Obama Overrules State’s Right

Just another example of why November 2012 won’t come soon enough.

In another stunning display of an overreach of federal powers, the Obama administration has announced it will force the taxpayers of New Hampshire to continue funding Planned Parenthood against their wishes.

Previously we reported that the New Hampshire Executive Council decided not to award a $1.8 million grant to Planned Parenthood based on the organization’s overwhelming focus on providing abortion. The council also deemed this as excessive compensation for Planned Parenthood’s executives. However, on Tuesday it was a sudden change in the tide when the Obama administration announced it’s decision to award Planned Parenthood of Northern New England $1 million of the Title X grant. This act thereby overstepped the state’s ability to determine grant recipients, and in this case doing so without requiring a competitive bid or other review.

 

New Hampshire Councilor David Wheeler summed it up this way, “Even though the state of New Hampshire turned down Planned Parenthood as a contractor, the Obama administration says you’re going to take it anyway, whether you like it or not.” It is also worth noting that the initial shift in funds by the New Hampshire Executive Council was not directed at denying women access to needed services, rather they were exercising their right to determine who the providers should be. Instead of contracting with an organization that provides abortions, the state decided to award the grant to organizations that do not.

 

Likewise, several states, and even some municipalities have chosen to defund Planned Parenthood. North Carolina may see the closing of some or all of the Planned Parenthood offices, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin is making cuts following defunding, and the state of Texas recently passed a bill that could cut as much as $40 million in taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood.

 

These examples send a strong message. It seems to indicate that the trend among US citizens is toward not only preventing taxpayer funds from being used to provide abortions, but also supporting abortion providers in any manner- directly or indirectly. What remains to be seen is if the current administration will honor the will of the people and allow states to govern as they should.

Manhattan Declaration

TSA Responds To Texas: Resistance is Futile

This type response just goes to show you, the Federal Government doesn’t understand the Constitution. The “supremacy clause” doesn’t give the government unrestricted ‘supremacy’ over the States. It only gives the Federal Government ‘supremacy’ in the areas of “enumerated powers” ( or the areas of authority)  granted to them by the STATES or we the people. It is NOT unrestricted or unlimited power over the States and People as the Federal government wishes it was, but they will push it like a bully and see what happens.

The TSA has issued a laughable response to the news that the state of Texas has passed a bill to officially make it a misdemeanor to pat-down breasts, buttocks, or genitals.

The Agency contends, via its blog, that Texas cannot do anything to restrict TSA procedures because, as a federal agency it is protected under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Blogger Bob”, the TSA’s propaganda mouthpiece, writes:

“What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.”

How ridiculous it is for the TSA to cite the Constitution in its own defense! While citing one section, it is completely ignoring two others – namely the Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment protects “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches” without “probable cause”.

As far as we can recollect, no where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to touch Americans’ private parts in the first instance.

Therefore, under the Tenth, States have the right to pass their own laws against this abuse of power, because:

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.

The TSA’s contention that the Supremacy Clause bars states from regulating the federal government is a total lie. The Supremacy Clause states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, The constitution is the supreme law and any federal laws made in line with the constitution are supreme. No where does it say that states cannot regulate federal government.

The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of the federal government.

. Under the Tenth Amendment, airport operation falls under state jurisdiction.

The TSA blog goes on to state:

“We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn’t the case unfortunately. Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from getting onto airplanes. The pat-down is a highly effective tool to resolve certain alarms and keep these dangerous items off of planes that could cause catastrophic damage.”

Again, this is a pathetic attempt at justification of full on government groping. To claim that “Other countries did it first” is just plain weak. Other countries do not have a written constitution safeguarding the privacy rights of their citizens. And besides, specifically, what other countries governments are putting their hands inside people’s pants and literally touching their genitals?

The Texas House of Representatives passed the legislation on Friday to prohibit “intrusive touching” when people are seeking access to public buildings and forms of transportation.

The bill, sponsored by Republican House member David Simpson, outlaws public servants from “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly touching anyone’s anus, sexual organ, buttocks or breasts, including touching through clothing, and any manner of touching that would be offensive to a reasonable person.”

Should the bill also pass the Senate and be signed into law, convicted TSA agents could face a $4,000 fine and up to one year in jail.

The TSA’s version of the US Constitution, like much of the federal government’s, is a complete perversion of it’s actual meaning.

Meanwhile, in related news, the revolt against the TSA continues as a House Appropriations Subcommittee last week stripped $76 million out of the TSA budget for 2012. The funds had been designated for the purchase of 275 more naked body scanners. Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said that the body scanners are “a nuisance. They’re slow. And they’re ineffective.”

Entire article @ Infowars

The Energy Solution by the Founding Fathers: the 10th Amendment

Here’s the answer to the Energy Crisis the Founding Fathers gave us. They were so intelligent and they knew the history of what governments would eventually do to it’s States and citizens, because as the scripture says.

The Tenth Amendment Energy Solution

The Middle East is burning and gas prices are exploding.   The price of oil shot above $100 a barrel and futures have gone about $110 a barrel.

What is Obama and his regime doing about this?

Nothing!

This should not be a shock to anyone.  Obama is a socialist who hates America.  He wants to see America in economic collapse.  Only if the economy is wrecked and America’s power destroyed can he and his socialist cronies replace the greatest economic system in the world with a failed system.

But, the good news is there is still time to stop him.

And the solution to some of our problems is found in the Tenth Amendment.

America is dependant on foreign energy sources only by the design of liberals who have for forty years or more, been trying to weaken this country.  Real Americans can say no to this and we can start now.

Texas can be our test case.  Obama and his regime have shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for several reasons, not the least of which is it will drive up unemployment in the largest red state, Texas.

Texas should fight back by announcing it is going to drill as much oil as it wants within the confines of the territory of the State of Texas. Texas also has refineries, so that the oil produced in Texas can be refined in Texas.

There is no argument that the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce.  The Federal Government has no right to regulate intrastate commerce.  Texas can produce all the oil it wants and process it in Texas.  Now the down side for the rest of America is, that processed gas can only be sold in Texas, without triggering the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

If Texas did this, first, unemployment in Texas would immediately drop.  Gas prices across the country, but especially in Texas would drop dramatically.   This would be a huge boost to the state economy that could spill over to neighboring states.

If the second largest state becomes energy independent, it diminishes the demand for oil in the rest of the country and the fact that Texas is producing oil is going to create downward pressure on the price of oil.

This can apply to other areas too.  Tennessee has a decent supply of coal and has coal fired power plants.  Obama wants to kill these. Tennessee should mine its own coal, fire its own plants, sell the power within the state and watch the left scream as we use the Constitution to defeat them.

As children, we were taught to respect the President.  He represents America.  Now we have a scenario that was previously unimaginable. We have an un-American President.  For the first time in our history, we have a President who not only does not believe this is the greatest country in the world but wants to see this country brought down.  We cannot stand by and idly let this happen.

In the next few months, we are going to see the highest gas prices we have ever seen.  The damage this is going to do to the economy will be incredible.  Our only hope until the 2012 elections is if States will step up to the plate and tell the Federal Government not only where to go but also how to get there.

Tea Party Nation

Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

 

Here’s another great article by my friend Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional lawyer from Tennessee……enjoy! ( I know this is a long article, but it’s full of great info)

By Publius Huldah Monday, January 24, 2011

During August 2010, the People of The State of Missouri approved Proposition C and nullified key parts of “obamacare”.  As a matter of constitutional principle, may the People of the States lawfully do this?  Or must they submit to every law made by Congress whether it is constitutional or not?  Are federal judges the final authority?

I will prove that the States have the Right and the Duty to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress.  The only real question is whether Americans have the Will to reclaim our Constitutional Republic & the Rule of Law, or whether they will submit to the rulership of men who “don’t care” what the Constitution says, and who see obamacare as a way “to control the people”.

//

 

Congress’ Powers are Enumerated

1. The U.S. Constitution, which created the federal government, permits Congress to make laws only on those few objects which are listed in the Constitution. The objects on which Congress has authority to make laws applicable throughout our Country are itemized at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 (and in a few of the Amendments).

Since the Federalist Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the true meaning of the Constitution, ¹ let us see what those Papers say about the extent of Congress’ legislative powers.  In Federalist   No. 83 (7th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress …shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended. [boldface mine]

In Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end), James Madison says:

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects…[emphasis added]

Our Framers were emphatic that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only.  In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison says:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution 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, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  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…[emphasis mine] ³

Do you see?  If the Constitution doesn’t delegate a power to Congress by listing it in the Constitution, Congress doesn’t have that power.  It is reserved by the States or the People.

Congress Usurps Power when it makes Laws outside its Enumerated Powers – and such pretended Laws are VOID NOT VALID

.2. Our Framers understood that civil governments seek to expand power at the expense of the People. And when they do so, their acts are VOID and INVALID!  Thus, in Federalist No. 33 (next to last para), Hamilton says:

…But it will not follow …that acts of the large society [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [caps are Hamilton’s; other emphasis mine]

In the last paragraph of No. 33,  Hamilton says a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,

…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution… [emphasis mine]

In Federalist No. 78 (10th para),  Hamilton says:

…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis mine]

Nothing in Art. I, Sec. 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution, authorizes Congress to pass obamacare!  “Medical care” is not an enumerated power.  Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. ⁴

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment forbids Congress to pass obamacare: When a power is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, that power is reserved to the States or to the People.  Only the States or the People have power over medical care!
So!  Congress passed obamacare without any constitutional authority to do so, and in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  Hence, as Hamilton shows us, obamacare is “void” and not “valid”. It is an act “of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

Hamilton, Madison & Thomas Jefferson show us that Nullification is the Answer.

3. Hamilton shows in Federalist No. 28 (7th para) that if the federal government invades the rights of the People, they can use the State government as the instrument of redress:

…in a confederacy   the people … may be said to be … the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will … stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.  The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…. [emphasis added]

So!  When the People of the State of Missouri approved Proposition C nullifying obamacare, they properly made use of their State government as “the instrument of redress” against the usurpations of Congress & the Executive Branch.

And since State officials and many Citizens have taken the Oath to support the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2), it is their SWORN DUTY to nullify – to refuse to obey – unconstitutional and pretended federal “laws”, such as obamacare.

Nullification by States of unconstitutional federal laws is not new. Our beloved Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration of Independence) & James Madison (Father of the U.S. Constitution) show us precisely what States are honor bound to do when Congress makes an unconstitutional law. During 1798, in response to Congress’ passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures passed Resolutions declaring those Acts unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress, and as in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  In these Resolutions, Kentucky and Virginia resolved not to abide by the federal acts.  Jefferson wrote The Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison wrote The Virginia Resolution. ⁵

The Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions are masterpieces of constitutional analysis. Study them!  States may use them as models for their own Resolutions nullifying the myriad of unconstitutional “laws” which have spewed forth from Congress in recent decades.

The Framers did NOT say States should file Lawsuits and let Federal Judges decide!

4. Think: Why would the States, which formed a Federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive), exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)?  All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time!  Why would States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?

And further:  Can we not see for ourselves that obamacare is outside the scope of the Legislative Powers granted to Congress in the Constitution, and that it violates the Tenth Amendment?  Our Framers certainly did not advocate running to federal judges to let them decide such issues!  No, our Framers were men who had guts & backbone and understood the Constitution! So they nullified unconstitutional acts of Congress. ⁶

Will the American People pass the Test?

5. Will the States and the People surrender to the likes of former DNC Chairman Howard Dean who “doesn’t care” if the stuff passed by Congress is unconstitutional? To Democrat Congressman John Dingle who sees obamacare as a means “to control the people”?  Or will The People and the States man up and defend our Constitution?

We have instructions from the Author of the Declaration of Independence, the Father of the Constitution, and the Author of most of the Federalist Papers. They explain what our Constitution really means, and tell us what we need to do when the federal government usurps powers. Listen to them! They are the highest Authority on the true meaning of our Constitution.

And do not be swept away by rage and lust for revenge. Do not become the murderous, unthinking red-capped mob of the French Revolution.

Let us pray that our eyes be opened, that we listen to the words of wisdom from our Framers, that our spines be stiffened, and that we work for a peaceful political resolution of the dreadful problems facing us. PH

Endnotes:

¹ At a meeting attended by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825, the following resolution selecting texts for the Law school, was passed:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83)  [emphasis added]

² See also Federalist No. 14 (8th para) “…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…”

Federalist No. 27 (last para) “…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps in original]

³ Medicare, Medicaid, social security, etc., are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. And the programs can’t work!  As more & more people seek to live at other peoples’ expense, the system eventually collapses. That collapse is upon us.

⁴ Jefferson calls it “nullification”; Madison calls it “interposition”. In “interposition”, the State “interposes” – steps in between – an usurping federal government and The People. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.)  The result is really the same.

⁵ Furthermore, the supreme Court is NOT the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution!  Hamilton says federal judges may be impeached for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, next to last para).  Federalist No. 49, 3rd para, says that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “…the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance”.

The federal courts have refused to “enforce” the Constitution. Congress has failed to impeach & remove usurping federal judges – it has failed to be the “check” on the federal courts.  Therefore, WE must enforce the Constitution by means of nullification.  WE must be the final “check” on the courts. Study & Learn so that you are qualified to do this. PH

Canada Free Press

UPDATED: 9th Circuit Unconstitutionally overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Here we have another example of why the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for the Federal Judges to rule on State issues. The will of the people has been once again struck down by one Federal Judge. Clearly the Constitution only allows for CITZENS to vote. The ninth circuit has more cases overturned than any other circuit. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

Let’s see what the Constitution says about who votes according to my Constitutional Lawyer friend:

Art. 1, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution, re: the “time, place and manner” of elections. Note that Congress may by law alter such regulations as the States make. However, this clause has to do with the “time, place & manner” of elections – NOT “qualifications” of electors.

Clearly only “citizens” may vote! See 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th amendments!

15th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude…”

19th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

24th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President,……”

26th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

9th Circuit overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Yes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes again.

And yes, Sandra Day O’Connor played a role in helping the liberal majority.

Facepalm:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The court did uphold Arizona’s photo ID requirement.

But as you know from reading this blog, the Obama Department of Social Justice has also been actively sabotaging state efforts to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections.

Arizona and 9th circuit, posted with vodpod

More details on the 9th Circuit ruling:

A three-judge panel of the court said the proof-of- citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration. (Again for the Federal law to supersede State law it must fall into the category of one of the “enumerated powers” described in the Constitution-MD)

The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.

“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.

The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.

The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.

As I’ve noted before: No illegal alien left behind. That’s the progs’ plan.

Mechelle Malkin

Must Supreme Court Judges Obey The Constitution?

Here’s another great article by my retired Constitutional Lawyer friend from Tennessee Publius Huldah where she answers some questions that arose from her last article about the Arizona Immigration law and the fact that the Federal Courts have no Constitutional authority to rule whether the law is Constitutional or not.

The Trial of The Lawsuit Against The State of Arizona:

By Publius Huldah  Wednesday, August 18, 2010

In my last paper, I showed that Our Constitution requires that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Brewer be tried in the supreme Court; and that federal district court judge Susan Bolton has no constitutional authority to preside over the trial.

But many responded that the case is properly before Judge Bolton because Congress & the supreme Court have said that cases where a State is a Party may be tried in federal district court.

//

Thus we come to The Pivotal Question of Our Time: Will we restore the Rule of Law, which prevails when people in the federal government obey The Constitution? Or will we side with those who seek to expand the Rule of Men, where people holding Power do whatever they want?

1. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to explain the proposed Constitution to The People and to induce them to ratify it. Thus, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution.  And at a meeting of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825 at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were present, the following resolution selecting the texts for the Law school, was passed:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83)  [emphasis added]

So! Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, Father of The Constitution, acknowledged the high authoritative status of The Federalist Papers.  They saw The Constitution as having a fixed meaning which one could learn by consulting The Federalist!

2. But supreme Court judges soon refused to submit to The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers. In 1907, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, “…the Constitution is what the judges say it is…”.  Judges thus rejected the objective standard provided by The Federalist, and substituted their own subjective interpretations. Law schools embraced this subversion:  Instead of teaching The Constitution as a set of fixed principles explained by The Federalist, they taught supreme Court opinions which say Congress may do whatever it pleases. They also taught that supreme Court judges have unbridled authority to say what the Constitution means. Law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers & judges who have been indoctrinated with the monstrous Lie that Our Constitution means whatever judges on the supreme Court say!  And because these lawyers failed in their sacred duty to think, and uncritically accepted what they were told, Our Country is on the brink of destruction.

Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute understands this pivotal issue. He said:

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely—if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law”—an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions—and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

Now you see how we came to this state where lawyers insist on a view of Art. III, §2 which is, to the eye of reason, contrary to The Constitution: They don’t obey The Constitution – they obey the supreme Court, as they were trained in law school to do.

3. Let us review Art. III, §2:

Clause 1 lists the categories of cases federal judges are permitted to hear.
Look at clause 2: The FIRST SENTENCE lists two of the categories set forth in clause 1 (cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” & “those in which a State shall be Party”) and says that in ALL such cases, the supreme Court SHALL have original [trial] jurisdiction.

The SECOND SENTENCE says that in all the other cases set forth in clause 1, “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The Constitution is clear!  So is The Federalist. In No. 81, Hamilton sums it up:

We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, “with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.” (15th para)

See also, as to the supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, No. 81 (13th para).  As to the “exceptions & regulations” respecting the supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, see No. 81 (last 6 paras): the exceptions & regulations merely address the mode of doing appeals.

I laid it out in a previous paper. But the clearest explanation of this whole issue is that given by Dr. Alan Keyes in his recent article at World Net Daily.

The supreme Court once knew that Congress could not reduce its original jurisdiction! In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the supreme Court discussed Art. III, §2, clause 2:

…If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance… (p 174)

…When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original… [emphasis added] (p 175)

Marbury v. Madison got it right – THAT is what the Constitution & The Federalist Papers actually say!  But today, supreme court jurisprudence has “evolved” to embrace a view which contradicts The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and Marbury v. Madison!

4. So! In a recent article at World Net Daily, two constitutional lawyers are quoted to the effect that the “exceptions & regulations” language in the SECOND SENTENCE of clause 2 (which defines the supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction), permits Congress to reduce the supreme Court’s original jurisdiction granted in the FIRST SENTENCE of clause 2!

Why do lawyers say this?  Because Congress at 28 USC § 1251 et seq., & the supreme Court (e.g., Case v. Bowles (1946) at page 97) said so; and lawyers go by what the supreme Court last said, not by the Constitution. Lawyers are trained to obey the supreme Court – they do not believe the supreme Court is subject to The Constitution. Like Charles Evans Hughes, they see the supreme Court as above The Constitution!

5. One of the lawyers is also quoted as saying, “Could you imagine every case that involves a state as a party being before the Supreme Court? The court would be so loaded with those kinds of cases”.  Another commentator said that “states are sued all the time”, “every time a state is sued it goes to the supreme court?”, and that only lawyers “who have no idea of what the history is” would say that only the supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the case against Arizona.

I do not wish to pillory good men.  So I ask everyone to consider these two points:

ONE:  As Art. III, §§2, clause 1 shows on its face, the judicial Power of the United States extends only to cases of “federal” or “national” cognizance.  Hamilton explains each category of case in Federalist No. 80, and shows why each is a proper object of the federal courts. Read it, and you will see that the judicial Power does not extend to matters of internal concern to States. Furthermore, in Federalist No. 83 (8th para), Hamilton said:

…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the

federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.  [emphasis added]

Yes!  The powers of the federal courts are enumerated!  Federal courts are not supposed to hear any case which does not fall within the categories listed at Art. III, §2, clause 1.  If the supreme Court would stay within its enumerated powers, its case load would be greatly reduced. Read No. 80 carefully, and much should become clear.

TWO: Congress’ powers are also enumerated! Congress has constitutional authority over international commerce and war. Domestically, it has authority to establish a uniform commercial system (bankruptcy laws, a monetary system, weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a limited power over interstate commerce, and mail delivery.)  It has authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. The Amendments granted Congress powers to protect former slaves, voting rights, and lay income taxes. That’s about it!

This is why Hamilton was able to say in Federalist No. 81 (15th para),

…the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. [emphasis added]

Congress has very little constitutional authority to make laws affecting States.  Do you not see how this reduces the opportunities for litigation where a State would be party?

But most of the laws made by Congress for over 100 years are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. And since the judicial Power of the federal courts includes all Cases arising under “the Laws of the United States”, the federal courts are clogged with cases arising out of unconstitutional federal laws!

So! Requiring the supreme Court to obey the Constitution and to conduct the trials of cases of federal cognizance where a State is Party, would be a check on the powers of Congress. If the supreme Court’s trial docket were clogged with cases arising out of unconstitutional federal laws, perhaps the Court would do its duty and declare the laws unconstitutional!

6. We have been going in the wrong direction for a very long time.  We all need to go back to basics and start rethinking basic constitutional principles.  Our survival may depend on it. PH.

Canada Free Press

Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy’

The Sheriff has it right…the government isn’t aiding the states…and that’s one thing that the Constitution does say the federal government MUST do.

(CNSNews.com)By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.

“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.

Babeu and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County Ariz., spoke by phone with CNSNews.com last week about the May 17 ACLU class-action lawsuit, which charges the law uses racial profiling and named the county attorneys and sheriffs in all 15 Arizona counties as defendants. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 6, charging the Arizona law preempted the federal government’s sole right to enforce immigration law.

“If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn’t even be in this position and where we’re forced to take matters into our own hands,” Babeu said.
Dever said the federal government’s failure to secure the border and its current thwarting of Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration within its borders has implications for the entire country.

“The bigger picture is while what’s going on in Arizona is critically important, what comes out of this and happens here will affect our entire nation in terms of our ability to protect our citizenry from a very serious homeland security threat,” Dever said. “People who are coming across the border in my county aren’t staying there. They’re going everywhere USA and a lot of them are bad, bad people.”

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.

The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.

Both Babeu and Dever said they want to remain involved in the legal battle over the law, which many experts predict will end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dever has hired an independent attorney to represent him in the ACLU case and his attorney has already filed a motion of intervention in the DOJ lawsuit so the “(Dever) will have a seat at the table.”

A Web site also has been launched by the non-profit, Iowa-based Legacy Foundation to raise money for the Babeu’s and Dever’s legal defense.

Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance.“For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat,” Babeu said.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial (Against Arizona)

Here’s another great article by my retired Constitutional lawyer friend Publius Huldah on what I’ve been saying recently about the verdict handed down by Judge Susan Bolton and her non-authority to do so.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

By Publius Huldah  Thursday, July 29, 2010

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

//

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is – you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you

See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”?  THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

….the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”…(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped – by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 – of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty – it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors – Go for it! PH

Canada Free Press

Get Your:The Obama Bumper Sticker (BS) Removal Kit

Couldn’t pass this one up when I saw it at Another Black Conservative‘s blog.

Don’t you just love how the free market knows how to capitalize on everything? I am surprised someone did not think of this sooner.

In case you are wondering the BS Removal kit is quite real.

Breaking…Feds filing suit against Arizona

Isn’t it interesting that Janet Napolitano is one of the people filing suit against her home state? They should ban her as well…from the AP:

PHOENIX – The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation’s toughest immigration crackdown.

The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn’t want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona’s law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops usurps federal authority.

The government will likely seek an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the reported lawsuit as “absolute insult to the rule of law” as well as to Arizona and its residents.

“It’s outrageous and it’s clear they don’t want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy,” Pearce said. “They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths” tied to border-related violence.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who opposes the law, said the suit should help settle questions over what states can do when they don’t think federal laws are being adequately enforced.

“I hope this galvanizes Congress to gain the moral courage they need to address this (immigration) crisis,” Sinema said.

Tuesday’s action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.

Prior to seeing the lawsuit or receiving any official notification, Gov. Jan Brewer’s spokesman called the reported decision to sue “a terribly bad decision.”

“Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this,” spokesman Paul Senseman said.

Three of the five Democrats in Arizona’s congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.

Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona also lashed out at the administration’s decision, saying “the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.”

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

“As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country,” Obama said. “A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.”

The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.

Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government’s involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona’s measure.

“It’s important to have the federal government’s view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they’re the best people to say that,” Bender said.

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he’s not surprised by the Justice Department’s challenge but called it “unprecedented and unnecessary.”

He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.

“The issue was already teed up in the courts. There’s no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn’t add anything by bringing their own lawsuit,” Kobach said in an interview.