Recently in The Constitution Category

It's become quite apparent to me that far too many of my more liberal friends and acquaintances have little or no understanding of the TEA party movement, including why many supporters capitalize the word 'TEA', but not the first letter of 'party'.

First, TEA. It stands for Taxed Enough Already. It's simple and straightforward.

Second, it is not a political party like the Democrats or Republicans, hence no capital 'p' in the word 'party'. Instead it is a loose coalition of like-minded citizens - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - tired of over-the-top government deficit spending, the threat of confiscatory tax rates being imposed, and the attempts to expand government beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution. The movement harks back to the original Boston Tea Party, with Rick Santelli's rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange seen as the start of the modern TEA party. Unfortunately too many opponents of the movement don't see it that way, making claims of racism, naziism, and 'astroturfing' as part and parcel of the TEA parties. I guess it's better they believe that rather than taking a close look at those supporting the TEA parties and seeing that they are average Americans driven to political activism by the irresponsible actions of the Obama Administration over the past 14 months and the Democrat-controlled Congress over the past 3 years.

For the most part social issues are not at the forefront of the TEA parties. They aren't interested in dealing with abortion, drugs, religion, education, or a host of other issues. They are seen as minor as compared to the impending train wreck that is the government's insatiable quest for revenue, control, and profligate spending. Social issues are merely a sidebar as quite often the deficits are deepened by spending on the myriad of issues that really aren't that important, or as some claim, unconstitutional.

If one can understand that about the TEA parties, then one might look at the movement with a more open mind.

Is it possible that the much hated Sarbox (Sarbanes-Oxley) law will be struck down by the US Supreme Court? Let's hope so.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was brought in 2006 by Brad Beckstead, whose small Nevada accounting firm endured a costly examination under Sarbox rules. At issue is whether the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, which supervises compliance with the law, violates the Constitution's separation of powers. Under the Appointments Clause, all "officers" of the United States must be appointed by the President and accountable to him--a condition PCAOB members do not meet.

(emphasis added - ed.)

--snip--

The PCAOB has indeed grown as a politically unaccountable entity with vast power to regulate business. Texas Senator Phil Gramm warned at its creation that Congress was setting up a board with "massive unchecked power" to "make decisions that affect all accountants and everybody they work for, which directly or indirectly is every breathing person in the country."

Massive is the right word. The accounting board's wide-open mandate--to make whatever rules "may be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors"--has cost the economy nearly $1 trillion, according to a study by AEI and the Brookings Institution. The benefit is supposed to be investor protection. But despite these costs, the law did nothing to warn about the meltdown of mortgage-backed securities, much less expose Bernie Madoff or other fraudsters.

A hastily put together bill created an unsupervised and unchecked regulatory organ with little or no Congressional or Executive oversight with questionable efficacy as well as problematic constitutionality pulling almost $1 trillion out of the economy and we're just supposed to take it?

I don't think so.

Hopefully the Supremes will pull the rug out from underneath Sarbox, a bill that actually did little to 'protect the investor' but added one hell of a burden on to American businesses.

It's time for Sarbox to die.

I know Nancy Pelosi doesn't think much of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstruction to creating a truly socialist state much like that of the old Soviet Union, but even she must realize that certain portions of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill she rammed down the throats of the House are unconstitutional. Not that she'll let that stop her. After all "the people" must be coerced into doing things she and her fellow socialists have decided is for the good of all, even if it will have just the opposite effect.

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

Nancy's reaction to the question illustrates either her ignorance of what the Constitution actually says or her willful choice to ignore it in favor of her own agenda and the American people's rights be damned.

Should the awful and onerous ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill become law I hope it will be challenged on constitutional grounds and struck down for being overreaching and in violation of the Constitution. But we can't count on such a thing happening. Therefore we must strive to let our Senators know how displeased we are with this legislation because we know its a disingenuous attempt to do an end run around the people's wishes, a flagrant attempt to violate the Constitution, and a blueprint for medical and financial disaster.

As if we need another reminder why the US Supreme Court got it wrong in regards to the Kelo vs New London decision.

The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

New London may have won the case, but it lost the war, ending up with a part of the city now vacant and generating no tax revenue at all. Millions of dollars were spent and all the city has to show for it is a desolate section of the city that is now nothing but empty lots. So much for their grandiose plans.

One positive effect of Kelo vs New London: many states strengthened the limits of eminent domain with new laws or amendments to their state constitutions to prevent such abuses from happening again. Ironically, Connecticut was one of them.

Too bad it was too late to help the citizens/taxpayers of New London.

Here's another lesson can we take from the aftermath of Kelo that should act as a precautionary tale for those believing government is the answer to all our ills:

If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.

We've seen that far too often. As soon as the government money runs out, the growth stops or even reverses as the government funded/subsidized jobs end. Better that the private sector create sustainable growth if for no other reason that it also creates wealth and, in the end, more jobs.

Pat Condell has yet another excellent rant, this one being about speaking one's mind and how it is now seen as being 'anti-social', at least by the Left. This is one that should be watched more than once.


(H/T Wizbang)

When (now) President Obama was running for office, he took the word "change", and made it his mantra. Today he may have taken his furthest step yet

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

Throughout his first few months in office, he took great care to change (reverse) any and all decisions of his predecessor. He immediately outlawed "harsh interrogation tactics", something that had been defended by both in office previously. Former President George W. Bush fought to keep Guantanamo Bay open, President Obama closed it down immediately. Today demonstrates yet another massive change from the Bush-era policy on marijuana (and drugs in general), Obama issued a statement today effectively stating that it was no longer federal policy to enforce laws (relating to medical marijuana) that conflicted with federal laws. Fourteen states have legalized "medical marijuana" so far. Until now, despite it being legal according to the states law, "patients" that were found to be in possession of marijuana were prosecuted just as if there were no "legalization" laws in place. This was done because of the way the US legal system is set up. While there are laws on states books, there are also essentially Xeroxed copies on federal law on many issues. Hence, a state may legalize a substance within itself, but according to the federal law, said substance is still illegal (since the state would still be under federal jurisdiction). This gives federal agents legal footing to prosecute actions, even though they may be legal in the state itself.

When I read this article, the US marijuana policy is not what is going through my head. Personally, despite one's feelings on marijuana in general, I find this to be a significant article. Not at all because of marijuana, but because I believe it is a huge step forward in state's rights. Personally, I believe the founding fathers were greatly in favor of states being able to express disagreement with the federal government. Historically, when states (or any significant group) rights are trampled or threatened, succession or revolts happen. For instance, most think the civil war was about slavery, it was not. The federal government was attempting to dictate what states would be free, and slave states. The states did not agree, and began to secede. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued (Lincoln freed all slaves in the Union, whether or not the state agreed), it became an all out battle between several states and the United States government. The Civil War was about whether or not the states had the right to make laws that contradict that of the federal government. Slavery was just the catalyst for that issue.

Even looking at the founding documents, it is clear to me that the founding fathers greatly favored states rights over that of the federal government. A quick glance over the second amendment (the right to bear arms) gives ample proof of their belief in states rights. Despite what many on the left would like you to believe, the document was not written "so we could have guns to hunt and shoot skeet with". The amendment was passed so that if worse comes to worse, citizens could take on a tyrannical government. If the document was followed in the spirit in which it was written, we would be able to buy hand grenades at our local department store. The second amendment clearly states "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Clearly, this is not referring to "hunting" or "recreational shooting", this is referring to citizens standing against tyranny..

That said, I would like to state for the record I do not believe that fully automatic weapons, rpgs, and hand grenades should be purchased freely at any local or major retailer. Clearly, laws governing 2.5 million (the rough estimate of the 1776 population) should be different than the laws governing 320 million. However, the principles should not. The citizens should have a way to express and act on disagreements with the government (in this case, by passing legislature in the state). Again, I do not connect the real significance to this article to marijuana. Whether one thinks it should be completely legal, prescription, or completely illegal is a debate for another day.

I firmly support the states rights to make their own laws, after all, does this not follow the general law of democracy? If a state wishes to make a certain substance legal, by all means, they should be able to do so. However, they should (and will) suffer the consequences of doing so - whether those consequences be positive or negative. Should this prove to be an unworthy venture, then by all means, they should be able to undo their ruling using the same system they used to put it in place (democratic voting process). This, in my opinion, is the source of the beauty of the land of the fruits and nuts. We were built a great nation on the foundations of debate and free exchange of ideas, not legal scare tactics to keep any that oppose silent. I have the right to say whatever I want, and you have the right to tell me I'm wrong. It's what this country was founded on, and the way things should be.