Jon Roland of Constitution.org had this to say about the lawsuits that AGs are filing on the health care bill There are a few minor things that might be won through litigation, if it were properly pleaded, but the suit filed is incompetent, little more than political posturing. The courts are not going to oppose…Details
Not a common thing these days, but a Federal judge ruled against the federal government on NSA wiretaps. From The New York Times: WASHINGTON – A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the…Details
So many official conservatives fall into the category of double agents for the regime: Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, and so on. And here Antonin Scalia denies secession. He is replying to a screenwriter’s query about a possible court case on secession: I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem,…Details
On LewRockwell.com, Brian Stanley wrote an interesting article on Texas v White and the court system’s view of the Constitutionality of secession. Here’s an excerpt: In the 1868 case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, a case dealing with the title to some U.S. bonds, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’, and hence…Details
So says Judge Andrew Napolitano – on the recent Citizens United case, that is. Here’s an excerpt of his recent article: The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups,…Details
The concept of natural rights is perhaps the most basic in the entire structure of the governments of the people of the United States. This concept formed that foundation upon which the nation grew and flourished into the most prosperous and powerful in the entire history of the world, and it happened in a relatively…Details
Tenthers are constantly reminded by worshipers of the Judicial Supremacists on the highest Court that we’re re-arguing areas that were settled long ago by those black-robed deities. Yet Tenthers reject the notion that the federal Court can rewrite the Constitution for the entire nation if 5 politically connected lawyers agree. Besides the fact that this…Details
The video says it all.
These days it’s hard to differentiate between the foreign and the domestic enemies…although I think the domestic ones are a little more dangerous.
As the Tenth Amendment becomes the platform to stop an over reaching federal government, do we trust the Supreme Court to be a fair arbiter?
The Supreme Court, according to many constitutionalists, has been delinquent in its responsibility to protect the intention of the U.S. Constitution. Many past Supreme Court decisions have become bad precedent, and that bad precedent continues to be the bases for big government advocates to site as a justification for a continued trampling of state, and individual rights.
People that believe the constitution is a “living document” historically have utilized the commerce clause to feed their insatiable quest to trample individual and state’s rights. The constitutional clause under section 8 of the powers delegated to Congress simply states; “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
The intention was not to be a conduit to suppress the rights and freedoms of the fifty states and their citizens. But that is exactly how the federal government gets its tentacles into places it has no right to be. If there was an intention to regulate internal state activity the word “among” would have been “within” the several states.Details