Well, his wife, anyway.
J.D. Hayworth is running ads using his wife to complain about John McCain attack ads. Perhaps he is training her in case he has to announce a law suit against a state.
The problem is that neither one of them truly represents a Republican form of government. While Hayworth arguably helped a company rip people off, John McCain approved of the Patriot act and the death of thousands of troop and the waste of billions—by some estimates a trillion, now—dollars in Afghanistan. A constitutional Republican would approve of neither. So much for John McCain’s “savings” on pork barrel spending.
The third candidate—whom Rasmussen Reports refers to as a “Tea Party Activist,” Jim Deakin—we will get a chance to learn about in the debates on July 16. Though there are some videos about him on youtube.com. According to the following video, Jim Deakin has made encouraging statements that he wants to end the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education allowing States to set up their own curriculum. With End the Fed day coming up in two days, I can certainly get behind that piece of his platform.
J.D. Hayworth’s statements at Tea Party meetings generally centers around how much he likes S.B. 1070 and not generally how he is going to stop big government—at least in the videos that I have seen. While he has experience in Washington, that experience was not really all that impressive.
A June 22 Rasmussen Reports poll shows McCain in the lead with 47%, Hayworth behind by 11 percent and Deakin receiving only 7%. This can probably be attributed to name recognition more than a result of critical thinking.
Deakin may be a viable third alternative if he expresses himself well in the debate. But I doubt they will cover the fact that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional1 or that the Federal Reserve, health care reform, Department of Education, Hate Crimes legislation, and so-forth, are all unconstitutional.
1 Feinstein railed on the case of McDonald v. Chicago for upsetting “decades of precedence” set by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672. The whole idea of the legitimacy of State and city anti-gun laws is based on Paragraph 17 of this decision.
The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the general government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the state legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the states. ‘No state shall enter into any treaty,’ &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the state government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the states.
They ignore that the argument is one in favor of more powerful States’ rights which is a trait that the Department of Homeland Security used in profiling domestic terrorist. If that is the case, ONLY the States can regulate guns in anyway. The federal government has NO say. This statement alone should be enough to invalidate all federal gun laws in the eyes of a truly unbiased Supreme Court. In fact, Chief Justice Marshall’s decisions were ALL based on States’ right being supreme except where specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
They ignore the fact that the Roosevelt Tribunal “overturned decades of precedence” set by another decision this Chief Justice made concerning the Interstate Commerce Clause. That decision is that the federal government had very narrow powers into the matters of commerce among the States; mainly that Congress was to prevent trade wars between the States. That is the theme of his decision in Gibbons v. Ogden. In fact, he saw every form of commerce, even foreign commerce as a concurrent power between Congress and the States, except where specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as building post roads, setting tariffs and making sure that State inspection laws were fair. You can read the Constitution for yourself and see specifically the enumerated duties of commerce.
In the 1941 decision of United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone offered the opinion of the court that, “Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which provides: ‘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’. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”
This Stone appears to disagree with Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist 17, “It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities. The proof of this proposition turns upon the greater degree of influence which the State governments if they administer their affairs with uprightness and prudence, will generally possess over the people; a circumstance which at the same time teaches us that there is an inherent and intrinsic weakness in all federal constitutions; and that too much pains cannot be taken in their organization, to give them all the force which is compatible with the principles of liberty.
In fact the reason that the Dimocrats only pull out what they need to from Gibbons v. Ogden and don’t want you to actually read it is that you will see that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional according to this decision.
In Paragraph 146 using quarantine laws as an example he writes, “And, indeed, it could not do so, if the States had no concurrent power, and the regulation of commerce was exclusively delegated to Congress; for the power which is exclusively delegated to Congress, can only be exercised by Congress itself, and cannot be sub-delegated by it.” Not to mention the Federal Reserve law violates Article. I., Section. 9., Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States.
Possibly related articles:
Tags: 2nd Amendment, Arizona, Arizona Elections, J.D. Hayworth, Jim Deakin, John McCain, OpEd, Opinion, Republicans, Second Amendment, Tea Party, Tenth Amendment
Loading ...
Great insight and presentation. Beginning very soon everyone will know who Jim Deakin is – stay tuned, much more is coming from this candidate.
I sure hope JD is not still trying to claim tea party support! JD made it very clear that he is by no means the consistent conservative he tries to portray himself to be. JD was a big spender/earmarker/porkbarreler in Congress. JD then tries to tell us he is this fiscal genius…but wait, we later find out that he is on a scam of an infomercial claiming to help people get free government money. This is exactly why he does not belong in Congress again. JD is not just unintelligent, corrupt and a liar, but he is a complete hypocrite as well.
JD and the Dems are done. Save your money guys, donate to charity, you are wasting it. We (voters) do not want to see any more democrats in Washington as they are crippling our financial future. As for JD, well, he is no better on spending then a democrat as much as he would like to tell you otherwise, history speaks…
Don’t forget the debates between the candidates on Friday on 3tv. This is probably the only time you will hear from Jim Deakin unless you are a regular Tea Party attendee. Everybody knows that we need to rid ourselves of McCain, but the only answers the dimocrats could come up with in their debate was amnesty, open borders and the same tired rhetoric of “hope and change.” We see what that got us. Why don’t we elect a candidate whose knows that all the answers to our problems were written in 1776?