Archive for category Constitution
Gabriella Stands Up For Immigration Sanity In Arizona
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Immigration, National Character on May 27, 2010
A beautiful naturalized US citizen stands up for Arizona’s immigration law.
Incompetent Administration Condemns Arizona…
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Entitlements, Homeland Security, Humor, Immigration on May 23, 2010
…but none of these idiots has read its immigration law!
Now the New York Post has a suggestion for these logically challenged idiots: “The Mexico model.” Some highlights: “Asked Wolf Blitzer: “If people want to come [into Mexico] from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they can just walk in?” “No,” responded Calderon. “They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they [don’t have] a criminal [record].” “Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?” asked Blitzer.“Of course,” said Calderon. “If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America,” continued Blitzer, “they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job?” “No, no,” Calderon replied. “If somebody [does] that without permission, we send back — we send them back.”
Then Hussein Obama’s number one on homeland security suggests that the Obama administration will refuse to enforce the U.S. law: “At week’s end, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was backing up the head of the Immigration and Customs Service — who said that he might not deport illegals detained under that statute. “ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel,” said Napolitano. “It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport.”
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_mexico_model_2DyxJuFroueHqDGXMzB04K#ixzz0oo6JfueS
We do not enforce our own laws. When Arizona enforces them we condemn and boycott the state without reading the law. We are bankrupting our boarder states and nation by granting the rights of U.S. citizens to non-U.S. illegals! What’s wrong with this picture?
Philosophical Ramblings
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Individual Freedom, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character, Taxation, Welfare on April 22, 2010
Saw one of my favorite Docs today and told him of the dismal projections for our country discussed at this week’s Reno Hayek Symposium Dinner, the current and future deficits, the debt, the unfunded liabilities and on top of all this the Omamacare sludge hammer. We both pondered the “no way out-no apparent solution” future. The concern here is for our children and grandchildren. And, its not that they can’t be better, be more independent than we, but that we are saddling them with unimaginable debt burdens so bad that they can’t be overcome no matter how strong they are.
We then discussed the untenable tax burden necessary to barely maintain but not reduce these entitlements, their corresponding debt and merely the interest cost necessary to maintain both. This is not a tax the rich issue, the rich will no longer be here or anywhere for that matter. This is a gigantic burden on the middle class; the less-than-middle class pay no taxes, and in fact have payments going to them. The anticipated 20% VAT tax atop the increased income tax and estate tax will not come close to solving the problem. In fact this tax on consumption will merely accelerate the downward spiral in our consumption based economy. This because consumers will be further forced to hunker down, down to a subsistance existence.
We pondered the all-but-impossible solution of reducing entitlements arguing its necessity but also its political impossibility. Then we broached the real issue, equality.
This, discussed initially in medical services. Should we all be entitled to the best, the Mayo clinic, the latest technology? Or should only those who can afford the best be able to buy it? In Europe it is the entitlement scenario, but the best becomes the non-best. This because the best requires capital investment at risk for long duration and problematic results. My Doc pointed out that med-tech investment is down! In Central America medical treatment and services are pretty good and the tech used is state-of-art but only for those who can afford it. The lower classes are relagated to a lower level of care above first aid but not the best available.
What as a society do we want for our society? What as a society can we afford for our society?
I think it gets down to two issues: the proper role of government and the moral responsibility of the individual. Government must defend our shores first and formost. It must enforce criminal laws protecting person and property. It must maintain a system of civil justice resolving disputes between citizens. And given our republic structure it must resolve issues between states. Finally it must provide for its continuance, succession and amendment. Our founding fathers pretty well set this out initially in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Constitution.
I think the proper role of the individual is to provide for himself and his family; that is food, shelter, education and protection. Beyond that the individual must be a contributing member of society helping his fellow man in need. This frequently through synagogue, temple or church and also through voluntary community societies. The individual must also be a responsible citizen, voting, volunteering, and participating in government offices when elected or appointed.
What of equality? What of entitlements? We are not “all created equal” nor has history shown us to be “endowed by our Creator, with certain unalienable rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The closest we come is to expect “equality of opportunity” despite our limitations. “Equality of result” is never attainable. Nor are we “entitled” to be equal. We struggle to do our best for ourselves, our families and our society. But we are not entitled to nor should we be guaranteed the same as everyone else.
This realization gives us the opportunity to help others, to be charitable, to do moral good. Including providing charitable hospitals and medical care, to get back to the earlier example. Here the government has no role; it is the exclusive role of the individual with other individuals alongside.
So, to prevent or at least mitigate the greatest intergenerational immorality in our history, we must limit entitlements, reducing and means restricting social security, medicare, medicaid and Obamacare. Keep in mind our grandkids have no voice, they are innocent of our current theft of their future. Our parents, the greatest generation, left us a better future but perhaps one too soft. Will we do worse by our children and grandchildren?
Law is Meaningless for Liberals in Carson City and Washington
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Nationalized Health Care, Nevada, Statism on April 7, 2010
I just finished a Nevada News Bureau blogger’s news conference with the attorney representing Nevada pro bono contesting the constitutionality of Obamacare, since our Democratic AG, Cortez-Masto refuses to represent Nevadans. Mark Hutchinson is special counsel for the state by virtue of Governor Gibbons’ executive order appointing him. The AG has committed a statutory misdemeanor by refusing to act. The AG doesn’t seem to be concerned with law, at least a law that binds her. She will do or not do as she pleases.
This is emblematic of the liberal or progressive–as they want to be euphemistically called–mindset. This country, indeed, this state came into being as a government of laws as contrasted with a government of people. The left from Wilson’s time on has bridled at this restraint.
For Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats, the U.S. Constitution has no meaning. The 10th Amendment reserves to the states or the people all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. There is no constitutional delegation of healthcare, so they argue authority from the commerce clause which gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The courts have allowed a very broad interpretation of that power, but never have they treated a law that forces action on citizens by virtue of their citizenship. That is the individual mandate of Obamacare.
If the individual mandate of Obamacare is upheld, then the constitution is meaningless. Think of that the basic, fundamental supreme law, the foundation of our republic is meaningless. Substituted for law is the whim of the president or the majority party. A citizen can be forced to act, forced to spend money, on any manner of thing. Tree hugging liberals can force PV panel installation on your roof. Doctors can be forced to perform abortions. Adult children can be forced to euthanize their aged parents. There are literally no limits. Inactivity can be made illegal–as it is in Obamacare.
Now that is why these lawsuits contesting Obama’s power grab are so damn important. That is why 14 states are litigating and why 7 others are about to join them. The constitutional issue is paramount here. If Obama can assume the role of dictator, like his “mi amigo” Chavez, then this country is lost, our children will have no future.
My thanks to Elizabeth Crum for arranging these blogger conference calls and to the three other attorneys participating: Josh Hicks, former general counsel to the governor, Joel Hansen, the IAP candidate for AG, and Jacob Hafer, the GOP candidate for AG.
Constitutions are messy things for dictators. Obama and his liberal ilk know what’s best for the rest of us in the unwashed masses. They will do what they please as long as they are in power.
Dennis Prager, “It’s a Civil War”
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character on March 23, 2010
Prager posts a dynamite column at RCP today, positing Sunday’s Obamacare vote as “the biggest step ever down a road diametrically opposed ” to America’s “original intent of keeping the state small so that the individual can be free and great.” He prescribes seven “to dos:”
1. Know and teach America’s core values. 2. Recognize that we are fighting the left, not liberals. 3. Democrats should be referred to as Social Democrats. 4. Work tirelessly to repeal the bill. 5. Our motto: “Th bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” 6. Do not let other matters distract. And, 7. Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war.
Dennis Prager’s contribution to #1 is a video, “The American Trinity,” which follows:
Something to think about.
Net Neutrality, Empowerment Nevada, NV4CFE.org, and the Cato Summit
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Democrats, Economics, Energy Facts & Policies, Environment, Government Regulation, Military Policy, Politics, Statism, Yucca Mountain on March 17, 2010
What a great Reno Hayek Symposium Dinner last evening. I want to thank Susie Evans and Manny Martinez of Charter for the excellent discussion of net neutrality and its potential impact on our First Amendment freedoms and the free-market functioning of our economy. Broadband pipes are not free they require invested capital on which a return is expected. Demands for priority use of those pipes must be compensated. In essence, the “net neutrality” free loaders, with no investment at stake, are demanding priority use of those pipes without adequate compensation. Note that the pipe owners are not monopolies they are subject to free market competition; cable, phone, satellite all compete in a non-common carrier environment.
George Gilder points out in his recent WSJ article, Cap and Trade for the Internet, since 2001 the U.S. has led the world in internet deregulation with some $4 Trillion of investment increasing residential bandwidth 54 fold. But new attempts to promote regulation including net neutrality will turn this on its head. Economics-abundance or scarcity-in a free competitive market is regulation enough. Of course that’s not the tack the Obama statist are taking. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is moving to expand government control of the web. The WSJ editorial, Broadband Trojan Horse, discusses Obama’s “national broadband plan” including reclassification of the web as a “telecom service” subjecting it to “common carrier” status regulation and “open access” regulation. This solution in search of a problem is emblematic of Obama’s Soviet style control freaks. If implemented, it will destroy private investment. Thanks again to Susie Evans and Manny Martinez.
Ryan Costella and Dana Andrus gave a brief presentation on Empowerment Nevada a grass roots community action program they are initiating that basically promotes community problem solving without government involvement. Ryan hopes to enlist concerned citizens to re-ignite the spirit that founded this country and this state. He sees this as a springboard to other communities, other states and eventually the nation. “We want people who raise their hands to help, not hold their hand out.” His argument is that both left and right can agree on one thing: grass roots problem solving works. We wish Ryan luck in his efforts.
John Dunn gave us an update on Nevadans 4 Carbon Free Energy’s recent publicity campaign. The two Reno public meetings and attendant press reports have been well received. Politically the concept of a Yucca Energy Park including storage, reprocessing, power generation and research, seems to be a non-starter. The group has concluded that grassroots support is the key. This may, in fact, include a ballot initiative to let the voters decide. One thing for sure, jobs and money for Nevada and safe storage nationally are real necessities. I’ll keep updating as the occasion arises. Meantime check out: NV4CFE.org.
Finally, Jerry O’Driscoll briefed us on the recent Cato Summit in which he participated as a panelist. There were two presentations that particularly impressed him: Afghanistan-we need to win enough of the inter tribal wars to get the Taliban in charge so we can negotiate an exit. Climategate-the wounded scientific community caught in their phony research and conclusions appears to be as rough as Chicago politicians. My current issue of the Weekly Standard summarizes the reason on the cover!
Tom Motherway
Obama Against Free Speech Unless It Favors Him
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Democrats, Press, Unions on March 14, 2010
For a president to criticize a supreme court decision in fromt of Congress while members of the court are required by decorum to sit motionless is at the very least inappropriate and more likely bullying and demagoguery. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs picked up the criticism last week, “what is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests.” At least Gibbs didn’t repeat Obama’s misinterpretation of the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.
As Stephen Law pointed out last week in the WSJ (Organized Labor and Citizens United) the president is being more than a bit disingenuous in his silence as to big labor’s benefit from that very decision. “Unions were the big winners in the “corporate” free speech case.” Law points out that it is the unions who are the big political spenders. They have virtually no restraints on how they use the members money. Corporations have shareholders who expect them to earn profits for dividends and appreciation. Unions have no such constraints. They aren’t held to any financial performance standards. SEIU boss Andy Stern admitted that he had taken out tens of millions in loans last year for political ads, “we maxed the credit card and now we’re paying it off.” Law notes, “what corporation could get away with that.”
The other unstated beneficiaries of the decision are the “corporations” that own newspapers. These entities are exempt under the statute that Citizens United declared unconstitutional and are now therefore included in the decision. The main stream press is fawningly liberal in its Obama adulation, so let’s not criticize that part of the decision.
Even the New York Times op-ed contributor Jeff Shesol pointed out yesterday that Justices Will Prevail. His article cautions Obama on going overboard, as Roosevelt did, in his rants against the court. He suggests that Obama is piling on because of a Washington Post poll suggesting that 80 percent of the public were against the decision. Shesol neglected to mention another poll showing that 60 percent of the public favored the decision. This, an example of the main stream press at work.
It is hard not to conclude that Obama seeks to control only opposing speech and is apparently working with his Democratic congressional majorities to do so. What a shame. Freedom of Speech is the very foundation upon which our Republic is built.
Tom Motherway
“One nation, under God” Upheld by the 9th Circuit
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square on March 11, 2010
I just got an email from George Caras a member of our Reno Hayek Symposium who took justified pride in letting me know that his old Stanford teammate and friend, Judge Carlos Bea wrote the 2-1 majority opinion in Newdow v. Rio Linda Unified School District, upholding the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded the “First Atheist Church of True Science” (Now there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one!) challenged the practice on First Amendment grounds. He said he would request a rehearing and then a Supreme Court appeal. (See the AP report here.)
In a separate 3-0 ruling the same court upheld the use of “In God We Trust” on our coins and currency saying that “it has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”
Judge Bea is also a teammate and fraternity brother of my friend Ron Tomsic. Both he and George are lucky to know this competent jurist. But as I said to George, I’ll bet Bea doesn’t get to write too many majority opinions in our 9th Circuit!
Tom Motherway
the Spending Limitations Amendment would eventually put us on a sustainable path
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Constitution, Deficit, Financial Crisis, Financial Policy, Monetary Policy, National Debt, Nationalized Health Care, Statism on March 6, 2010
Even without any more stimulus, bailouts, Obamacare, or cap and trade the US is on a course to bankruptcy. Consider:
- In the past five years federal spending has increased 42% to nearly 25% of the economy, the highest level since World War II.
- The deficit has exploded from $318 Billion in 2005 to $1.4 Trillion, a 400+% increase, equal to the entire accumulation of debt from George Washington to Bill Clinton.
As James Antle points out in his American Spectator article, Amending the Spending, “this will be remembered as a golden era of fiscal responsibility compared to what is to come.” Again I emphasize, this is even without Obamacare, added stimulus, bailouts, etc. With demographic certitude, as baby boomers retire, social security, medicare, and medicaid as we know them will be bankrupt. THE PUBLIC DEBT WILL EXCEED 110% OF THE ECONOMY IN 2026 AND CLIMB PAST 200% BY 2040! Again, this is without Obamacare, added stimulus, bailouts, etc.!
Three congressmen, Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and John Campbell (R-Calif.) have proposed a constitutional amendment to cap federal spending at 20% of the U.S. economy. The limit would be waived only when an official declaration of war is in effect or by two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress. 20% is the historic average share of the economy consumed by the federal government.
The backers admit that Republicans are just as spendthrift as Democrats. They are not naive about getting it passed, 5000 amendments have been offered and only 27 enacted! But the mood of the country seems to be shifting to a serious concern for the current fiscal insanity.
If they’re correct, and the amendment has some legs, the country can get off the current unsustainable course and onto a path that’s fiscally sustainable.
Tom Motherway
Inherent Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Legal on March 3, 2010
Yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing of McDonald v. City of Chicago gave clues as to whether the court will apply the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to the states. The 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller held the right to be an individual right but that applied only to federal law and did not decide whether the states could restrict that right.
By most news accounts the tenor of the justices questions indicated that they will decide that the right indeed is guaranteed to the citizens through the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause. One attorney argued beyond the constitution, the right is fundamental and would exist even if not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. (See for example, the Fox News article.)
A 2008 Ted Nugent interview picks up on this theme particularly as it relates to self defense.
I agree.
Tom Motherway
