(Reuters) – Lawmakers moved toward a confrontation over the government’s power to detain suspected terrorists on Wednesday as the Republican-led House of Representatives began debate on a defense policy bill the White House has threatened to veto.
Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, sought to amend the law to guarantee people arrested in the United States on terrorism charges could not be detained indefinitely without trial or transferred to military custody.
Other lawmakers, concerned that Smith’s proposals went too far, sought to defuse the issue by proposing amendments that would clarify the rights of citizens to challenge their detention in court.
The amendments are being proposed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual bill that sets defense policy and authorizes spending levels for the Pentagon.
Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.1
And after reading a recent paper by Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, one wonders whether the academic standards (or is it the moral standards?) of that once great school have collapsed.
Professor Elhauge says in “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” (The New Republic, April 13, 2012), that Congress may force us to buy health insurance because in 1792, our Framers required all male citizens to buy guns; and in 1798 required ship owners using U.S. ports (dock-Yards) to pay a fee to the federal government in order to fund hospitals for sick or disabled seamen at the U.S. ports.
Oh! What tangled webs are woven when law professors write about Our Constitution!
I have already proved that Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (which grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over dock-Yards and the other federal enclaves) is what authorizes Congress to assess the fee from ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards. See: Merchant Seamen in 1798, Health Care on Federal Enclaves, and Really Silly Journalists.
Now I will show you where the Constitution grants authority to Congress to require adult citizens to get armed!
The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition.
Does Congress have authority in the Constitution to require this? Yes! Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16 says Congress has the Power:
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” [boldface mine]
That is what authorizes Congress to require adult male citizens to buy guns and ammunition.
As Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 reflects, the “Militia” is the citizenry! Our Framers thought it such a fine idea that The People be armed, that they required it by law! See, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, speaks of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed – and why they need to be. 3
So! In the case of Congress’ requiring adult citizens to buy guns and ammunition, Congress has specific authority under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.16.
In the case of Congress’ requiring ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards to pay the fees to fund the marine hospitals at the dock-Yards, Congress is granted by Art. I, Sec.8, next to last clause, a general legislative power over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards.4
But for the country at large, Congress has no broad grant of legislative powers.
The progressives have claimed the United States Constitution is outdated. Nancy Pelosi has even suggested we amend the 1st amendment to restrict free speech.
Conservatives understand just how important the constitution is to the protection of our freedoms and the preservation of our country.
Is the constitution outdated?
Shane Krauser gives a powerful interpretation on this issue.
If you have never seen Shane speak you are missing out. He is the Director at the American Academy for Constitutional Education and holds many other educational positions as well. His knowledge, experience and dedication will inspire and challenge you to learn more about this timeless document.
Visit the American Academy for Constitutional Education at www.aafce.com
Bill O’Reilly (Fox News) made our Framers proud when, on March 26, 2012, he correctly explained [probably for the first time ever on TV] the genuine meaning of the interstate commerce clause. O’Reilly’s guest was Big Government Progressive Caroline Fredrickson, Esq., of the inaptly named “American Constitution Society”. In trying to defend obamacare, she said that our Framers intended to grant to Congress extensive powers over the “national economy”:
“When the Founding Fathers adopted the Constitution, they put in the commerce clause ah specifically so that Congress could actually regulate interstate commerce. They envisioned a national economy, and we really have one now, and to the tune of over two trillion dollars, health care makes up a big big part of that and so it’s completely within the power of ah Congress to pass this legislation [obamacare] and to attempt to provide some reasonable regulation…”
But what she said is not true! Accordingly, O’Reilly responded:
“The interstate commerce clause was put in so individual States could not charge tariffs [for] going from one state to another. So, for example, Pennsylvania would say to New Jersey, ‘Hey, you can’t bring in anything here from New Jersey unless you pay us 2% on it.’ ”
Bravo, O’Reilly! That is precisely the purpose of the interstate commerce clause. James Madison, Father of our Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 42 (9th para):
“… A very material object of this power [to regulate interstate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State … ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former…”
“…’ The commerce of the German empire … is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of … duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the … navigable rivers [of] … Germany … are rendered almost useless.’ Though the … people of this country might never permit this … to be … applicable to us, yet we may … expect, from the … conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would … come to be … treated by the others in no better light …”
So! What our Framers said was that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to authorize Congress to prevent the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.1
But Fredrickson apparently has no idea what our Framers said. She dug deeper:
“Actually this was a major issue at stake in the adoption of the Constitution was the ability of our national government to deal with national issues and, let’s look a little bit at what’s happened in the 20th century…”
What? Our Framers made a “major issue” of their determination to grant to Congress power over whatever it might in the future deem to be a “national issue”?
One of the biggest fabrications I regularly hear about our President is that he is a “Constitutional Scholar”. Yet time and time again the President repeatedly shows he knows absolutely nothing about the Constitution. Some people suspect that he really does know the Constitution but that he actively chooses to ignore what he knows because his knowledge, if put into practice, destroys the ability for his liberal agenda to be moved forward. I completely disagree. The man is clearly a “Constitutional Dullard”.
This past week the President ran out to prove his ignorance of the document so many claim he understands so well. The President stood before anyone who would listen and spewed his ignorance while decrying the looming potential for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare. He bloviated about how it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to throw out a law. Might I add boldly, a law with no Constitutional backing Mr. President?
President Obama ran about like a headless chicken imploring Americans to believe that the Supreme Court must show “deference” to Obamacare and concocting all sorts of superficial, non-legal and even non-Constitutional reasons for this. All of these reasons however amount to nothing more than saying because the law now exists, it should therefore be allowed to continue to exist. Wow. By that standard slavery should still be legal and segregation should still be legal. See what I mean about the President being a “dullard”?
Now the President was not the only liberal having conniptions. Liberal pundits who, are equally unaware of what our Constitution actually says, and even less aware of what it means, have been lamenting along side of him. They have said all sorts of crazy things. They have mused how if the Supreme Court were to vote five to four to overturn the Obamacare that such a decision should be ignored as meaningless, because, well, the vote is so close and not decisive enough. Some of the most insane on the left have even proposed that any judge who dares vote to kill the horrendous law should be impeached. Of course, these same liberals never, ever, say such things about the Court when a five to four decision mistakenly goes in their favor because enough partisan liberal justices join with waffling moderate justices on the Court and actually vote to uphold clearly unconstitutional acts by Congress.
It is important that all Americans, lest they be duped into believing that the far left-wing of American politics actually knows their posteriors from the proverbial hole in the ground, be reminded of the facts of the matter. Especially in light of the fact that liberals are trying very hard to convince the unwashed masses that the Supreme Court should be subservient to Congress and the President despite clearly being a constructed as co-equal branch of government with checks and balances to wield against them.
Liberals are going to hate me for this, but I am going to do it anyway. Yes, I am going to back up that statement with facts.
First of all, we will turn to the Constitution itself. Specifically, we will look at Article III. Section 1 states: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court”.
In 1798, Congress passed An Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen which required the master of every American ship arriving from foreign ports to any port of the United States, and American ships engaged in the coastal trade using those ports, to pay a small fee to the federal government for every seaman employed on his ship. The funds so raised were used to care for sick and disabled seamen in the marine hospitals established in the ports of the United States.
So! Unger cited this 1798 Act and chortled with glee that our Framers supported “socialized medicine”; and so the “political right-wing” should stop “pretending” that our Founding Fathers would oppose obamacare.
Greg Sargent chimed in to the same effect, and quoted history professor Adam Rothman for the idiotic propositions that
“…the post-revolutionary generation clearly thought that the national government had a role in subsidizing health care … that in itself is pretty remarkable and a strong refutation of the basic principles that some Tea Party types offer … This defies a lot of stereotypes about limited government in the early republic.”
But Unger’s, Sargent’s and Rothman’s statements are so transparently ignorant they can be disposed of in a few paragraphs:
Congress’ Three Categories of Legislative Powers
One: Congress has only limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These legislative powers are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. Various Amendments granted to Congress certain powers over civil rights. These enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has lawful (constitutional) authority over The States and The People in The States. In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, Sec. 10] the States and The People retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty.
Two: Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17, U.S. Constitution, says:
“The Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislatures of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;” [boldface mine]
“Exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over “dock-Yards”. Do you see? It is this clause which grants to Congress authority to establish marine hospitals on dock-Yards belonging to the United States. Congress has a general legislative authority over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards. That legislative authority is limited only by the Bill of Rights.
In Federalist Paper No. 43 at 2., James Madison explains in three short paragraphs [read them!] why the federal government must have “complete authority” over the federal enclaves listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.17.
1. Resolved, That the States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only. That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.
That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
That to these Principles, each State agreed as a State, and as the Parties to the Constitution.
That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution; and as the mere creature, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; since that would have made the creature’s will, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers. That as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each State has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether the creature has committed infractions, and as to the mode and measure of redress.
2. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of The State of Tennessee acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
3. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States ordained and established a Federation of Sovereign States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce and relations; and domestically the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. That the 10th Amendment to the Constitution also declares that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That nowhere in the Constitution of the United States was any power granted to Congress to make laws respecting agriculture, farming operations, labor and employment, or children and families; and that nowhere in the Constitution are powers over these matters prohibited to the States. These matters are altogether outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government. Therefore, power over these matters is reserved solely and exclusively to the respective States and THE PEOPLE, each within its or their own territory.
4. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative Powers granted by that Constitution are vested in CONGRESS; therefore, Departments within the Executive Branch are forbidden to make any “rules” or “laws” of general application whatsoever. That administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Labor, one of the Executive Departments of the federal government, set forth at 29 CFR Part 570, and which pretend to regulate child labor throughout the several States; are altogether void, and of no force, as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, of the federal Constitution.
The U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.said Monday.“Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen — even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land — is among the gravest that government leaders can face,” Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school in Chicago. “The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.”
Holder’s discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address was clearly animated by the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September.
Since that operation, the Obama administration has faced calls to explain the legal framework behind its decision to target Awlaki and to release at least portions of a classified memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that contains its evidence, reasoning and conclusions.
Holder’s speech represented the administration’s most elaborate public explanation to date for targeted killings. And it followed a prolonged internal debate about how to inform the public about one of the most extraordinary decisions a government can take without explicitly acknowledging the ongoing classified drone program.
Among the most revealing parts of the speech was Holder’s discussion of some of the factors the administration reviews before deciding that an individual represents an “imminent threat.” He said the critical factors include the “relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”
He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
The attorney general’s “flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’ is absolutely appropriate as applied to terrorist planners, but it may be unsettling to many in the international community who criticized President Bush for his principle of preemption,” said John B. Bellinger, who served as a legal adviser to the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that terror suspects — even US citizens — should not be afforded protections under the US Constitution:
In his most forceful defense yet of the Obama administration’s use of lethal force against U.S. citizens linked to terrorism, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the Constitution does not protect U.S. suspects plotting to kill other Americans.
Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an “imminent threat” of attack against the USA and whose capture is “not feasible.”
Is this the same guy who has spent the last three years telling us that terror suspects should be tried in US civil courts?
In a speech before a Washington gathering of liberal lawyers Thursday night, Mr. Holder spoke out in defense of civilian courts to try terrorism suspects. He said the U.S. won’t achieve security and victory over terrorism “if we adhere to a rigid ideology, adopt a narrow methodology, or abandon our most effective terror-fighting weapon — our Article Three court system.”
Holder does realize that Article Three is from the US Constitution, doesn’t he? Or does he just want to give terror suspects trials in US civil courts but not allow the defendants Constitutional protections? And if so, what would be the point in that?
We’re not in the best of hands.
Update: More Holder news: Former Taliban defender appointed to third highest position at the Justice Department
Santorum: “I’m for separation of church and state. The state has no business telling church what to do.”
What’s notable about that, you ask? It gets the relationship between government and church exactly right. The First Amendment does not exist to make sure that a particular church does not take over government but to protect all churches from undue government interference. The Founders were far less afraid of today’s Progressive Bogeyman, the Fundamentalist Theocracy, than they were of a situation in which the government backed one church and used its coercive might to squash other churches. They knew very well how that worked.
One of the great divides between progressives and conservatives is how they view the relationship between church and government. Progressives believe that the supposed Wall of Separation exists to prevent the government from becoming overrun by faith and morality and other icky bits of religious belief. They believe if that wall, erected by the Supreme Court in 1947, wasn’t there then the United States would slide into a theocracy, possibly run by the American Taliban.
Conservatives believe differently. We know that if everyone is allowed — and even encouraged — to pursue their own religious believes with as much vigor as they desire, there is no chance that any one religion will amass enough power to run our government. It is only when government intrudes upon the church instead of protecting the free expression of religion that the balance changes and favored religions gain advantage over those that do not have the regard of powerful government officials. That is how you get a national religion or, as we’ve seen in the United States lately, a national push to drive religion from the public square.
And, by the by, we conservatives also know it’s perfectly acceptable for a man to speak at a religious university about his religious beliefs, even if four years later he decides to run for President. We can do that without falling into a hysterical tantrum because we know that the First Amendment both allows it and constrains our government from letting that man become Theocrat-in-Chief. It’d be nice to have a President in office who knows the Constitution well enough to know how the separation of church and state should work. Granted, he’s no scholar or anything, but I think we can live with that.
For decades, this nation has been held hostage by countries that do not like us. Over federal regulation has created a wall between our God given natural energy resources and energy producers. We must tear down this wall! The "Made in America" energy plan will make this country energy independent, and we can do it in 9 years! www.cainconnections.com
Catch Kevin
If you like facts over fiction, reality over rhetoric, and truth over tradition, tune into my radio show, “Catch Kevin: Unscripted & Uncensored!”
Chuck Baldwin Live
Dr. Baldwin’s messages from Kalispell, MT, will be livestreamed on this page every Sunday afternoon at approximately 2:30 p.m. MST.
Clash Radio
Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]
Our Sponsors
Get in on the modern Gold Rush. Call now to buy gold bars from The U.S. Gold Bureau.
![bookmark](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/images/blank.gif" height=){kind=small}
One of the biggest fabrications I regularly hear about our President is that he is a “Constitutional Scholar”. Yet time and time again the President repeatedly shows he knows absolutely nothing about the Constitution. Some people suspect that he really does know the Constitution but that he actively chooses to ignore what he knows because his knowledge, if put into practice, destroys the ability for his liberal agenda to be moved forward. I completely disagree. The man is clearly a “Constitutional Dullard”. 
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that terror suspects — even US citizens — should not be afforded protections under the 
Catch Kevin
Chuck Baldwin Live![Clash Radio Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clash_logoreverse.png "Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]")
Clash Radio
