Judge Napolitano on his new book – Theodore and Woodrow – and how today’s big government has historical ties.
House freshman Allen West (R-FL) – a tea party and Fox News favorite – finally conceded defeat to his Democratic opponent on Tuesday. According to a Politico article, “The congressman’s unexpected loss left his advisers, donors and legion of tea party fans searching for answers.” Here’s one answer: West’s hypocritical votes in favor of federal programs that…Details
In a USA Today article titled A solution to secession – federalism, Glenn Harlan “Instapundit” Reynolds proposes federalism as a way to rein in government without splitting up the Union.
He defines federalism as, ” Let the central government do the things that only central governments can do — national defense, regulation of trade to keep the provinces from engaging in economic warfare with one another, protection of basic civil rights — and then let the provinces go their own way in most other issues.” After all, that political philosophy is the foundation of the country.
The Instapundit doesn’t suggest how we might actually make that happen.
Judging by the size and power of the central government, the reach of the laws it passes, and the accelerating rate of increase in all of the above, expecting the Congress and president to voluntarily stop doing what they’ve been doing for the past 100 years, or so, is insanity. It doesn’t matter which party wrests control of the system, the federal government continues to grow. Don’t expect the Supreme Court to side with Liberty, either.Details
I’m hearing a lot of ruckus about the presidential election. People on the left blindly defending Barack Obama; people on the right blindly criticizing him. I have heard plenty of stories on this topic.
“We need to do a recall”
“Sign this petition to secede”
“Obama is the savior of the middle class”
“Yes We Can”
I’m sick of it from both sides.
The truth stands alone. Barack Obama is one in a long list of horrible presidents. His total disregard for the Constitution and our liberty is without question.
And let’s be honest, Romney wasn’t going to be much better.
Since the election, Republicans and Democrats alike have done very little to advance the cause of liberty. Both red and blue governors are still playing politics, even when the voters in their states have clearly spoken out on the issues such as healthcare, medicinal and recreational use of marijuana, indefinite detention, the TSA, and many other issues.
Pundits continue to regurgitate media propaganda, argue issues of who’s right and who’s wrong and why, and use outlandish insults and claims to generate buzz and inflate their own agenda driven ego’s. The only problem is…they have no agenda.
Politicians are not interested in solving any problems.Details
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. Article VI, US Constitution
Timothy Bloodworth in the State Ratifying Convention of North Carolina stated the consensus of those that opposed the Supremacy Clause when he stated, “It appears to me to sweep off all the Constitutions of the states. It is a total repeal of every act and Constitution of the states. The Judges are sworn to uphold it. It will produce an abolition of the state governments. Its sovereignty absolutely annihilates them.”
So, was Timothy Bloodworth and others who opposed the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause right or were the Federalists?
The major architects of the Constitution and those that led the fight for its adoption laid down what the Supremacy Clause meant in reality at the Ratifying Conventions, by doing so they defended State Sovereignty, and set the stage for the negation of unconstitutional actions.Details
by Dick Cheatham No, I’m not talking about the Pilgrims who, as stated in their own Mayflower Compact, sailed to the “Northerne parts of Virginia” in 1620. (There was no Massachusetts colony yet.) That well-known Pilgrim “thanksgiving” came years after one I’m talking about. I refer to a thanksgiving celebrated further south in Virginia on the…Details
It is amazing that during Thanksgiving week, there are still some obsessing publicly over the presidential election earlier this month. A recent article from World Net Daily details how the Electoral College could be prevented from selecting a president. To add to a Tenther’s list of reasons to be thankful, let’s include no longer being wrapped up in this nonsense.
Technically, Judson Phillips is correct as he outlines the ways in which the Twelfth Amendment can prevent President Obama from serving another term. In order for the Electoral Votes to be certified, a quorum of two-thirds of the 50 states must participate in the Electoral College. If seventeen of the twenty-four states can be persuaded to do this, the Electoral College will not have a quorum and will be unable to renew Obama’s lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Phillips calls on readers in what could call dubbed the “Twelfther” movement to contact the Secretaries of State in the states Romney carried and tell them not to participate in the Electoral College in the hopes of denying Democratic states the necessary quorum.
If the Electoral College does not choose a president, the decision constitutionally goes to the Congress, with the Republican-dominated House being likely to choose Romney as president and the enlarged Democrat majority in the Senate reelecting Vice President Joe Biden to his post. If that happens, what then?
Phillips admits Romney would not be a great president, but he would be better than Obama. How much better, in terms of results, would a Romney presidency be given the current makeup of Congress? Let’s explore this.Details
by Christina Sandefur, Goldwater Institute
As last week’s so-called “deadline” for states to decide whether or not to establish a “health insurance exchange” came and went, Arizonans were given good news: Governor Jan Brewer will not stick Arizona taxpayers with the bill for implementing the new federal health insurance mandates – for now. The Governor has decided to delay her decision as she continues to study Arizona’s options.
Early on, some state policymakers were misled into thinking that setting up a state exchange would give them flexibility from federal control. There’s also been discussion of urgent “deadlines” states must meet to “comply” with the federal law.
Federal bureaucrats, ill equipped to execute a comprehensive takeover of the nation’s health insurance industry, have been hoping governors and legislatures would buy these stories.
What the feds don’t want states to know is that federal law does not require states to establish exchanges. In fact, there’s no rush to make a decision – states may opt in at any time. If states choose not to set up an exchange, the federal government will have to create and fund one on its own.
Fortunately, governors across the country are finally learning the truth about insurance exchanges.Details
“People have been brainwashed. People have been told that you need this income tax system to fund government, which is absolutely ridiculous. My question is that if that is true, then how did we fund government from 1776 to 1913.” – Peter Gibbons, Tax Attorney.
I can’t even count the number of false arguments I have heard to defend the federal governments collection of federal income tax. Among them….
“Who’s going to pay for the highway system?”
“What about our public schools?”
“We have to support our military!”
“What about traffic lights and stop signs, and street signs”
Let’s just pretend for a minute that all of these are constitutional programs that the federal government has the authority to fund. Doing some research I found that…
Schools are paid for by property tax.
Highways are paid for by gasoline tax.
Military is paid for by corporate tax.
Sales taxes pay for an array of local needs, including traffic signals.
Incidentally, the program that most conservatives critique, the federal welfare program, is paid for by Social Security tax. One unconstitutional program, paying for another.
Let’s examine history for a moment and find out why our federal income tax is so high, and how it became so out of control.Details
Ed “NJWeedman” Forchion hopes the Oct.18, 2012 not-guilty verdict a Burlington County, N.J. jury rendered in his pot distribution trial plants a seed for other medical marijuana patients and sparks a change in the law.
“I expected to get one juror, but I got 12.”
It was a case of jury nullification, which Forchion hopes will be utilized in other court cases involving marijuana possession.
Forchion is the first defendant in New Jersey to be allowed to present his use of medical marijuana as a defense in a criminal trial. He possessed a pound of marijuana that he claimed he used for medicinal purposes. (He owns a medical marijuana dispensary in California.) He admitted that he will still face sentencing in January 2013 for possession, but believes that he will get probation on that charge.
The concept of jury nullification is nothing new. In the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was charged with printing libelous material about William Cosby, the Governor of the Colony of New York, a clearly guilty Zenger was found not guilty by a jury who sympathized with him. This is clearly a case where jury nullification foreshadowed present-day law where one can openly say something about a public figure without fear of prosecution because said figure was “offended.”Details