More Republicans?

It’s an old mantra, at least as old as I can remember.  “We need to vote in more Republicans and get control.”  You’ve heard it before.  If we can only regain control then we can fix everything.  But I always end up asking myself, what happened?  I swallowed the bait and marched into that booth determined to change the tide on out of control entitlement programs and elected officials sending me all over the globe to police the world.  The election is over, the Republicans are in charge and along comes Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and a couple trillion dollars in debt.

Most recently, a new class of Republicans ran for office in the mid-term elections, promising to be more fiscally responsible and to return to our constitutional roots.  I wondered what exactly constitutional roots were.  I thought that the Constitution was still law, often broken and ignored, but still law.  But best of all was the proclamation that all of these “constitutional” conservatives could get behind:  “We will do everything in our power to either repeal or Obamacare or defund it.”

The election was a landslide, plenty of new Republicans and a couple of old ones replaced.  But what happened?  Did they attempt to repeal Obamacare?  Yes 30 times, but everyone knew that there was a Presidential veto that would stop that.  OK, let’s look at option 2.  Did more and new Republicans defund it?  They control the House of Representatives, and we all know that all expenditures must originate in the House.  But it didn’t get defunded; something else happened – a couple of debt ceiling increases.  What part of the campaign pledge promised to enslave my children and grandchildren with a debt that they will never see paid off?  Surely that wasn’t part of returning to our constitutional roots, was it?

Then we awaited word from the Oracles to make their pronunciation and Chief Justice John Roberts does the unimaginable.  He decides to mold the Constitution to fit the legislation.  Where exactly did that authority come from?  Nowhere is the Supreme Court granted the power to interpret the Constitution and make it fit law.  They are supposed to interpret law and determine if it fits the Constitution.  Well, I never trusted men in dresses anyway, black or red.


Peter Schiff Opens Hard-Money Bank

This is a real bank, that deals in real money.

In other words, you can open accounts in any denomination you want, whether fiat currency OR gold bullion — whatever you’d like.

You can even get a “gold debit card” that you can use anywhere in the world. It’s backed by actual gold, which converts to whatever currency you’re needing at the time you hit that ATM.

It’s the sort of thing that the Constitutional Tender Act calls for in banking…

…Well, there is one caveat: you can’t open an account at this bank if you’re a U.S. citizen.

U.S. security laws have become so intrusive, burdensome, and expensive to comply with, that it made it difficult for Schiff to offer his services to his non-U.S. clients on a globally-competitive basis. So, he opened his bank offshore, in St. Vincents and the Grenadines. Since it operates outside the jurisdiction of U.S. security regulations, and does not accept accounts from American citizens or residents, U.S. regulations don’t apply.


In Pursuance Thereof

The federal government’s power grab over states’ rights continues unabated as evidenced by United States v. Pleau, this time in the State of Rhode Island. For the federal government or the people of the State of RI, there is no question of Jason Pleau’s guilt in the 2010 murder of gas station manager, David Main; nor does there appear to be any question that his act was premeditated. Pleau plead guilty and was sentenced in Rhode Island to life in prison without parole to avoid a federal writ called “habeas corpus ad prosequendum” which was obtained by U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha.

Rhode Island’s governor Lincoln Chafee refused the request under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) to release the prisoner for a federal trial because of the governor’s stated opposition to capital punishment. On May 7, 2012  the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, upheld the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum where: 1) given the Supremacy Clause, the states have always lacked the authority to dishonor a writ of ad prosequendum issued by a federal court, and compliance is not merely a matter of cooperation that the governor may withhold; and 2) under United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978), if a state has never had the authority to refuse the writ, the IADA does not provide it. But have they? Have the states “never had the authority” as the  First Circuit Court of Appeals claims above in referencing U.S. v. Mauro?

The answer to that question can be found in our Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause themselves, which the feds are citing. First, the Supremacy Clause, which 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Citizens who are well versed in the contents of our founding documents know that a key phrase in the Supremacy Clause is the phrase, “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”

A constitutional law is one that is made in pursuance of the Constitution. A law which is not made in pursuance of the Constitution is not, in fact, a law; but is ‘null, void, and of no effect’. Such a law also violates the Tenth Amendment which states, “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.” In 1798, referring to the federal government, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” [emphasis added]


Liberty: A two-way street

It occurred to me today that we treat liberty pretty much the same way we do money. We all want to get rich, but we sure as heck don’t want the other guy rolling in the bucks. In fact, we resent our rich neighbors and will often go out of our way to stymie their fortune seeking if possible.

Here in America, we all talk a lot about freedom and liberty. But when somebody starts exercising theirs in a manner that rubs us the wrong way, Katie bar the door – that stuff is dangerous and we must put a stop to it!

Recently, a church scraped together some cash and rented a billboard along a major road in Lexington, Ky. It expressed their opinion on homosexuality along with their views on abortion.

Yup. It was pretty offensive.

So, a local “fairness” group used tax records to track down the owner of the billboard. Turns out it was CSX Railroad, using CBS Advertising to lease out the advertising space. Well, with the advocacy group putting a little pressure on CSX, the company yanked the billboard.


Where Are North Carolina’s Political Patriots and Statesman?

Big centralized government statists not only reside in DC, but many reside right here in North Carolina. They justify any unconstitutional actions by the federal government with a clause from the Constitution, with one of their favorites being the “Supremacy Clause”. But cherry picking a clause out of the Constitution does not make their actions Constitutional or “supreme.”

When DC politicians do it, at least you know they are just out to further their own power, and probably just “feathering their own nest”. But what is the excuse for our state legislature and governor, their actions reduce their and by extension our state’s power and sovereignty? Is their failure to act from a lack of education in regards to the U.S. Constitution and their role as protectors of the States citizen’s liberties? Or are they really just lower level centralized government statists waiting for their chance to move up the food chain so they too can drink form the waters of the Potomac?

The recent and most egregious example is the PPACA, or as it is more affectionately nicknamed “Obamacare”. But as bad as the Act is, the statements by our own Attorney General of North Carolina, Roy Cooper in February 2011, are even worse. He issued a statement attacking North Carolina House Bill No. 2 — a bill to exempt the people of North Carolina Obamacare — because it violated the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution.


Nullify the Drones?

Add to iTunes

Michael Boldin is joined by cohost Nick Hankoff in Los Angeles to talk with John Logan Jones, a candidate for the State House in Maine, and Joe Wolverton, II a columnist for The New American Magazine. The topics range widely, including everything from federal involvement in education, food freedom, medical marijuana, and the coming of the drones all across the United States. Highlighted in this show is Wolverton’s report on an effort in Virginia to severely restrict the use of drones in that state. While not outright nullification, it’s a step towards it.

Lesley Swann drops in briefly to chime in with the guys on today’s Chick-Fil-A brouhaha all across the country.

John Logan Jones

Joining us on the show now is John Logan Jones, a 26-year old veteran who served as an Air Force Intelligence Specialist in the war in Afghanistan, and campaigning for State House Representative in Maine. Welcome to the show, John. His top issue is getting the federal government out of Maine’s education programs. He wants to talk about youth involvement, nullification, Aaron Libby etc.

Started out by getting involved in Young Americans for Liberty, which is not just for the young but also the young at heart.


Do You Support State Sanctioned Marriage?

Do you support gay marriage?  Or do you support state sanctioned marriage?

The second question is really the heart of the debate bleeding out of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day that occurred this week.  However, I really believe that many people really don’t know exactly what they are debating.

Chick-fil-A’s President, Dan Cathy stated in an interview that he doesn’t support gay marriage.  This statement, and his donations to organizations that share this view, has generated much outrage from those who support gay marriage.

Many gay marriage advocates suggested a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants.  Shortly later, mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco  suggested denying or delaying permits to Chick-fil-A.


If Something is Wrong with a Law the Supreme Court will Stop it? Wrong!!

How many times have I heard that if something is wrong with a law of Congress the Supreme Court will stop it and that the Court is totally independent of Congress? Both views are decidedly incorrect. Supreme Court members may, in fact, agree that something is unconstitutional but they, by themselves, or as a body, are helpless in blocking it unless it is first challenged by someone else.

The Supreme Court may not interfere with any law unless someone is hurt or damaged by it, and is able and willing to challenge the law, over a long period of time, with the likelihood of a costly but doubtful conclusion. In other words, much that is unconstitutional goes unchallenged by the Court and, if not challenged, becomes past practice and later is often used to support new alterations to the Constitution.

The Court is only a partial check on constitutional law. Congress, the body charged with making all law, as per Article I, Section I, is to responsibly check itself with the Constitution. Members of Congress take an oath to do so. The voter does not take an oath, but is expected to have greater loyalty to the Constitution then to political party, to be familiar enough with the Constitution to spot indiscretions, and to remove those who would defile it through ignorance or intent.


The U.S. Postal Service and the Constitution

If my inbox is any indication, a lot of Americans apparently believe that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to privatize the U.S. Postal Service. That is simply not true.

Article 1, Section 8 says that [The Congress shall have the power] to establish Post Offices and Post Roads. It does not say that the federal government shall have the exclusive power to deliver mail. Nor does it require that the mail be delivered by an agent of the federal government to every home in the country, six days a week.

In a 1996 Cato book, The Last Monopoly, James I. Campbell writes the following in a chapter on the history of postal monopoly law:

The U.S. Constitution, in 1789, authorized Congress to establish “Post Offices and post Roads” but, unlike the Articles of Confederation, did not explicitly establish an exclusive monopoly. The first substantive postal law, enacted in 1792, listed post roads to be established, reflecting the traditional concept of postal service as a long-distance transport. It authorized the Postmaster General to enter into contracts for the carriage of “letters, newspapers, and packets” but limited the postal monopoly to “letter or letters, packet or packets, other than newspapers.”

According to Campbell, the Post Office “first began delivery of mail to a small portion of the U.S. population” in 1863: