When first I began this intellectual exercise, I did not anticipate being deluged by information concerning the topic. Particularly recent SCOTUS decisions. On June 16th, the SCOTUS returned their surprising decision in the case of Carol Anne Bond v. United States (564 U.S.______(2011)). This case seems to be a significant departure in the thought of the Supreme Court of the United States, as I read it. We will explore that later in this article.
The main purpose for the addition of these few introductory lines is simply to let you know that I will endeavor to be as accurate and coherent as possible for the purposes of this article despite this deluge. Yet mistakes may creep in. In addition, I continue to caution that I am not a lawyer, but a scholar seeking some truth to this particular Constitutional division of power.
In this article I reference the USC or United States Code. The USC is the actual book of federal laws as passed by Congress. These are not to be confused with the Federal Register which is a list of “regulations” or “laws” set forth by people whom you did not vote for. These are usually based on the desires of corporate entities. Sounds somewhat “undemocratic” for such a “democratic” society.
In an article entitled “GunWalker” at the III Percent Patriots blog, Kerodin III wrote an article beginning with, “Most of you know I rarely comment of GunWalker because I consider it a useless Sparklie.”
In the article, he writes, “Consider: Every ATF Agent who let guns walk, who let Americans purchase firearms without interference, whether they knew it or not, were following 2A.” His article contends that those who are beating the drum against the ATF are actually working against the Second Amendment.
Allow me to start by pointing out a few things. Kerodin III is probably not his real name. Liberals like to cry See! He didn’t even use his real name! I only point this out because it shows their ignorance to their own history. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist used pseudonyms when arguing whether or not the Constitution should even be adopted. Kerodin III is simply following his founding father’s example and using a pseudonym does not distract one iota from his opinion. In addition, I understand the principle of the “3-percenters,” and respect their opinions.
In this case, however, I must respectfully disagree with this writer.
We must understand what the “GunWalking” scandal is really all about. We first heard about it when we heard how Arizona gun dealers were delivering fully-automatic weapons by the truckloads to the drug cartel in Mexico City. Or so the Obama administration would have you believe. Now we learn the truth. Gun dealers in Arizona were told to sell the weapons to known illegal buyers by the ATF. Those same gun dealers were vilified by that very agency. To this day the Mexican government and lame stream media perpetrates this farce every time a bust is made. Continue reading “The Real problem with the GunWalking scandal” »
WASHINGTON — The embattled head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told congressional investigators that some Mexican drug cartel figures targeted by his agency in a gun-trafficking investigation were paid informants for the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.
Kenneth E. Melson, the ATF’s acting director, has been under pressure to resign after the agency allowed guns to be purchased in the United States in hopes they would be traced to cartel leaders. Under the gun-trafficking operation known as Fast and Furious, the ATF lost track of the guns, and many were found at the scene of crimes in Mexico, as well as two that were recovered near Nogales, Ariz., where a Border Patrol agent was killed.
In two days of meetings with congressional investigators over the weekend, Melson said the FBI and DEA kept the ATF “in the dark” about their relationships with the cartel informants. If ATF agents had known of the relationships, the agency might have ended the investigation much earlier, he said.
A 5-4 decision (don’t you hate those 5-4 decisions?) stopped the matching funds provision of the Arizona clean elections law. Chief Justice Roberts issued the decision of the court. It should be no surprise that the dissent came from Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. The decision also impacts the clean election laws of the State of Maine.
The holding in the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett was, “Arizona’s matching funds scheme, which provides additional funds to a publicly funded candidate when expenditures by a privately financed candidate and independent groups exceed the funding initially allotted to the publicly financed candidate, substantially burdens political speech and is not sufficiently justified by a compelling interest to survive First Amendment scrutiny.”
Justice Kagan observed that giving taxpayer money to candidates whom nobody wants to donate to gives more free speech. That is true, but is there, perhaps, a reason they are not getting as much money as the other candidate? Could it be that no one wants to hear from them?
The biggest issue is not the free speech issue. It is having taxpayers forced to listen to Communist and Fascists ideals instead of Constitutional ones. Campaigns, like corporations, should be financed privately and not with taxpayer funds.
The Supreme Court, also, recessed today for the summer. The 2012 term will begin October 3rd.
The title of this article is correct. After having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again. I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.
Up until the publication of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause did so in “dicta”.
In Thursday’s case, Chief Justice John Roberts said the 2007 Arizona law penalizing companies that hire illegal immigrants meets a “licensing” exception to the general federal rule dictating that states not set their own civil or criminal penalties in the immigration area.
WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that revokes the business licenses of companies hiring illegal immigrants, in a closely watched case testing state efforts to stop people from crossing the border.
By a 5-3 vote, the court rejected arguments from a coalition of business and civil rights groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and ACLU, that the Arizona law conflicts with overriding federal immigration policy and could lead to race discrimination.
Today the topic of allowing Muslims to practice Sharia Law inside the United States is a hot topic. I believe, though, that running over your daughter because you do not like her boyfriend and running over the arm of an eight-year old boy for stealing might be considered by reasonable people to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Of course, this administration might like the idea because you get to kill people who speak out against the government. Hmmm. That might violate a Bill of Right somewhere.
Some of the founding fathers thought that a Bill of Rights was kind of a waste of time. Not for the same reason as the present administration and Congress, however. The founding fathers—notably Alexander Hamilton and James Madison—thought a Bill of Rights ridiculous because everyone knew their rights. They had just finished a little conflict to enforce those rights. They were written in the Declaration of Independence, the State Constitutions of the time and in every school text book. People knew their rights. Surely they would not give them up for some conceived notion of safety. One might wonder what those who opposed the Bill of Rights would think today? After all, they finally took the trouble of writing them down and they still can’t get the federal government to stick to them.
The very first clause of the very First Amendment tells us, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” This is the Amendment that some federal judges are using to declare that Sharia Law is legal in the U.S. Forget the rest of the clauses of this Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights all together.
Druids sacrifice virgins to their gods. Look for that next.
They also neglect, of course, what religion that is based on. That religion is based on the Christian religion of the Bible. On the words of the Biblical God. We have to remember that the term founding fathers that we use does not refer to the people who founded this country. The people who founded this country were the Pilgrims. You know, funny hats, big buckles and pantaloons. Those guys. And they had a very definite purpose for the founding specified in the Mayflower Compact.
Kids, you may not have heard of that so look it up on that Internet thing of yours.
It is interesting, though, that these federal judges are so keen on suddenly resurrecting this Amendment after years of kicking God and his cohorts out of public schools so kids could get to the business of shooting one another. Continue reading “Death taxes a violation of the First Amendment?” »
PHOENIX –A man set to be the last person put to death in Arizona using a controversial three-drug lethal injection method has won a reprieve while the U.S. Supreme Court considers an unrelated issue in his case.
The high court on Monday granted a stay of execution for Daniel Wayne Cook, 49, less than 24 hours before he was scheduled to die for killing a man and a teenage boy in 1987 after torturing and raping them for hours.
The execution is now on hold until the Supreme Court makes a decision on an argument by Cook’s lawyers that he received ineffective counsel during his post-conviction proceedings.
Cook’s attorneys also are fighting the use of the knockout drug sodium thiopental. Similar arguments, however, failed to stop or delay the execution of another Arizona death-row inmate, Eric John King, last week.
The high court’s ruling prompted the Arizona Department of Corrections to cancel Cook’s execution, which was set for 10 a.m. Tuesday, exactly one week after King lay strapped down in the same room, minutes from taking his last breath.
ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
“There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.”
If you really want to fix health care, I propose these three things: (1) repeal ObamaScare, (2) DON’T replace it with the Republicans’ plan, and (3) pass massive TORT reform. True lowering of health care costs won’t happen until you get lawyers out of the health care industry. Health care costs also won’t be contained until we bridle the onerous cost cutting measures of insurance companies that interfere with the patient/doctor relationship. I’m not adverse to legitimate malpractice and negligence claims. I do oppose the “get rich at others’ expense” mentality that permeates our legal industry today.
I question whether bringing these challenges in the U.S. District Court system is really constitutional. Article III §2 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly says that all cases in which a state may be a party have ORIGINAL jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the states were the sovereigns. Under Article III the states retained the vast rights they had regarding being sued and to sue. Through Article III, the states consented to being sued in the U.S. Supreme Court and only in the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, I believe the language in Article III is plain and unambiguous, needing no interpretation.
No federal courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court were given “subject matter jurisdiction” over the States. Without subject matter jurisdiction, a court has absolutely no authority to act on a case, and any action the court takes is absolutely null and void from inception. (The same is true regarding laws passed in contravention of the Constitution and for the same reason.) This authority may not be taken by the court itself and the parties cannot consent or otherwise give the court this authority. The court either has it or it does not, period. The federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the states.
This article refers to the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007. Not SB-1070.
(December 8 )
WASHINGTON — The justices of the nation’s high court took a shot today at contentions by the Obama administration and the business community that Arizona cannot punish companies for violating a state immigration law.
Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that a 1986 federal law taking total control of immigration matters and punishment of errant employers has a specific exemption to allow states to have their own “licensing and similar laws.”
He said the sole penalty that can be imposed by Legal Arizona Workers Act, adopted in 2007, is for a judge to suspend or revoke any and all state licenses of firms found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers. Scalia said that would appear to fit within what Congress intended.
But Carter Phillips, representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that misinterprets the federal law.
What is it about the Supreme Court and unwelcome phone calls?
At 1 a.m. Monday, phones rang in thousands of Nevada households to deliver a message from retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.
The O’Connor calls came just weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, left a voicemail for Anita Hill, seeking an apology for testifying in 1991 that Justice Thomas had sexually harassed her when she worked under him in the Reagan administration. (Ms. Hill called the message “inappropriate” and reaffirmed her testimony.)
Justice O’Connor’s call didn’t involve anything so intimate, however. Her recorded message urged voters to approve Question 1, which would change the way state judges are selected.
Justice O’Connor didn’t assume the issue was keeping Nevadans up all night. Rather, the Yes on 1 campaign said, the calls were supposed to hit at 1 p.m. The robocall contractor blew it, and was fired, the campaign said.
Currently, the state’s district judges and Supreme Court justices run for office like other politicians. Under Question 1, the governor would fill judicial vacancies by choosing from a list the state Commission on Judicial Selection compiled, based on “qualifications and experience.” Voters would weigh in at the next election; newly appointed judges would approval from 55% of voters to keep the job.
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter; (2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and (3) whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
UPDATED TO 11:58 a.m. The Supreme Court, stepping into a new controversy over child sex abuse, agreed on Tuesday to decide whether the Constitution puts limits on the authority to interview children at school about claims of sexual assault. The specific issue is whether police and social workers must obtain a warrant before conducting such interviews. The Court granted that issue among six new cases it accepted for review. It also sought the federal government’s views on states’ immunity to court orders requiring them to raise revenue to pay for prior official actions that turned out to be illegal. Continue reading “Court to rule on child interviews” »
The Constitution was not intended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but was to endure though a long lapse of ages, the events of which were looked up in the inscrutable purpose of providence.”—Justice Joseph Story
February 22, 2012 1732 George Washington 1857 Lord Baden Powell 1926 Kenneth Williams 1928 Bruce Forsyth 1933 Sheila Hancock 1933 The Duchess of Kent 1949 Niki Lauda 1950 Julie Walters 1974 Drew Barrymore
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
