What are the People of a State to do if the authorities in their State refuse to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?

Comments Off on What are the People of a State to do if the authorities in their State refuse to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?

Here’s a great article on what we the people  can do about federal usurpation of the Constitution and what James Madison the Father of the Constitution said about it in the Federalist papers. This was written by a friend of mine Publius Huldah a retired Tennessee Constitutional lawyer and a good one I might add.

States’ Remedies


1. In Federalist No. 46 (1st para), James Madison says the ultimate authority over both the State and federal governments resides in the People.  What, then, are the People of a State to do if the authorities in their State refuse to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?

2. Democrats, including Democrat State officials, seem to place party loyalty over the Constitution and their own State. TPN is non-partisan. But it is the Democrats who are destroying our country. What do we do? (1) Learn how to talk to Democrats. (2) Defeat them at all levels in the upcoming elections. (3) Continually petition State officials of both parties to resist unconstitutional federal encroachments. As other States organize to resist such federal encroachments, keep urging your State officials to join in.

3. Federalist No. 46 (7th para) discusses how individual States or several States carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. If a particular State takes an action which the federal government doesn’t like, but which has the support of the People of that State, the federal government can’t do anything about it unless it is willing to apply some type of pressure.

When several States oppose an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, Madison says they have powerful means of opposition:  the disquietude of the people, their repugnance (e.g., baby-killing enshrined into public policy), the Peoples’ refusal to co-operate with the officers of the federal government; the opposition of the State officials; and all those legislative devices State Legislatures can invent to thwart & impede the federal government in its unconstitutional schemes.

So, in para 7, Madison contemplates that not all States will oppose unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. But he shows that this need not impede the States who do. Such States need not implement in their States the federal government’s lawless usurpations.  Have we forgotten how to just say, “NO! You have no authority under the Constitution to do this, and the Sovereign State of X and the Sovereign People of the State of X won’t permit this.”  If we have taken the Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3), then we are bound by Honor to support it!

4.  Note that Madison doesn’t say the States should file lawsuits in federal court. And WHY would Sovereign States, which formed a federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution; 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 or 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 do 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?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not even the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution!  Alexander Hamilton said federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 9th 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, 10th para). Madison (or Hamilton) said 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” (Federalist No. 49, 3rd Para).

Finally, we already know that obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress in the Constitution!

5.  In para 8, Madison discusses a “general alarm” among the States as to encroachments by the federal government. Here, Madison contemplates concerted “plans of resistance” among the States; and Madison says it may come to a “trial of force” if a crazed federal government doesn’t back down. In para 10, Madison says that the federal government’s “schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people”.

6.  In para 9, Madison discusses the federal government’s initiation of a “trial of force”.         But who would fight for the federal government?  Madison spoke of the regular Army as the force used by the federal government.  But that is the Army of our children and neighbors’ children!  Surely we need not fear them. The federal government does have, here & there, those heroic, noble, and brave men who shoot nursing mothers in the forehead, young boys in the back, and gas & apparently incinerate men, women & children. How many are they?  Then there is Obama’s personal “civilian national security force”?  Has it been established?  Even so, would they be honorable men, or a collection of thugs?  In any event, Madison said, “…it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”

7. When we quote James Madison on what States may do when the federal government has encroached upon the powers reserved by the States and the People; we quote a high Authority on The Constitution. James Madison is the Father of the Constitution, the author of many of the Federalist Papers, and 4th President of the United States.  States act lawfully when they follow the guidance of James Madison. When the federal government descends into lawlessness & tyranny, The States and The People may protect and preserve their Constitution – as they are already sworn to do.

8. Yes, the ultimate authority resides in The People.  But this does not mean that The People should – or need to – initiate a show of force.  Remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King!  He put on his clerical collar and went out into the streets with others to protest the LAWS which enforced segregation.  They used non-violent civil disobedience:  Black people sat down at “white’s only” lunch counters!  Black people sat in the front of the busses.  They did not initiate force.  The moral superiority of their position could not be denied, and they won.

9.  We have Our sacred Constitution.  The most important concepts for you to learn are these:  (1) Enumerated Powers (2) Why neither the “general welfare”, the “interstate commerce”, nor the “necessary & proper” clauses authorize Congress (or the President or the federal courts) to exceed their enumerated powers (3) The true meaning of the “Rule of Law” and how that differs from the “Rule of Men”; (4) What is “federalism”, and (5) The origin of our Rights and why you must NEVER speak of  “constitutional” rights. My paper on Rights explains the moral superiority of our position. You must learn why our position is morally superior to that of the statists. And you must be prepared to explain it at all times.

May God be merciful and grant us national repentance and a peaceful political resolution.

PubliusHuldah.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Democrats to American Business~Sit Down and Shut Up or Else

Comments Off on Democrats to American Business~Sit Down and Shut Up or Else

Henry Waxman and Dems say to American businesses…..how dare you say our deficit reducing bill will cost you money. If after this, these businesses back peddle then we’ll know they were threatened behind closed doors. Which will be no surprise, just look at what the CBO did after summoned to Obama’s office….since then all of their reports were favorable for health care. Prior to that they weren’t. Or Dennis Kucinich and Bart Stupak swore they weren’t going to vote for health care, then miraculously they did.

AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs


Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” ( yeah I’ll bet about as much concern as to vote this monstrosity in against the public opposition by the majority was a concern to them) Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”

Dallas-based AT&T said in a regulatory filing yesterday it would record $1 billion of costs, the most of any U.S. company so far.

AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.

Tax Burden

“As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,” the carrier said in the filing.

New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note shortly after the law was signed that the tax will make a drug subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”

Moline, Illinois-based Deere, the world’s largest maker of farm machinery, said on March 25 that the new health-care law would increase its expenses by $150 million this fiscal year.

Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, the world’s largest maker of bulldozers and excavators, expects to record a charge of about $100 million in the first quarter of 2010, reflecting new tax liabilities on retiree drug benefits.

No Charge at GE

General Electric Co., the world’s biggest maker of jet engines, power-plant turbines and locomotives, said today it doesn’t anticipate taking a charge tied to the health-care law. (No surprise here if you know this…..General Electric: Obama’s Halliburton?)

GE, of Fairfield, Connecticut, doesn’t see any “material effect” from the law, spokeswoman Anne Eisele said today.

BusinessWeek.com

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

Comments Off on Judge Andrew Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

Well the judge says what many of us and many Constitutional lawyers are saying as well…….many parts of Obamacare will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare


President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform “have a pretty strong case” and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president’s healthcare reforms amount to “commandeering” the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

“The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,” Napolitano says. “Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

“That’s called commandeering the legislature,” he says. “That’s the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That’s prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”

Napolitano, author of his just-released “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst, is the youngest Superior Court judge ever to attain lifetime tenure in the state of New Jersey. He served on the bench from 1987 to 1995.

Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can’t simply move in there,” Napolitano says. “And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they’re doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

“The Congress can’t simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…”

The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.

For those who oppose healthcare, the Fox legal expert says, the bad news is that many of the legal challenges to healthcare reform will have to wait until 2014, when the changes become fully operational.

Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Moreover, Napolitano says it takes an average of four years for a case to work its way through the various federal courts the final hearing that’s expected to come before the Supreme Court.

“You’re talking about 2018, which is eight years from now, before it is likely the Supreme Court will hear this,” he says.

Other issues that Napolitano addressed during the wide-ranging interview:

  • He believes American is in danger of becoming “a fascist country,” which he defines as “private ownership, but government control.” He adds, “The government doesn’t have the money to own anything. But it has the force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama, unless and until the midterm elections give us a midterm correction – which everyone seems to think, and I’m in that group, is about to come our way.
  • Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want — that’s never happened in our history before,” Napolitano says. “My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn’t have that kind of power under the Constitution.”
  • The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create “a very unique and tricky constitutional problem” for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause according to Napolitano. “So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don’t have to pay what the rest of us do,” Napolitano says.
  • Exempting union members from the so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. “The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can’t say, ‘Here’s a tax, but we’re only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here’s a tax, and we’re only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.’ The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination.”
  • Politicians from both parties routinely disregard the Constitutional limits imposed on them by the nation’s founding document, Napolitano says. “The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem,” says Napolitano. “The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don’t take their oath seriously. For example, just a month ago in interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn, who’s the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House, I said to him, Congressman Clyburn, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare? He said, ‘Judge, most of what we do down here,’ referring to Washington, ‘is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we’re prohibited from regulating healthcare.’ Napolitano says that reflects a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is. “He’s turning the Constitution on its head, because Congress is not a general legislature,” he says. “It was not created in order to right every wrong. It exists only to legislate in the 17 specific, discrete, unique areas where the Constitution has given it power. All other areas of human area are reserved for the states.”
  • Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. “They reject Jefferson’s argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they’re natural rights, therefore they can’t be legislated away,” Napolitano says. “They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They’re wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way.”

NewsMax.com

First doctors group sue to overturn health care act

Comments Off on First doctors group sue to overturn health care act

Well here comes the first among many of other lawsuits to the government’s new health care bill…..now doctors join the Attorney Generals of 14 states so far suing over health care.

Doctors Sue to Overturn the Health Care Bill

TUCSON, Ariz., March 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —  The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.).

“If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.”

“There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”

The PPACA requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. Insurance company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another. AAPS is the first to assert this important constitutional claim.

The PPACA also violates the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation. The Taxing and Spending power cannot be invoked, as the premiums go to private insurance companies. The traditional sovereignty of the States over the practice of medicine is destroyed by the PPACA.

AAPS notes that in scoring the proposal the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was bound by assumptions imposed by Congress, including the ability to “save” $500 billion in Medicare, and to redirect $50 billion from Social Security. HHS Secretary Sebelius stated that PPACA would reduce the federal deficit, knowing the opposite to be true if these assumptions are unrealistic.

AAPS asks the Court to enjoin the government from promulgating or enforcing insurance mandates and require HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to provide the Court with an accounting of Medicare and Social Security solvency.

Congress recognized that PPACA cannot be funded without the insurance mandates, and will become unenforceable without them.

Court action is necessary “to preserve individual liberty” and “to prevent PPACA from bankrupting the United States generally and Medicare and Social Security specifically,” AAPS stated.

AAPS is a voice for patient and physician independence since 1943. The complaint is posted at http://www.aapsonline.org/hhslawsuit

PRNewsWire.com

Rep. Burgess: Government Can Force Us to Buy General Motors Products If Obamacare Mandate Upheld in Court

Comments Off on Rep. Burgess: Government Can Force Us to Buy General Motors Products If Obamacare Mandate Upheld in Court

Here’s what Rep. Burgess told CNSNews…….”Representative Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told CNSNews.com that if the mandate in the health care law requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or be penalized is upheld by the courts, the federal government could mandate anything, such as requiring all Americans to purchase a General Motors car.”

Government Can Force Us to Buy General Motors Products If Obamacare Mandate Upheld in Court


On Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Representative Burgess, “The Congressional Budget Office has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government mandated that any one buy a specific good or service and, of course, the bill includes the individual mandate.  Is there a part of the Constitution that you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Representative Burgess, himself a doctor, said, “No, I personally do not, and I think that is exactly right. Never before in the history of this country have we had the ability to coerce American citizens to purchase something and then invoke the Commerce clause after we coerce that purchase.”

“It just flies in the face of what a free society should be, so I’m perfectly comfortable with the attorneys general bringing suit against this bill,” said Burgess. “I think it’s the appropriate thing to do. Plus, you also have the equal-protection business of some states being more equal than others and, really, it should be equals among equals, not some states getting special deals to buy off a vote to get the bill passed.”

CNSNews.com also asked Burgess, “If the federal government mandates that you have to purchase health insurance, is there any legal commodity that the federal government cannot require individuals to purchase?”

“That’s the next step and what else?” said Burgess. “Could the federal government require all of us to purchase a General Motors product? And the answer is yes.”

“If this mandate is ruled, upheld by the courts, it opens the door for all kinds of mischief by the federal government,” he said.  “We’ll be better off not opening this door or closing it very, very quickly.”

Congressman Jason Chaffetz told CNSNews.com that he “applauds” the states that are stepping up and taking legal action against the federal government. So, 13 attorneys general have sued the federal government over the individual mandate in the health care law.

“I think the mandate is unconstitutional so I applaud the states [that] are going to step up and spend some resources and take this to the courts because I believe it’s unconstitutional,” said Chaffetz.  “You have something like 37 states that are filing some sort of lawsuit or another, so, including Utah, and I applaud that.”

CNSNews.com

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Comments Off on 55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

This is no surprise……since the majority were against this bill in the first place. So now the more it comes out about all the crap in this bill, then people want it repealed.

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else.

A number of states are already challenging the constitutionality of that requirement in court, and polling data released earlier shows that 49% of voters nationwide would like their state to sue the federal government over the health care bill.

Rasmussen Reports will track support for the repeal effort on a weekly basis for as long as it remains a significant issue. The next update will be released Monday morning.

Sixty percent (60%) of likely voters believe the new law will increase the federal budget deficit. Only 19% disagree and say it will not. Twelve percent (12%) think it will have no impact on the deficit.

Throughout the legislative debate, advocates of the reform expressed frustration about the fact that voters believe it will increase the deficit. Many, including the president, pointed to Congressional Budget Office projections to argue that the plan will actually reduce the deficit. However, voters are skeptical of the official government projection, and 81% believe the actual cost of the program will be higher than projected.

Voters have consistently said that reducing the federal budget deficit is a higher priority than health care reform. They also believe that deficit reduction is the goal Obama is least likely to achieve as president.

Overall, 41% of voters believe the new health care legislation will be good for the country, while 49% believe it will be bad for the country.

While 64% of Mainstream voters think the health care plan will be bad for the country, 90% of the Political Class see its passage as a good thing.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters nationwide say the legislation will have a positive impact on them personally, while 43% expect a negative impact. Twenty-five percent (25%) say the massive overhaul of the health care system will have no impact on them personally.

A total of 24% believe it will be good for the country and good for them personally. Forty percent (40%) believe it will be bad for the country and bad for them personally.

Generally speaking, the partisan and demographic breakdowns have shifted little since passage of the health care bill. Those groups who opposed the bill tend to support repeal and those who supported the bill oppose repeal.

Rasmussem.com

Law Trumps Executive Order: Stupak “Deal” Changes Nothing

Comments Off on Law Trumps Executive Order: Stupak “Deal” Changes Nothing

Bart Stupak must fell like a big chump or was part of a big act as you will see in the article.

Law Trumps Executive Order: Stupak “Deal” Changes Nothing

The Stupak “deal,” is a fig leaf at best. Executive Orders cannot and do not trump legislation passed by Congress. If the Senate bill funded abortions (BTW, that is not what the supposedly pro-life Senator Ben Nelson has claimed), no Executive Order will stand against that legislative mandate. Put aside the fact that an Executive Order can be immediately rescinded or changed at the will of the Executive. Obama has shown no willingness keep any promise he makes. Regardless, a simple court challenge will not allow the Executive Order to stand against clear legislative mandate. This is Con Law 101.

Bart Stupak would have to be an idiot not to know this. Bart Stupak is not an idiot. Thus, I cannot help but believe this whole “negotiation” has been a charade. Bart Stupak never had any intention of standing in the way of Obamacare because it will fund abortions. All he needed was something he could hold onto for political cover. This ain’t it. Congratulations Representative Stupak, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and all the other Democrats! For first time in history, you will now direct taxpayer dollars to the funding of abortions in the United States. God help us.

Oh yeah, talk to the Democrats:

Talk to National Right to Life:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.

The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

Talk to the House Minority Leader:

“The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice. Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.”

TexasGOPVote.com

Older Entries