The Supreme Court has once again chipped away at the 2nd Amendment. In a recent Supreme Court ruling, the court unanimously ruled in favor of broadening federal regulation of firearms under the guise of punishing perpetrators of domestic violence.Details
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional.
The Administration takes this as a green light to implement ObamaCare to its fullest extent possible. Because the election went in President Obama’s favor, the Senate and House have lost any desire to overturn the law. Without the overturn, it looks like the law making Obamacare a reality is going to stand forever.
Or is it?
In order to make Obamacare work properly, as it currently stands, there are two mainstays of Obamacare that must be carried out on the state level. Each state must implement an insurance exchange and they must drastically expand Medicare according to the law. These two items of ObamaCare will cost the states untold millions of dollars to implement.
When federal law goes bad, it is up to the states to protect their citizens. The legal theory is called nullification. Nullification is the idea that any given state has the right to invalidate federal laws that they consider unconstitutional. Somewhere along the line the Supreme Court got it wrong in their reasoning. Accordingly, it is like saying that since the government has a stake in GM it can create a law that says we can only buy GM cars. If we buy any other type of car we have to pay an extra tax on it.Details
AzBlueMeanie claims in the article Neoconfederate insurrectionists in Arizona Legislature revive discredited ‘nullification’ theory that:
All elected officials in Arizona take the following oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of __________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”
And yet the Arizona legislature is populated by Neoconfederate insurrectionists who have violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government.
Let’s get this straight now… AzBluemeanie believes that a state elected official who stands up against what he or she perceives to be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution has “violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government”. That is a pretty bold statement to make with no evidence to back it up. Nice job!
Let us bring some credentials into the discussion.Details
On March 21, TAC reported that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who had been petitioning the court system to be allowed to make their case concerning EPA administrative heavy handedness. The post, U.S. Supreme Court: Idaho Couple can take EPA to Court, reported that the couple had been directed by the Environmental Protection Agency to restore their newly acquired home construction plot back to its original state or face stiff fines. The EPA would not allow an appeal, or even a hearing.
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the main powers delegated to the federal government, specifically those of the Legislative Branch. An original understanding makes it clear that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to form a federal agency which can dictate what people can do with their private property. Just as it has no authority to demand the American people purchase something, Washington D.C. has no power to tell us what to do with personal or real property we own.
Utah, Colorado, Nevada and many other western states are neighbored by separate “federal states” which cannot be utilized for their own taxing purposes or to access the natural resources that reside within them. This is due to the fact that the federal government had either grabbed up the land when the state first entered the union, or had purchased it by some means. Regardless of how it was acquired, the federal land is within the state, and the people of that state cannot utilize it, in most cases.
Federal ownership of the land creates no benefit to the state itself. As U.S. Government Property, it is considered a resource of the U.S. Federal Government. In some instances, such as the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, the area has been deemed A UNESCO World Heritage Site and is “legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law”. Our Congress had to ratify that UN treaty. ”While each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site”.
How is that for giving away Sovereignty?Details
In an overwhelming 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the odious Westboro Baptist Church and the First Amendment. That is, the amendment which protects ALL speech, not just politically-correct, state-approved speech. Bravo. The nine highest-paid federal judges in the land have proved themselves capable of comprehending the plain language of the Constitution. Why then, we…Details
If we choose to exercise it, the Tenth Amendment explicitly gives us the power to enforce the Constitution’s letter and spirit through political action, regardless of the opinions and preferences of the ruling class.Details
As a supporter of laws like SB1070 and other state and local efforts to curb illegal immigration I am disturbed by the trend that federal courts are now weeding through state laws and deciding if they are constitutional or not. Whether or not you support state efforts to curb illegal immigration you have to agree that the courts have lost all prudence in this matter. They now want to chop through state laws and decide what is permissible for them to have and not have.
Pardon me but don’t the courts only have one function and that is to weigh the facts and punish those who break the law. The way a court system works is that the government brings the accused before it where they weigh the facts presented by the state in order to decide if the accused broke the law. They then meet out punishment based on what the law says.
Notice I said they don’t decide punishment because that has already been decided by the law. In fact, everything the court does is decided by law. The courts have this power because of the constitution and the same constitution gives them the power to judge the law as well as the facts. This is stated in Article III section 2 of the constitution.Details
“To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps – and their power is the more dangerous as they are in the office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are to the Elective control. The Constitution has elected no single Tribunal. I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves”
~ Thomas Jefferson
As We the People approach our responsibilities regarding Elective control, it would serve us well to spend some time to study, listen, research and ask some deeper, perhaps, constitutional questions of the candidates that are offering to represent us. If we ever hope to begin to reverse the madness of out of control, tax and spend, corrupt and dishonest state and federal governments, it is indeed our duty to do our best to insure that we are not repeating the same process and expecting different results.Details
Well, of course it is…but Dom Armentano makes an interesting case that under status quo, it’s not – but yet – still horribly immoral and wrong. Here’s an excerpt: To find the mandates in Obama Care illegal and, indeed, to roll back the bulk of economic regulation on business, would require a radical rethinking of…Details