Navigation

Tag Archives | John Boehner

Boehner May Be Onto Something

By on January 4, 2013 in Uncategorized

After what seemed like endless negotiations, empty rhetoric and so on, it appears the House and Senate have managed to kick the can further down the road.  For those familiar with the euphemism if not the reality, that means they have “avoided the fiscal cliff” for the time being.  And there was much rejoicing…yay!  This did not occur, however, before tempers flared in the White House lobby.

Yesterday, according to the Huffington Post, House Speaker John Boehner approached Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and told him to perform an act with himself our basic biology courses used to tell us required two people to complete.  When Reid asked Boehner what he was talking about, Boehner repeated said instructions.

Some people maybe offended by the Speaker’s choice of words, while others may applaud them.  Others still may appreciate the sentiment, but see a lack of action to back it up.  After all, Reid got what he wanted, a bill that raises taxes, does nothing about rampant spending, and does even less about the oversized, overreaching assortment of unconstitutional federal agencies designed to bully the States and the People into submission.  These will continue to grow, claiming more power today than yesterday, but less than tomorrow.  Yes, John Boehner’s words to Harry Reid may sound tough, but there is no substance to them.  If only there were someone or a group of people who regularly said those words and meant them.  Oh, but there is.

Founded in 2005, the Tenth Amendment Center this year will celebrate eight years of telling the Feds to go delete an expletive with itself.  Our founder Michael Boldin has spent years spreading the word about what Presidents, be they Obama or Bush, House Speakers, whether Pelosi or Boehner, Senate Majority Leaders, regardless of whether they go by Reid or McConnell, as well as nameless, faceless bureaucrats, what they can do with their statist, anti-constitutional so-called laws.  Every time a Governor, State Legislature, county or municipal government or general populace of a state nullifies an unconstitutional federal act, every time they refuse to implement unjust policies past and present, they are heeding the call of the Tenther and saying, “We don’t need no stinkin’ permission to exercise our rights.”

So this year, when Congress wants to push for implementation of the ObamaCare exchanges, or tell us we really, really need to implement REAL ID this time, or crack down on marijuana, or the People have to give up their guns, we know what to tell our state and local officials to tell them.  It’s what the Tenthers have been saying all along, and thanks to our illustrious Speaker of the House, we have another…interesting way of saying it.

3

Some Advice for Military Contractors (and other Government Employees)

By on October 11, 2012 in Military

Over at Red State, Eric Erickson has concluded that the law means nothing. This revelation is nothing new for Tenthers, who’ve long understood the futility of relying on the federal government to solve problems created and compounded by the federal government. Specifically, Erickson was writing on the cuts to military spending that sequestration is supposed to bring, should congress fail to arrive at some agreement to bilk the taxpayers a little but more come January, 2013.

This threat of cuts to the Sacred Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, forever praise its name, has many on the Right foaming at the mouth about the need for fiscal restraint, but in the proper way. I mean, let’s get real, how could anyone seriously suggest any cut to the Pentagon? This subject truly is the third rail. At least we hear rhetoric about reforming social security or Medicare on occasion, but military spending is strictly off limits.

Never mind that many of these now-outraged Republicans voted for sequestration when they agreed to the debt ceiling compromise last fall. And so what if John Boehner said he liked 98% of what was in that bill; we cant be derailing the MICC’s gravy train; not now, not ever. Especially with unemployment being what it is, cutting military spending will surely force tens of thousands of more folks to seek unemployment benefits in the coming months. Continue Reading →

0

The Boehner Question

By on April 28, 2010 in Delegated Powers

I’ve heard from a number of people this week what a great Constitutionalist John Boehner is. My first thought is my normal reaction – if they’re in D.C., odds are 434-1 against them being a strict supporter of the Constitution.

So what’s the big deal about J.B.? Well, yesterday he held a press conference in support of Arizona’s new immigration law – and specifically cited the 10th Amendment in support of his position.

Here’s what he had to say:

“The people of Arizona have the right under the 10th Amendment to write their own laws — and they have,” Boehner said at a press conference on the Capitol. “It has a 70 percent approval in Arizona and I think we ought to respect the people of Arizona and everyone should make their own decisions.”

Ok, I can – as a general rule, support that statement. States should certainly be able to make laws on everything that’s not specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution.

And further, I do believe that AZ’s law does warrant some discussion about the role of D.C. in this issue. For example, the words “immigration” and “naturalization” had meanings that were quite different at the time of the founding, so a) why aren’t both listed in the enumerated powers? b) is the former an incidental power authorized to the principle power in the Constitution? (under the Necessary and Proper clause, that is) and c) How does the law jive with Arizona’s Constitution?

But all that aside – my biggest question is this: Is John Boehner a strong supporter of the 10th Amendment? Let’s start with John’s big statement and see how his record stands up: “The people of Arizona have the right under the 10th Amendment to write their own laws — and they have”

How about education? Well the record shows that Boehner voted in favor of the No Child Left Behind Act – nationalizing control over education, which under the Constitution, was to be left wholly in the hands of the states.

Immigration? Well that was much of the reasoning behind the Real ID Act of 2005 (along with keeping us “safe” from terrorists). How did Boehner vote on that? Well, didn’t seem to me that he looked at the Constitution much on that vote either – he voted yes. I’m glad to remind readers here, that good people in their states have nullified Boehner’s constitution-violating vote on this issue.

Boehner’s record on the constitution? Not good at all.

Now, keep in mind that the 10th Amendment isn’t really about giving power to states to act. Instead, it’s about codifying in law that We the People of the several states created the federal government and that all powers not delegated to the feds are reserved to us (in our states or our own hands as we see fit).

With this understanding of the proper role of the federal government, let’s take a look at a few other major issues – and Boehner’s votes for

TARP Bailouts – yes.
Patriot Act, and reauthorization – yes.
AUMF – yes.
Military Commissions Act – yes.

There’s plenty on this site about these various federal acts, so this blog post isn’t the place to cover the massive constitutional violations that each represent.

But, it seems pretty clear to me that Boehner, like most of the thugs that occupy D.C. in the name of the people, has almost no respect for the Constitution at all. He just pays it lip service when it serves his purpose.

1

Constitutionally illiterate

By on February 7, 2010 in Constitution, Republocrats

That’s a good way to describe almost everyone in D.C. Even those that what the Constitution means seem to forget how to preserve it when they’ve been in office a long time.

That’s the subject of an article in the Baltimore Sun last week. Here’s an excerpt:

On Nov. 5, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, took the podium at a Republican rally, waved a document defiantly and declared:”This is my copy of the Constitution, and I’m going to stand here with the Founding Fathers who wrote in the Preamble, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness …” Mr. Boehner was encouraging participants to protest the pending House vote for health care reform by demanding their constitutional right to make medical decisions.

Pop quiz: What’s wrong with this picture?

If you said that there is no explicit constitutional right to make medical decisions, you score some points. If you said that the passage Mr. Boehner quotes is from the Declaration of Independence you get an A. If you also noted that the quotation is not even from the Declaration’s preamble, you earn extra credit.

Mr. Boehner is not the first opinion leader to confuse the Constitution with the Declaration, nor is he apt to be the last. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell, for example, said, “As our Constitution declares, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights …” Of course, Mr. Boehner, unlike Mr. Falwell, entered the profession by promising to protect the Constitution.

Click here to read the rest

9