks - take time to reflect on our infancy and inventory the adolescence. Engage each other in conversation to the importance of handing the next generation a nation whose adolescence is in better shape then when we inherited it. Let's encourage every American to break the chains of entitlement and demand more of our society by instilling in the adolescent America the concept to prospect each other not by the nation we came from, the person we share our life with, or the exterior of our frame; rather to employ, treat and engage each other based on the merit, the word, and the fact we are all Americans. 

Supreme Court to hear Prop 8

Yesterday, President Obama and his administration sent the United States Supreme Court a friend-of-the-court-brief expressing their concern on gay-marriage ban instituted by the passing of Prop 8 in the state of California. The administration wrote:

They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death.

The administrations hope is that the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage and bring equality for all people to have the right to marry. United States Attorney General Eric Holder is on record in hoping the Justices will strike down the law in an effort to "vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law"

Trouble is that no where in the United States Constitution does it state that Congress or the Federal Government has the power to define marriage or the ability to enact law in any manner to it. Yet, the United States Supreme Court, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government has done that repeatedly in violation of United States Constitution. That being said, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the States.

To which I'd argue that the United States Supreme Court should not even have taken the case since this issue is not within the powers of the Federal Government to rule or legislate on in the first place. At the end of the day, marriage is a personal choice and ought to remain that. In the rule of law there are means for everyone - straight or gay - to enter into contract with another in a manner that mimics marriage - contract law.

Instead of trying to define marriage why are we not putting our efforts toward removing Government from the equation of marriage and leave it a personal choice and gain back our freedoms?

The Role of Guns in our society

Nearly every legislative body is discussing the top of gun violence or gun control. For the past few days and including today hearings are being held at the Minnesota state capital on all aspects of guns. Today they will be holding a hearing on ammunition clip size. I know I have blogged prior on the issue of gun control and violence but we still need to keep the focus on the ball.

Just this week the Department of Justice released an argument for the use of Drones to monitor and kill American citizens abroad as well as here in the United States. Mind you that this is the same Department of Justice that felt our brave men and women fighting around the world should issue the Miranda Warning to those that are trying to kill them. People have made the argument that average citizens do not need "assault" or military style weapons in there homes and that our police force should never be out gunned. The fallacy to that point is the Police have nothing to fear from the law abiding citizen and the criminal will find a means to obtain those weapons regardless of what ever law is placed on the books.

It is true that as a hunter I do not need more than four or five bullets in my clip at any one time. Yet to go down that road is a distraction from the conversation. Our Fore Fathers, despite their short comings, understood what it meant to live under tyranny. Those that seek our shores for a better life have a firm grasp on tyranny as well. That understanding and first hand experience of our Fore Fathers is the foundation for implementing the Second Amendment.

Through the ratification of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution is was forged that every citizen have the capability to fight back tyranny in what ever form it takes. While in my lifetime I may never witness such decay in our ruling class to the point that a King or Queen or Dictator is substituted for the Republic, there does exist that possibility at some point in the future. One step to enact that transformation is to ensure the citizenry has no means of protecting the Republic.

Some reading this will dismiss that last paragraph but look at recent legislation passed through Congress and signed into law. A few examples are NAFTA, Patriot Act, Healthcare Mandate, and now a legal argument for the use of Drones to assassinate Americans here and abroad. Individually these acts and resolutions by our Federal government has eroded our freedom and liberty of a free society. With the Supreme Court ruling that the Healthcare Mandate is Constitutional based on it is a tax opens Pandora's Box to more tax mandates.

Don't be surprised that if a Representative or Senator puts forth a bill to implement a steep tax on the number of bullets one has or on the number and types of guns one owns. Why do you think they are pushing so hard for this national database for background checks and gun registry? It is not to keep criminals from obtaining weapons it is to help them identify where the weapons are so at some point in the future they can levy a tax in hopes of disarming America. Demand your freedom before your ability to do so is taken away!

Good Friday Rant 2012

Followers of The Hamburg Post I do apologize for my lack of participation over the past month or so. Rest assured I have not forgotten about things or neglected to track the events of the day.

This past week has seen President Obama act Un-Presidential like by weighing in on Augusta National's tradition of being a men's only association and more importantly the threat leveled at the Supreme Court as they decide the fate of Obamacare. I have watched over the past week the stumbling the administration has done to cover President Obama's gaffe - to think that we thought it be Biden making gaffe's.

More to come as I take time this weekend to piece together the events as they unfolded. Now I did not see President Obama actually speak about the "unprecedented" event it would be for the Supreme Court to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed into law by a President of the United States so I cannot say if he was on or off teleprompter. Either way it shows a real concern that all Americans should have in President Obama. President Obama is suppose to be a Constitutional lawyer yet signed into law a mandate that demands and punishes American citizens to purchase a product for just being an American citizen.

Have a great Good Friday and Easter weekend.

Women are being duped yet again

President Obama, as the drive by media outlets put it, "caved" to religious pressure in regards to birth control, abortion, sterilization and birth control inducing abortion methods this past week by making a compromise. The compromise that President Obama offered was to exempt religious institutions and faith based organizations from having to pay for these services; instead the services will have to offered by insurance companies at "no additional cost to the employee or hassle." Does President Obama believe that the American citizenry is stupid?

All President Obama did was shift the mandate from one group to another. The original mandate violates the 1st Amendment while the second mandate also violates the Constitution. Right now insurance is not sold across state lines thus the Federal Government cannot regulate it. Regulation is left up to the States. That being said certain aspect of insurance law has crept in and States have lost certain rights because of it. Namely via Medicare and Medicaid. When will Americans wake up and realize that more and more of our freedoms are being stripped away by those in Washington D.C.

We can start earlier but here is a short list of things:

1. Patriot Act - wiretapping
2. TARP - Temporarily nationalized the banks
3. TARP II - Temporarily nationalized GM and Chrysler
4. Health Care Act - Individual Mandate
5. Fifth Amendment - Assassination of America citizen tied to Al Qaeda
6. Health Care Act - Mandate of birth control for free

I know I am missing a couple. Our government has been working to erode our freedoms. Where is the outrage? I forgot we cannot express outrage now because one may interpret that as attacking someone based on the undercurrent of race.

Archbishop Dolan wrote, ""We note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions....The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is... to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services" in response to the recent changes. That is just the half of it. Take the blatant disregard for the US Constitution and combine it with this comment: "Reducing unintended pregnancies is a well-established public health goal. They are associated with a variety of health issues for both mother and child from maternal depression to birth defects. There are also economic consequences, particularly for teen mothers who are less likely to graduate from high school" states US Department of Health and Human Services.

If the goal is to truly reduce unintended pregnancies, albeit no method is 100% unless one abstains, ask yourself a few questions:

1. Will the family unit be mandated sterilization after a certain family size is reached?
2. If I am on welfare - will by welfare distribution be effected? or Will I have forced to be sterilized?

Women groups see this as freedom and liberation. It is a ruse. The fight for free contraception is to pacify women and lull you into thinking that power is being given. Once the government is able to prove a legit health concern over the number of babies you produce they will mandate it. When will people wake up and see that Government is not the answer to all. The role of government is for the basic protection of our rights set up in the US Constitution and the power there in. Not to be all for all.

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments « CBS New York


The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but that is exactly what President Obama did when he signed into law the Health Care Act. As Rep. Pelosi so eloquently stated during the passage of the bill,"we need to pass it to understand whats in it". Perhaps people should have demanded more from our elected officials when debating this bill; makes one wonder what else is in the bill that restricts our freedoms. But I digress.

The Health Care Act is going to require all religious institutions to provide health insurance that includes provisions to pay for birth control pills, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization. Catholics and Imam's are up in arms over this intrusion into their free exercise of their religions. "The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,” National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said. Sorry Andrea the Catholic hierarchy is not playing chicken; rather they are protecting their rights. If employees of these groups want to obtain insurance with these provisions then they can either find other employment or buy supplements on the secondary market.

Troubling part of this conversation is that far to many will get bogged down into abortion issue and ignore the blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. It is time that we demand more of our government by restricting their powers to the powers explicitly stated in the Constitution and regulate all other powers to the States to decide. Today it's health care tomorrow it will be something else. Since the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause we have steadily seen State rights and Rights of citizens eroded and Obamacare is just another step in that direction.

Could Libya be Obama’s Waterloo?

Last week on Thursday the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that authorized a no-fly zone over Libya. In addition to that resolution the UN resolved that an "immediate establishment of a cease fire" and gave authorization to all UN member states to use "all necessary measures" to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. Based on this UN Resolution, President Obama authorized the use of United States military to carry out, jointly, an attack on Libya. Without a clear plan on what the United States role, conversation is taking place on whether a UN Resolution is enough to prompt the use of the United States military. Professor Oona Hathaway, Yale Law School, pondered the question if Obama's use of US military violated the US Constitution by saying, "Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval" (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/22/6323385-did-obama-violate-the-constitution-with-libya-military-action).

Should have President Obama gone to Congress for approval prior to using US military forces as President Bush did prior to the Iraq War? Or does the President of the United States have the power to use the US Military as he sees fit as stated in the War Powers Act of 1973?

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) suggested this week that, "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said. It's not even disputable; this isn't even a close question. Such an action – that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy – is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone." Kucinich said this during an interview with Raw Story.

Vice President Biden, then Sen. Biden warned that if President Bush forged forward without Congressional approval into Iran it would be an impeachable offense. See the interview here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

Then Sen. Biden's logic was that it would be impeachable since, "Iran is no immediate threat to the Unites States of America". Which begs the question, whether Libya poses an immediate threat to the United States?

House to read US Constitution makes history!

Tomorrow marks the first day of the new Republican lead House of Representatives and history will be made. For the first time in our history the entire United States Constitution will be read on the House floor. In addition to being read, a new rule will be put into place that will require all bills contain a statement by the author of the bill that cites the constitutional authority "to enact the proposed law". Now, the rule does sound a bit redundant since the oath all members of Congress take is to uphold the Constitution thus it would make sense that all bills written would already follow this unwritten rule.

Tea Party members of Congress are the catalyst behind the rule change and the reading of the Constitution tomorrow. I wonder how many of those elected to Congress have themselves read the Constitution. Kevin Gutzman, history professor at Western Connecticut State University, sees the reading as "entirely cosmetic" and believes, "This is the way the establishment handles grassroots movements. They humor people who are not expert or not fully cognizant. And then once they've humored them and those people go away, it's right back to business as usual. It looks like this will be business as usual – except for the half-hour or however long it takes to read the Constitution out loud" (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/112756494.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUvDEhiaE3miUsZ). Professor Gutzman may be correct because we have already seen the Republicans, during the lame duck session, cave on UE benefit extensions and START Treaty.

Akhil Reed Amar suggested, "Heck, I'll do them one better. Why only once in January? Why not once every week?" Mr. Amar is a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School. I agree with Amar that perhaps the Constitution needs to be read more often and possibly even debated a bit to make all aware. Has Congress and the rest of the Federal Government moved itself away from the Constitution? Or is this merely "cosmetic" with no real grit? I will be doing my civic duty when I am sworn in at Hamburg City Council member tomorrow and will be attending a two-day crash course on municipal governance later in the month.

Marriage is a Rite not a right

Yesterday the courts, in California, took on the question if Proposition 8 is constitutional. For those who have lived under a rock or do not follow this issue, Prop 8 (as it is commonly called) was passed by 52% of Californians in 2008 to establish a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Gay right groups feel Prop 8 violates their rights and is unconstitutional. What we have here are two separate arguments being made but will be lumped into one. First point of discussion is if marriage is a right. Secondly, is Prop 8 unconstitutional? To answer the second question we need first define the first question.

Is marriage a right of all Americans? To answer this we must acknowledge the institution of marriage is rooted in religious dogma. To exercise one's religion is a right established and guarantee by the Bill of Rights. Since marriage is religious in nature, does that translate to a right for all Americans? Some religious sanction polygamy yet there are rules established that one cannot take on more than one spouse at a time. Even though the law exists those that practice religions that promote polygamy are still able to even if they are highly scrutinized by child welfare agencies. Now, we have laws against drug use in American yet certain religions are allowed to posses and use drugs as outlined in the rites of their religion.

This brings us back to the right of marriage by all Americans. Marriage is a religious rite that has specific guidelines for the married couple to live by. Being a Gnostic the concept of marriage takes place on a spiritual level rather than on the flesh and blood level. But I digress. Since the definition of marriage depends on one religion, then there should be very little discussion on the topic of marriage being a right. In essence marriage is not a RIGHT rather marriage is a RITE.

Now, if we view marriage as a rite, we can answer the constitutional questions in regards to Prop 8. To resolve this question we need to look at how the question is being phrased. The argument put forth against Prop 8 is the use of the 14^th Amendment. The 14^th Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process. The groups looking to overturn Prop 8 are equating interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Is the argument one in the same? Is defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman a violation of equal protection?

Since marriage is a rite then no one's equal protection or due process is being violated. Now, a better argument on the constitutionality of Prop 8 is if it violates the separation of church and state. The entire process and incorporation of marriage in the laws, IRS filings, and other legal writs are all violations of church and state in so far that marriage is a religious rite. That being said, every American should be outraged by Prop 8 as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The term marriage needs to be stripped from various use by the government and returned to religious dogma from which it was born. If we, as a society, require recognition of living with a life partner then let's rely on legal documents, i.e. power of attorney. The Constitution already allows for same-sex and opposite sex marriages in so far as it protects one's right to practice religion and all ceremonies involved.

Why are we all not demanding the removal of the institutional definition of marriage as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Is that not a more intelligent way to go about the issue of marriage? By taking this approach we solidify the sanctity of marriage for all religions while also removing government control over one's choice of a life partner.

McCullough vs. Maryland: Implied Power Clause Established – Constitutional?

In 1819, the United States Supreme Court heard a case that forever changed the landscape of legislative power and paved the road for a larger more centralized government. The case in question is McCullough vs. Maryland. The question before the court was twofold: First, does the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution imply that Congress had the power to charter a national bank? Secondly, is it within State power to place a tax on national banks or are national activities supreme to State rights? After arguments were made, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion that established the "necessary and proper" clause implied that Congress can establish a national bank as it carries out activities that maintained the powers specifically listed in the Constitution; thus the Implied Powers Clause was born. Marshall also stated "that allowing states to tax part of the national government disrupted the supremacy of the Constitution and of national laws over conflicting states laws" (http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mcculloch-v-maryland).

While the case originally surrounded the taxation of a national bank by the state of Maryland, the case laid the ground work for future Congressional actions that went beyond those powers specifically listed in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 states (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei):

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Obviously the Founding Fathers did not have television, radio or the internet but one wonders if Marshall had not established the Implied Powers Clause through his interpretation of the final sentence of Section 8 would we have so many inequities within our lands. What I mean. Where does it state the establishment of entitlement programs? Did Marshall go too far in his decision? Or are there in face implied powers established in the final sentence of Section 8? Ron Paul, in his book "End the Fed", points to this decision as the birth of the central bank and the bane of our economy. Many consider the Constitution a living document but has this decision created a Pandora Box? Does the Implied Powers Clause make recent legislation, i.e. Patriot Act, TARP, and Health Care reform, Constitutional or does it display that Marshall's decision and establishment of Implied Powers Clause in itself is unconstitutional?

 

Chief Judge Bloomquist holding Todd Gilly in Contempt of Court Sparks Debate on Jury Duty

This morning, on the way to taking the kids to school, I was listening to the Chris Baker show. Chris Baker was discussing the prospect of establishing a professional jury pool. The reason for the discussion materialized from events that took place yesterday in a Kanabec County courtroom. During jury selection Kanabec County Chief Judge Timothy Bloomquist asked the jury pool if any had reason that may disqualify them from partaking in the jury trial. Prospective juror Todd Gilly answered the inquiry by Chief Judge Bloomquist by saying, "I could see myself getting awfully frustrated having to take more time off than …a day. I don't get paid when I'm not working. I could see myself just going with the flow to get it over with to get back to work" (Star Tribune, 11/13/09).

That statement did not go unnoticed by Chief Judge Bloomquist. Chief Judge Bloomquist retorted, "To be frank with you, Mr. Gilly, apparently you thought that I was just going to sit here and do nothing while you told us all that you intended to disregard about the law and the facts and the rights of both the State and the Defendant because it was inconvenient for you to be here. I don't intend to disregard that" (Start Tribune, 11/13/09). Chief Judge Bloomquist then sentenced Todd Gilly to spend a day in jail for being in contempt of court. The sentence actually ended up costing Gilly two days of work. Had Gilly not said what he said, he would have only been on jury duty for one day as the trial concluded the same day it started.

Jury duty is a civic responsibility that is not to be taking lightly. Chief Justice John Jay sums it up well when he said that "juries are the best judges of the facts" during the 1794 Supreme Court jury trial State of Georgia vs. Brailsford. Juries have been granted great power by the United States Constitution. A jury has final veto power over the laws that Congress pass and the President signs by interpreting the facts of the case as they apply to the law in question. So, to shirk ones civic obligation of jury duty or to make light of it is an egregious dereliction of civic responsibility. Not every one of us is going to enlist in the military to defend our freedoms and liberties afforded us under the United State Constitution. That being said, a way that many of us are capable of performing civic duty is through being a juror.

The depth of power the juror has is great. Constitutional Rights Network sums up the power a juror have (http://www.constitutionalrightsnetwork.com/JuryDuty/):

    "If you feel the statute involved in any criminal case being tried before you is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's God-given inalienable or Constitutional rights, you can affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and, that the violation of it is no crime; for no man is bound to obey an unjust command. In other words, if the defendant has disobeyed some manmade criminal statute, and the statute is unjust, the defendant has in substance, committed no crime. Jurors, having ruled then on the justice of the law involved and finding it opposed in whole or in part to their own natural concept of what is basically right, are bound to hold -for the acquittal of said defendant."

Right now the United States is experiencing double digit unemployment and a scarcity of jobs and for someone, like Mr. Gilly, to sit on a jury makes it tough to pay the bills. Understandably, one can see why Mr. Gilly said what he said but if every judge dismissed jurors because of the "inconvenience" that jury pay brings then our system would be filled with the unemployed and retired. As I stated earlier, the conversation on the Chris Baker show around the prospect of having a "professional jury pool" prompts me to write on the topic.

While I can see the benefits of a "professional jury pool", a major pitfall takes place. The assumption is that the "professional jury pool" will be a government employee. Being a government appointment offers the possibility of becoming a political hot potato. Should a "professional jury pool" be established? Is jury duty really a civic duty that we ought to participate in? What excuses are viable for being relieved of jury duty?

Profiling: Government Infringement or Useful Tool?

Yesterday's entry on Veteran's Day and the previous entry about the tragedy at Fort Hood morphed into a discussion on profiling. Profiling is "identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of crime and the way it was committed" (http://people.howstuffworks.com/profiling.htm). Other examples of profiling include predictive and racial. Predictive profiling attempts to construct a framework that identifies people who are likely to commit a crime while racial profiling, the more controversial profiling, bases a framework on consideration of the perpetrator's skin color alone.

In the wake of the rampage at Fort Hood many feel that political correctness is hampering the ability of law enforcement and the intelligence community's ability to establish profiles. While racial profiling gets the most press there is a need for profiling. Robert Clarke proposed a definition of profiling as "a technique whereby a set of characteristics of a particular class of persons is inferred from past experience, and data-holdings are then searched for individuals with a close fit to that set of characteristics" (http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/PaperProfiling.html). The definition proposed by Clarke makes sense as it is applicable not only to law enforcement but to marketers as well.

I recall the adage of learning from history to ensure mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future. The question is how do we as a society, a free society, establish and apply profiles without trampling on the rights of people afforded them by the United States Constitution. A byproduct of our free society is that we must accept the unsavory elements of society's right to assemble and voice their unpopular views. A friend of mine on Facebook commented that, in response to my entry on Fort Hood, by saying that my suggestion of profiling is "McCarthyism at its finest. Anyone that thinks/speaks/acts differently is targeted. And acting in this way would infringe upon several amendments to the constitution, not the least of which is the 1^st amendment. It's not illegal to have radical ideas. It's illegal to incite others to violent acts through your words. And given that Hasan was a citizen, he is entitled to all the protections the constitution offers. This is why his communications with the radical Imam were disregarded. And it's the same rights that are afforded [you] and I."

I agree with my friend that the United States Constitution protects radical speech. At the same time I argue the fact that predictive profiling is needed to protect society. Benjamin Franklin quipped; "Those who forego essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither" was aptly applied to the conversation by the same Facebook friend that raised the issue above. That being said, how do we develop predictive profiles without infringing on the rights of American citizens to assemble, speak, and associate with others without fear of retribution from the government? Or is profiling an affront to the principles our Founding Fathers instilled in the United States Constitution?

Executive Pay today, Your pay tomorrow!!!

A dangerous undercurrent is flowing within the Obama Administration to the liberties of all Americans. Set aside your party affiliation, your ideologue, and your racial bias for a moment. A little over 200 years ago several colonials put their lives on the line to ensure we'd be able to live in a country free of tyranny. Those liberties firmly implanted by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are under assault. The proof is in a headline I read as I pick up my morning paper: Pay Czar to drop hammer on execs. Since when does an advisor to the President of the United States dictate the terms of employment?

That is exactly what Kenneth Feinberg is about to do. Feinberg was appointed by President Obama to be the Treasury's special master for corporate pay this past June. The position did not go through Senate approval process and it appears that the position has wide latitude in handling affairs of corporate pay. According to the Politico "sources within the administration say the decision to cap corporate pay was Kenneth Feinberg's, and his alone." And that "…Obama did not sign off on the pay master's decision. Feinberg didn't even brief the White House on it, the official said, but he briefed Treasury officials instead." Did I miss something since our election last year where Americans voted to allow the Government to dictate pay terms for the private sector?

I understand that drastic measures were taken to right the financial market ship. TARP did nothing to address the root causes of the "financial meltdown"; rather it just threw dollars into the furnace. The plan put forth by Pay Czar Feinberg is to "slash the salaries of their top executives by an average of 90 percent and cut their total compensation in half" (www.startribune.com). Not all companies that received TARP funds will be affected. The companies in question are: Bank of America Crop, American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

The Obama Administration is hiding behind TARP funds as the gateway for the Government to dictate executive pay terms. To agree with the decision of Feinberg is an acknowledgement of acceptance that Nationalization of the private sector is within the scope of Government. Our Founding Fathers fought against the tyranny of the King of England because of excessive taxation and control within the colony at risk of death. Americans wake up and shed the wool. The reckless independence given Feinberg is shredding the documents and principals our Founding Fathers risked their lives for.

What happens next time when a crisis hits? Yesterday President Obama sent forth a plan to open funds for small businesses. Beware small business owners and take note from the TARP fund recipients. What the Obama Administration giveth, the Obama Administration taketh.