QOTD: Constitutional Senility

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions.

Judge Kozinski had that to say from his dissenting opinion rendered from the 9th Circus' decision in the Nordyke case.

My question is, why can't all judges write opinions like this?  We libertarians and conservatives feel this way, how hard is it for judges to express their thoughts in "normal" commoner language?  It certainly would make decisions easier (and more fun) to read, but the best part is that this is the kind of language that sets jurisprudence for years to come.  Can anyone imagine Scalia writing something like this into a majority opinion to screw with the libtards for decades to come?  Two words...last laugh.

Bank Reforms too Complicated to Work

Do any of these reforms seem complicated to you?  Yeah, me too.  Fortunately for us (for now), they are proposed for our British friends across the pond, but to me there is clearly a simpler solution; one the central bankers meddlers would absolutely hate.  A gold standard. 

It's so easy and simple, it's almost painful!  It's also endorsed by our Constitution...imagine that?  The Constitution promoting not meddling?  Que Guinness Guys!

Cali to Release 40k Inmates; State Still Refuses to Alter Carry Laws

Q:  What happens when some 40,000 prison inmates, some of which are the hardest of the hardened criminals are released all at once due to a court order of poor and inhumane conditions due to over crowding and lack of "mentally ill" treatment?

A:  Unless you have one of the illusive and endangered species listed carry permits in Cali, you're Just Another Nameless Victim (JANV). 

Well, that is the stage that has been set before SCOTUS, and it looks like they are ready to rule upon the Constitution, and not for the greater good in keeping criminals locked up and behind bars.  Seems that even Justice Alito understands the consequences of the pending ruling.

"If I were a citizen of California, I would be concerned about the release of 40,000 prisoners," said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., noting that the forced release of prisoners elsewhere has led to an increase in rapes, robberies and assaults.

This means that average, law abiding citizens of the great state of California, will remain nearly defenseless as they roam the streets with the lowest of the low. 

Constitution Day: 223 Years of Simple, Enumerated Powers

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Happy Constitution Day!  A mere Two Hundred, Twenty-Three years ago today, our glorious piece of parchment paper was ratified, thus cohering our great nation as a free and open society, with the hope of limited government intrusion into our every day lives.  For today, let us focus on the great prosperity that has been bestowed upon the hard working, average, individual Americans for these last two and a quarter centuries.  

Electoral College Drop Outs

A news story that flew under the radar two weeks ago was that Massachusetts has now become the sixth state to enact legislation changing how their electoral college votes are cast for the election of the President.  Unlike most states that certify their electors based on popular vote within the state, the winner of the national popular vote will get all the votes from the Bay State. 

If this seems a little odd to you, it definitely did not pass my smell test.  Doing a little further research, it seems my home state has also passed similar legislation.  From a 2007 WaPo article, it would appear that Maryland's legislation does not take affect until a majority of states pass and enact similar laws.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, aforementioned Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts are the states that have enacted this law.  These states total 61 votes of the electoral college, where there are a total of 538 possible votes.  Investigating further, I turned up a link from the CBS article to an organization that is pushing for legislation in every state in the union.  In addition to the six states with laws enacted we can follow this breakdown:

• 4 States have passed legislation by both houses
• 10 states have passed by one house
• 9 states have passed 1 committee
• 11 states have held hearings
• and 11 other states have had bills introduced
• 50 states and DC with bills

Continuing to dig around on this website (which I refuse to give publication for), yields a free book published by a who's who of those who have taught at Standford, run law firms, are for Obamacare, have run financial institutions, as well as others who are "independents" and malcontents that do not understand the inner workings of our Constitution.

They claim that "one man" should have "one vote," which is how the current electoral college system works.  If it isn't known to the American populace, our Republic's charter is meant to provide a balance of power.  It is meant to prevent any one group from wielding too much power against those who do not possess power.  In other words, the Constitution is meant to prevent tyranny and hence the reason why the founders conceived the electoral college system.  The electoral college system is also meant to preserve power across the several states, and ensure each state has an equal ear of the Presidential Candidates and the POTUS himself.  Our founders wanted to make sure that Presidential candidates didn't migrate to every major metropolis, ignoring the rural parts of the country in an effort to garnish the majority of the popular vote.

If every state were to have this popular vote legislation, all that would be nessecary to win is to campaign in every major city and win solid majorities from those cities.  I've seen this before where in theory, 49 states can elect one president, yet if one state has the right turnout in a popular vote situation, the one state can overrule 49 of their peers.  For instance, without the protections of the electoral college, every state in the nation can vote for candidate A who wins by 500 votes giving him a 24,500 vote lead going into the final state.  Let us assume the final state is California where candidate B wins in a state landslide by 24,501 votes.  In that instance, Candidate B would win the plurality of votes for the entire nation in the popular election by one.  Candidate B would have only won, one state's support.  Doesn't seem how our Federal Republic is supposed to be run, at least to this individual. 

Those in this group clam to be creating more "individual freedom" which usually would be an admirable campaign.  Don't be fooled, it is simply a ruse!  Presidential popular vote agendas are nothing more than an effort to undermine the Constitution and it's safeguards.  This group willingly wishes to destroy the inherent protections afford to the people that our founders created.  Instead of attempting to amend the Constitution where they know they would never succeed, this group instead attacks the states whom have sympathetic ears.  Obviously, this is one blogger that is onto their shenanigans and doesn't appreciate their plot to tear apart the parchment paper we hold so dear.

RIP: The Rule of Law

JUDGE BLOCKS AZ LAW
Police barred from determining immigration status...
Union members, activists caravan to AZ for protest...
SHERIFF: I'll jail 'em...
ILLEGALS 'FREE TO LEAVE'...

Matt Drudge might have well just said "RIP: THE RULE OF LAW."  While most of us Conservative-Libertarians know that the rule of law has been dying for a long time, it is only just becoming plainly evident to the mainstream members of the country class.  As is the case currently, an AZ judge has moved to strike out the major enforcement portions of the Arizona Immigration law that requires law enforcement officals to check the status of suspected illegal immigrants.  

With this ruling it has now just become legal, to be illegal.  So much for state and national sovereignty as well as national security.  If you must know, the activist [judge], Susan Bolton is a Clinton era appointee, using the power of her position to overrule the will of the people, the law, and the Constitution.

While the AZ law mirrored Federal code, apparently the Fed Gov didn't like the fact that AZ was challenging the federal authority and envoked "preemption" as the means with which to strike down the major fangs of the legislation.  Never mind that there is a real crisis where US citizens are dying, the liberal institution is trying to use this State vs. Fed "conflict" as a democrat voter recruiting drive.  Sorry to say this Obamabots, but AZ Gov Jan Brewer ain't buying what your boy is selling; a degradation of the Federal Criminal Code. 

Judge Bolton effectively said that the state has no authority to enforce Federal code, since it is up to the Feds to enforce it's law.  Without Federal enforcement, there is no uniformity, and therefore, no equal treatment.  Let us neglect the fact that the AZ law is almost a direct copy of the Federal Law that already requires local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to follow the procedures that AZ was going to be following.   The question that Judge Bolton just raised to the states and the American people is "Do you now want local law enforcement to stop enforcing federal drug laws, kidnapping laws, bank robbery laws, firearms laws, explosive laws, ect?"  If that's the case, I'm sure there are a few laws that some states will gladly neglect and yield to the Fed's for enforcement.

It is disgusting that such disregard for the rule of law and sovereignty exists within the Federal system, especially in the judiciary, where we expect the last line of defense in the Constitution.  If I were Gov.Jan Brewer, I'd be invoking the Tenth Amendment, and tell them to forcibly stop me.  Now THAT would be an awesome preemption showdown.  

UN = UNAmerican: Renewed Push for Global Small Arms Treaty

Hey Rebecca Peters, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!  Or, in more American terms, PISS OFF!  That goes for the rest of the UNAmerican, ruling elites from the United Nations as well. 

The Washington Times has an editorial piece that states the UN is moving forward on a small arms limitation treaty that would impact private ownership of arms.  Today's story comes on the heals of an article by Chris Cox, NRA-ILA director, in the NRA monthly publications reporting that there is a new push by Senators such as Diane Feinstein and John Kerry to ratify the American Arms Treaty.  That 1997 treaty was signed by Bill Clinton and encompasses both North and South American countries.  It goes to show that gun grabbers are sneaky, sly, and subscribe to the "death by one thousand paper cuts" method in an effort to undermine the will of the "country class" whom they attempt to control. 

In the historical sense of the UN and it's predecessor the League of Nations, the intentions of these organizations is a full on frontal assault of the individual freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of these United States.  Furthering the disgust of the UN is the fact that almost every US President since Woodrow Wilson has attempted to use the UN to attack the freedoms enjoyed by our "country class" in one way or another.  To achieve these ends, the historically corrupt and immoral characters of the UN must undermine the full contractual obligation of the Constitution and it's protections adopted and enjoyed by the citizens of the United States.  That means, our country only.  Not the world, not Canada, not international waters, the US of frickin' A.  Yes, that is arrogant, but we are not world police.  We do not need the world's police thinking they know better than us, and protecting us from ourselves. 

As is pointed out in the Times' Editorial, this new treaty meeting is not only looking to target arms, but such 1st Amendment things like "violence in video games."  I know that the President and the Senate are supposed to understand the Constitution, but considering congress's 11% approval ratings these days, it's safe to say that the batnuts of the Halls of Liberty haven't a clue to understand that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Chris Cox pointed out in this month's NRA publications, that despite Constitutional supremacy, courts will look to the US State Department for guidance on how to implement foreign treaties.  So much for separation of powers as the Founders Intended. 

The good news is that this treaty is still in it's effective infancy.  While it's been in the works for several years, there has never been a proposed draft (at least as of Friday June 11th).  Last week, proposal outlines were released for public consumption for the first time (see here).  The proposed treaty isn't supposed to be complete or available for signing until the year 2012, at the earliest.  That means there is still plenty of time to replace every gun grabbing Senator and the radical President who would love nothing more than to see this effort come to fruition.  Further more, as Mr. Obama proved, there is no better sales person for arms than a radical in the White House, especially when he has friends in "low" places at the UN. 

So, UN gun grabbers, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!