In episode 10 of Thoughts from Maharrey Head, I explain why we shouldn’t fear the “big bad” federal government.Details
Three weeks ago today I underwent open heart surgery to replace a leaky artificial valve.
Having gone through this same surgery a little more than 11 years ago, I had a pretty good idea what to expect. Based on my previous experience, I set what I thought were reasonable goals for returning to various activities. At this point, I expected to resume some of my work at OffNow and the Tenth Amendment Center. I had some specific goals about how far I would be walking. I was going to be completely off pain medication.
Virtually nothing has gone according to my plan.Details
Another day, another unconstitutional ‘solution’ from the Congress. This time it comes from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and it involves the federal control of police.Details
The other day, a friend of mine posted this on Facebook.
I am starting to wonder why I bother to pay my cable bill. Internet is down again at home. Time Warner says that they can’t get a technician out to the house until tomorrow afternoon. If they didn’t have a monopoly I would drop them in a heartbeat but as things are I guess I have no recourse.
When I read this, I thought, “Wow! I feel the same way about the federal government.”Details
On Jan 23, less than a week after the president released his changes, the PCLOB released a report which declared the bulk collection of metadata approved by the FISC to be unconstitutional and that the illegal practice ought to be immediately discontinued.Details
A recent Washington Times article by Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union attempts to portray President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder as hippies who want everyone to smoke ganja, and who don’t care a lick about enforcing federal drug laws.
This is an asinine distortion meant only to serve the ridiculous Republican Party establishment talking points that Obama is ‘soft on drugs’ and needs to double-down on federal enforcement.Details
July 22nd [Phoenix, AZ] Governor hopeful, Andrew Thomas, was a guest speaker at a local LD Republican meeting last night. After his stump speech, in which he never once mentioned the constitution, liberty, freedom, sovereignty, or anything related, he took questions from the audience. Most of the questions were typical Republican question. Border security was one of the first ones. A gentleman asked, “what do you intend to do for our illegal immigration problem and when did illegal immigration become a problem and why?” His answer was very uncontroversial for his audience and typical of a Republican pundit, “build a bigger fence.” Somebody in the audience later asked him, “how do you plan on funding this, it seems like an expensive job?” His response was incoherent and didn’t offer a solution, rather, “I’ll have a plan later in my campaign that will address this.”
Never once in his rambling did he address the fact that we have a welfare state. For those concerned about illegal immigration, the goal should be to wall off the welfare state, not our country. Read more here. More questions were then asked with typical rubber stamp answers and his reassurance that “he doesn’t have a plan now, but he will later in his campaign.” He warmed everybody up to this response during his stump speech. He repeatedly said after almost every issue he discussed that he would, “have more on this later.”
When it came time for my question, I was direct. I asked him, “the federal government keeps over-stepping their limited enumerated powers by passing unconstitutional legislation that strips of our liberties. If elected Governor, would you support and pass legislation that rendered unconstitutional federal overreach null, void and of no force in the state of Arizona?”Details
The people we elect and the ones who they appoint cannot be allowed to redefine the meanings of the very words that are intended to limit their power. If they are, then language becomes their tool for controlling us. If they have this tool, they will use it. There is only one answer. The language of the Constitution means what it meant when it was ratified. Any attempt to alter the meaning of the language of the Constitution is, fundamentally, a power grab which must be rejected. If the government really believes it needs a new power, the Congress can submit a Constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. There is no other Constitutionally valid method for the federal government to increase its power and the states and the people must learn to insist that the Constitution be followed – to the letter.Details