In referring to our form of government, Alexander Hamilton once said, “Here sir, the people govern”. But given the actions of some of the more arrogant members of our judiciary, there seems to be room for doubt.
In 2000, the people of California approved a statewide referendum defining marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman, but in 2008 their state supreme court threw out that law (by a four to three vote of the court). So in November, 2008 voters approved a state constitutional amendment to overturn their supreme court’s decision and again take control of the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in over thirty states have done.
It has been a mass expression of sovereign will on a single subject unlike few (if any) others in our nation’s history – and one at which activists judges continue to thumb their noses.
A few weeks ago, federal district Judge Vaughan Walker gave us the latest example of contempt for popular sovereignty by overturning California’s state constitutional amendment. It’s only the latest round of what has been an ongoing battle with activist judges.
The problem is that we have too few real judges in our country, and far too many would-be judicial oligarchs who see themselves as the “supreme” branch of our government, rather than just one of three. It’s the product of a philosophy that sees our constitutional structure as an eighteenth century anachronism, rather than the law of the land.
Jefferson once noted, the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” And so they have.
Their excuse is that the Constitution compels them to do so, which is rather strange given that those who wrote and ratified the Constitution or any of its amendments made no such pronouncements. So we’re left to assume that it’s taken a few hundred years of study in constitutional law for our betters in black robes to discover what was there all along? Whatever.
The current attempt to redefine marriage is built around conferring rights based on behavior. But where do the “rights” end? It’s one thing to have a right to certain personal behavior, but it’s quite another to have the right to demand that society sanction that behavior via the government and demand that everyone honor it.
At its heart, the push for recognition of gay marriage isn’t about rights so much as it is an effort to outlaw judgementalism; in effect, to outlaw opposing values, or at least living out or expressing those values, (especially when they run counter to a socially liberal agenda).
The push for a new constitution for America has begun.
We have all heard the expression: “A Living Constitution.” It means the constitution our Founding Fathers gave us is a document that should be interpreted by taking into consideration that we Americans live, today, in a different time, a different world, than did our forefathers of the 18th century. We live in the 21st century.
Those who believe this – and there is a frighteningly large number of them – are in high places of power, including judicial power, as well as everyday working class Americans. They are flat-out WRONG.
Before I go on, allow me to assure you that I am not among those who advocate a “living constitution.” I am of the opinion the original constitution says what it means and means what it says. That makes me what is referred to today as an “originalist.” That is fine by me.
See, I believe the original constitution has made this country unique—and great in its uniqueness. It has made Americans the freest people on the face of the planet. It has allowed Americans to become the most prosperous people in history. Even our poor are light years better off than the poor of other nations.
The constitution placed restraints on the government of America allowing the American citizen to be all they could and can be – and then some. As a result, we became one of the most creative nations ever in the history of civilization.
For many decades, there has been a portion of Americans who have sought to crush America’s liberty, America’s freedom, and create a New America. They seek to create a collectivist society in America. We call it socialism.
For many decades these people have pulled the strings of their marionettes from the shadows. Now THEY are in positions of ultimate power in the US Government.
Their intentions are to kill off the America we know and replace it with a government not shackled by the democratic process and free of the burden of acting as a representative of the people. Ultimately, they will replace the constitutional republican form of government America has enjoyed since her founding. They envision themselves taking the reins off the government, which is simply another way of saying—they intend to by-pass the restraints on the government enforced by the original constitution.
Most Americans know that today’s America is not the America of 50 or 60 years ago. Slowly and quietly, those who seek to change America have been maneuvering a judicial form of government into place. Today, the federal judiciary, not the Congress, is making more and more of the nation’s laws. In many cases, judges, legislating from the bench, have been appointed to those positions for life. They have little to fear from the electorate. You see, they have never been elected. They are, in effect, un-elected legislators.
While the form of our government remains the same, the making of America’s laws has slowly shifted from the national legislature, the Congress, to the federal judiciary, the federal judges.
In their latest note to U.S. District Judge James Zagel, jurors signaled they may be getting close to wrapping up their negotiations. They have asked for two things.
First, they requested a copy of the oath that they took when they were sent to deliberate the case against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
“Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?”
Second, they asked Zagel how to fill out a verdict form when they can’t agree on a specific count. “Do we leave it blank or report the vote split?” the note asked.
Blago and his brother were directed to stay within 30 minutes of the courtroom.
Staying tuned…
***
Reminder of the issues in addition to the Senate seat-trading scam that the jury has been charged with tackling:
– a shady, Tony Rezko-connected state pension bond sale;
– attempted extortion of then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, whose brother Blago wanted to host a fund-raiser in exchange for a $2 million football field grant sought by a school in Emanuel’s congressional district;
– attempted extortion and bribery of Children’s Memorial Hospital;
– conspiracy to extort and bribe a race-track owner in exchange for horse-racing industry tax subsidies;
– and attempted bribery and extortion of a road construction executive, whom Blago wanted to hold a fund-raiser in exchange for $6 billion in government tollway projects.
***
Update 4:25pm Eastern Sun-Times reports that lawyers and defendants have been summoned to court.
For you total Blago junkies, here’s the livestream from inside the Dirksen Federal Building.
5:07pm Eastern. NBC Chicago reports Rod Blago has arrived at courthouse and told crowd, “Say a prayer for us.”
Today, people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet.”
The Grand Inquisitor Freedom doesn’t grow on trees. It exists by virtue of independence from the powers that might take that freedom away. Since there is no such thing as perfect freedom, and we must all live under one form of authority or another, rights exist to fence out authority from the space allotted to freedom. Rights create an artificial form of freedom through a covenant with the authorities. The more leverage the citizens have over the authorities, the more they can prevent those rights from being trampled upon.
The problem begins when those rights are taken for granted. For example when people begin to assume that the rights they enjoy are inherent to the system, so that they don’t have to worry about them. As long as the system exists, so do their rights.
In the United States, many Americans assume that as long as the flag waves and everyone celebrates the 4th of July, then their rights are safe. But it is entirely possible to have an America in which the flag still waves and people still go to see fireworks on the 4th of July, and in which there are no more rights or freedoms left. The only way this can happen though is when people forget what the flag means and what the 4th of July means, the symbolism of a flag composed of individual states, and a holiday celebrating the Declaration of Independence, which holds that a people may overthrow a government when it violates their rights.
It is dangerous to celebrate symbols, while forgetting what they mean. Because a nation’s fundamental symbols are the keys to its power. They are its scepters and thrones. And when people forget what the symbols mean and begin bowing to the symbols themselves– it becomes possible for a tyrant to take the symbols and have people bow to him, even as he desecrates what those symbols actually stand for.
Obama’s rise to power could not have taken place except through a forgetfulness that has been with us for some time now. And Obama has been quite talent at manipulating symbols, posing in front of half a dozen flags, a Superman statue, glowing halos, historic sites and documents. That these symbols have no meaning to him except as tokens of power, that his very presence next to them or adjacent to them, should be anathema because of the profound gap between the ideals they represent, and the agenda he represents, is obvious to those who remember that symbols also have meanings.
But Obama’s success is due to those who do not remember. To whom the flag represents America, but who do not understand that it is not a random selection of shapes meant to look pretty against a blue sky.
I have read several articles lately rightfully claiming the Obama should be impeached. The power grab upon the United States parallels the likes of Hugo Chavez. Any one of these acts should be ground for impeachment, but our current Congress refuses to take action. Just about everything this administration has done goes against the Constitution, against states rights, against American citizens, against court rulings and against the will of the people. But he continues to march on destroying this country, transforming it into his socialist/Marxist vision with Obama being dictator-in-chief. He holds border security hostage for amnesty for illegals and threatens to use executive powers to achieve what Congress won’t pass, and then sues the state of Arizona for attempting to stop the invasion from Mexico. Then there is the takeover of the auto industry, banking industry, Wall Street, health care system…where do you stop.
The problem – the current Congress can’t impeach Obama on these issues because they are also guilty of the same crimes! If they found Obama guilty they would be implicating themselves in the same treasonous activities. So this Congress will do nothing to stop the traitor-in-chief from continuing his destruction of the United States because to co-conspirators are playing judge and jury.
But the destruction of this country must stop and it can. Many have looked into the background of Obama and is blatant refusal to produce the long form birth certificate proving his eligibility to be president in the first place. I couldn’t obtain my passport with a properly certified birth certificate. I had the original birth certificate with a stamped notarized seal, but that wasn’t good enough. I had to order a new certified copy with the embossed seal just to get a passport. My daughter has to produce her birth certificate, drivers license, social security card and two additional forms of proof of residency just to obtain a drivers license in Indiana! So why is it unreasonable for the president of the United States to produce a valid, certified, long-form birth certificate. Why has he spent millions of dollars protecting that document as well as others? No one would spend that much money trying to cover up the truth if they were not guilty!
So, Congress needs to go after this usurper on the grounds that he is constitutionally not eligible to hold the office of the President at all. Does this implicate others in a cover-up – absolutely. But this country will be better off without Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano. So if that ship sinks it needs to take the trash with it!
Many are concerned about the fallout should it be determined that Obama was never eligible to be president. The country will survive! Those of us around during Watergate know what the country can recover from. We lost the President and Vice-President during the Watergate scandal, as well as a number of others, but the country survived. The Constitution was developed by our founding fathers to preserve the country. Yes, there will be consequences. The laws passed in the middle of the night without Congress actually reading them and through backroom deals would not be valid. But when you think of the abuse of power and unconstitutional standing these laws were based on then the only recourse is to remove these laws that should never have been passed in the first place.
Is Barack Obama an illegal president? Why has the long form birth certificate not been produced? Why is Obama using a social security number issued in the state of Connecticut when he never lived in that state? How did he work at Baskins Robbins in Hawaii years before obtaining this social security number? Why would someone spend $1 million to hide information if they weren’t guilty? Why is the MSM ignoring this issue? What are the secrets behind this president and who is involved in this cover-up? If you thought Watergate was bad, Obamagate could make it look like child’s play.
Controversy over Obama’s eligibility to be President still lingers in the shadows. Was he born in Hawaii? Where is his long form birth certificate? Why has he spent $2 million to protect the secrecy over his birth records, passport and school records? If someone has truly nothing to hide, the simple and honest action would be to provide those records to those in authority. So what is he hiding?
Two additional articles on this blog reveal information obtained during an investigation by the reporter on the eligibility of Obama and the mysteries around the long-form birth certificate.
While many may not subscribe to the talk show radio station “Political Cesspool”, an interview with Tim Adams, the Chief Elections Clerk in Hawaii in 2008, tells James Edwards that there is no birth certificate on file for Obama in Hawaii. Here is the clip from the radio show of the interview with Tim & James on June 5, 2010.
McCain’s eligibility in running for President was questioned and he provided the documentation, and the issue underwent a hearing to determine his eligibility. With all of the questions surrounding Obama’s eligibility, why was he not subject to the same scrutiny? Who is really running the United States today?
How much more juvenile do we need to get before people actually UNDERSTAND what this law is about? Our Federal officials are making derogatory statements against the law that they have not even read. Do they know the same law exists in the Federal government? Do they understand the federal law does not specifically prohibit using race or ethnic background as a means of identifying potential illegal aliens? The Arizona law PROHIBITS the use of race or ethnic background. Law enforcement must stop someone for some other reason FIRST, and then based on that encounter will determine if there is reasonable suspicion to question a potential immigration problem.
We are asked for identification everywhere we go, so why is the question of producing your immigration card, which by federal law you are required to carry with you at all times, a perceived violation of civil rights when every other form of identification is not? Only the illegal aliens need to be concerned. Everyone else, no matter the color of their skin, is welcome!
Wolf Blitzer says, “What’s wrong with the folks in Arizona wanting to protect their border?”
CALDERON: In Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that it’s against any sense of human rights; and, of course, is provoking very disappointing, uh, things — or very disappointing opinion — in Mexico and around the world, even here in America. So to introduce this kind of elements, especially racial profiling aspect that are attempting against what we consider human rights, it’s the principle of discrimination which is against the values of this great nation.
Blitzer: “So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, can they just walk in?”
CALDERON: No! They need to fulfill, uh, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedence.
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course! Of course!
BLITZER: If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico and they wind up in Mexico, they can going get a job?
CALDERON: No, no, no.
BLITZER: They can work?
CALDERON: If somebody do that without permissions, we send — we send back them.
OK so how does that compare to Arizona? A final copy of the law is here. And what does Calderon say?
CALDERON: In Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that it’s against any sense of human rights; and, of course, is provoking very disappointing, uh, things — or very disappointing opinion — in Mexico and around the world, even here in America. So to introduce this kind of elements, especially racial profiling aspect that are attempting against what we consider human rights, it’s the principle of discrimination which is against the values of this great nation.
Blitzer says: So somebody outside your country wants to come into Mexico, can they just walk into your country?
CALDERON: No! They need to fulfill, uh, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedence.
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course! Of course!
BLITZER: If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico and they wind up in Mexico, they can going get a job?
CALDERON: No, no, no.
BLITZER: They can work?
CALDERON: If somebody do that without permissions, we send — we send back them. . .
Accusations are being thrown everywhere about H.R.3200. Town Hall meetings are overflowing with citizens rightly concerned about their health care and how this bill will affect them. Both sides are issuing statements in support of their position on the bill.
So instead of just taking the opinion of one side or the other, I made a commitment to actually read through the bill and report on areas I found to be of concern, informing other concerned citizens so they could read those sections of the bill, ask questions of their Congressmen, and come to their own conclusion on how it may or may not affect their lives.
I am not a lawyer, so my interpretation is not from a legal standpoint and should not be taken as such. I am just an ordinary citizen concerned about the government’s involvement in health care.
Currently I have read, word for word, page by page, about the first 200 pages of H.R.3200. I have skimmed the rest and have briefly read the last 275 pages. I am taking notes as I read, forming my own questions. Future articles will be written on specific aspects of the bill. To start, here is my summary of what I have read.
The bill, H.R.3200, provides for two systems of offering insurance to individuals, one through the National Health Insurance Exchange and the other through a Public Health Insurance Option. All insurance plans sold will have to conform to the standards set by the government to participate in the National Exchange program. The policy standards and pricing mechanisms for the National Exchange are set by the government.
The Public Option is the government’s option. It is a direct competitor to the National Exchange. It must also adhere to the same standards of the National Exchange, except that it offers incentives to doctors to participate in this program by means of allowing them increased fees for services. It basically runs under the same standards as Medicare.
There are laws requiring individuals to purchase insurance as well as employers to provide insurance. Penalties in the form of individual, employment and excise taxes are being imposed for those who do not comply.
The bill also includes the pork. Numerous special interest programs are included in the bill, covered at the taxpayers’ expense. Some of these programs include taxpayers paying for college educations for underserved individuals who go into the medical field. Others include mandating medical professionals to become literate in alternative languages so they can communicate with patients, giving additional funds to those states along the Mexican border. Yet another program is only available to individuals who belong to a labor union. These programs amount to billions of dollars. I have not seen or heard much about these programs and have to wonder why.
This bill is going to cost taxpayers billions, if not trillions, of dollars to implement and run. It calls for the expansion of government in all aspects, both federal and state. It encourages discrimination, giving preferences based on racial and ethnic criteria. It calls for government control over the plans and coverage available to you.
It has been a mass expression of sovereign will on a single subject unlike few (if any) others in our nation’s history – and one at which activists judges continue to thumb their noses. 
Before I go on, allow me to assure you that I am not among those who advocate a “living constitution.” I am of the opinion the original constitution says what it means and means what it says. That makes me what is referred to today as an “originalist.” That is fine by me.
Freedom doesn’t grow on trees. It exists by virtue of independence from the powers that might take that freedom away. Since there is no such thing as perfect freedom, and we must all live under one form of authority or another, rights exist to fence out authority from the space allotted to freedom. Rights create an artificial form of freedom through a covenant with the authorities. The more leverage the citizens have over the authorities, the more they can prevent those rights from being trampled upon. 
I have read several articles lately rightfully claiming the Obama should be impeached. The power grab upon the United States parallels the likes of Hugo Chavez. Any one of these acts should be ground for impeachment, but our current Congress refuses to take action. Just about everything this administration has done goes against the Constitution, against states rights, against American citizens, against court rulings and against the will of the people. But he continues to march on destroying this country, transforming it into his socialist/Marxist vision with Obama being dictator-in-chief. He holds border security hostage for amnesty for illegals and threatens to use executive powers to achieve what Congress won’t pass, and then sues the state of Arizona for attempting to stop the invasion from Mexico. Then there is the takeover of the auto industry, banking industry, Wall Street, health care system…where do you stop. 
