Recently in The Constitution Category

Those supporting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms won a major victory today when the United States Supreme Court decision in McDonald vs The City of Chicago affirmed the Second Amendment applies to all states and municipalities, meaning the Second Amendment is now incorporated. That means that Chicago's draconian gun ownership ban is now history.

I watched some of the reactions to the decision on ABC's World News and I have to say the response by some folks was disheartening. More than one person decried the decision because it would mean "more blood in the streets." Isn't that what cities with gun bans have already? Certainly Chicago has seen how well it's gun ban has worked, with numerous deaths caused by criminal gunning down unarmed victims. The gun ban certainly didn't stop them from getting guns or using them. The same was true in Washington DC, where in the Heller vs DC decision the Court decided 9-0 that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. (The 5-4 decision was on DC's gun ownership ban.) More than once Washington DC had the misfortune to be the "Murder Capital of the US", putting a lie to the claim that their gun ban prevented violent crime from being even worse.

What far too many of the "let's get the guns off the street, particularly those owned by law abiding citizens" folks have failed to realize is that widespread gun ownership tends to drop the violent crime rate, not increase it. Every state that has switched over to shall issue concealed carry weapons permits have seen their violent crime rate tumble. Those with laws that make it almost impossible to own guns legally have seen their crime rates skyrocket. What did they expect when those laws disarmed the very people most likely to be victims of criminals?

As Paul Ingrassia reminds us, today was the first anniversary of the GM bankruptcy. You know the one, where the White House subverted the Constitution, stiffing the bond holders and debtors and giving the proceeds to the UAW, who were in no way a debtor.

What it was was a payoff to the unions for backing Obama, plain and simple. There's no other explanation I can find that makes any sense.

This letter to the editor appeared in Monday's Laconia Daily Sun. The author, one E. Scott Cracraft managed to use every single discredited and bigoted cliché in the book in his effort to paint the TEA party and its activists and supporters as the next Nazi Party. Originally I thought to just post it and my reply and leave it at that. But after rereading Mister Cracraft's diatribe, I realized what it really deserved was a complete fisking to show what a clueless and unthinking "useful idiot" he has become.

In spite of the efforts by the Tea Partiers (and the corporate media) to make the "Tea Party" movement appear "mainstream," the movement's "core" is far from mainstream. This movement includes people who arm themselves to overthrow a legally elected government. In some states, they have advocated succession from the Union. Some anti-Obama activists have even gone as far as calling for a military coup against the Obama administration.

This guy has tried to tie just about every fringe group he can think of to the TEA party movement. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to include the Weather Underground. Oh. Wait. It's President Obama who has ties to members of that domestic terrorist organization!

Cracraft's accusations ring hollow if for no other reason that there's been absolutely no evidence tying any of the militia groups to the movement. The "core' as he calls it has no desire to overthrow the government except by the same means the present government came to power - the ballot box. But there will be one difference: we won't need to stuff ballot boxes or commit massive voter fraud in order to throw the bums out.

The Tea Partiers also include religious conservatives who have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution does not make the American Republic a "Christian Country" but rather separates church and state while providing the most religious freedom possible. Others want to ban a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Interestingly, these same people who cry out against abortion also judge "welfare moms" for having too many babies! And yes, in spite of the movement's public rejection of racism, there are some racists in that movement These people cannot accept the fact that the American people (and the Electoral College) elected an African-American President with a "foreign" sounding name. Many of these are "Birthers," who even question President Obama's right to be president even though he won the election fairly and legally. No mainstream politician of either party has supported this lie but this urban legend persists, largely due to some of whom are in the Tea Party movement or who support it.

This country was first settled by religious refugees seeking to be free to practice their religion without interference from either their rulers or the established churches. Cracraft seems to forgotten this as well as the Constitution states there is a freedom of religion, not just freedom from religion. Over the past 50 years or so too many in this country have done their best to drive free expression of religious belief underground as if it were a dirty little secret to be hidden away from prying eyes. They have used the courts to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment in such a way as to ban almost all public displays of belief. Being a person of faith is not a disqualifier for holding public office, despite what Mr. Cracraft would apparently like to believe.

He also seems to believe that only the TEA party has racists. I hate to disillusion him, but there are far more racists within the Democratic Party than the TEA parties. He also ignores the fact that quite a few TEA party supporters voted for Obama and have since come to see him for the disingenuous big-government socialist he is. That isn't racism. That's regret. The only similarity between the two is that they both begin with the letter 'r'.

Then too, the anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of many Tea Partiers can be construed as racist. I rarely hear those opposed to immigration reform talking about white, European immigrants. It is usually about Asians, people from the Middle East, and Hispanics. Racist or not, there does seem to be and element of the "politics of meanness" among the Tea Partiers.

We aren't anti-immigrant. Many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants. We are anti-illegal immigrant. There's a big difference between the two. It's possible Cracraft is incapable of telling the difference because to him all the illegal immigrants are future Democrat supporters...once they can figure out a way to grant them amnesty and a short ride to citizenship. Never mind the legal immigrants such a move will screw over.

Conservatives have frequently criticized liberal presidents in the past, including President Clinton, but no conservative has gone so far as to question their qualifications to serve. "Red-baiting" has become common on Tea Party signs and at Tea Party gatherings. No liberal candidate has been called a "communist" or a "traitor" to his or her country in a long time. This includes people that are more liberal than Obama. The Constitution, in order to protect our political freedom, narrowly defines what "treason" is and I fail to see how our current president fits this definition. Thus, I cannot help but believe that there is a strong racist element in the movement against President Obama.

As the old saying goes, "You shall know them by the company they keep." It is Obama who has consorted with known and self-avowed anti-American terrorists (Bill Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, just to name two). It is Obama who, for almost 20 years, attended an unabashedly racist church with a pastor who spouted bigoted, racist rhetoric and called upon God to damn America, much like any radical Muslim cleric.

Of all our previous Presidents, only Obama has worked so hard to conceal his past, the details of his upbringing, his scholarship, and his vital statistics. Every other President's life was an open book. But not Obama's. We know nothing of his academic achievements. We know nothing of any articles or papers he might have authored while editor of the Harvard Law Review. And what we do know of his time at HLR is not flattering, with more than one colleague of his from his time there saying he was basically a do-nothing editor-in-name-only, deigning to grace the others working there with his presence from time to time and not much more.

The Tea Partiers are not engaging in "mainstream" talk. They have an extreme reactionary agenda which should be a concern of every American. They are using violent language, arming themselves, and even calling themselves "right wing terrorists." I have to laugh when a self-commissioned militia "colonel" spoke of defending themselves against leftists at a recent Tea Party in Washington. In case you have not heard, armed left-wing groups in the United States pretty much died out with the Weather Underground in the 1970s. It is not the liberals or progressives who are dressing up in camouflage and conducting field maneuvers utilizing automatic weapons (I think the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" with a chain of command subordinate to the elected civilian authorities and not a bunch of grown boys playing army in the woods). Nor is it the liberals and progressives who are making death threats to members of Congress with whom they disagree.

There he goes again, painting a picture of the TEA party supporters as fringe militant wackos. Well guess what? All these guys are are fringe element wackos, but they aren't TEA party folks. They have as much to do with the core of the TEA party movement as you do, which means none.

If all he knows of the TEA party is what he's seen on TV or from the New York Times, Washington Post, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos, then Cracraft is so mis- and un-informed as to be laughable. Not one of these 'sources' is reliable, unbiased, or without a political agenda that does not have the good of the American people as their focus. Like any media source, left or right, they can't be trusted. The fact that he appears to do so shows he's become incapable of thinking for himself and can only parrot what these sources have programmed him to say.

Some Tea Partiers, in their literature and websites, even call for employers to fire liberal employees simply because they are liberal. It does not matter what the employee's work performance is like. They also want to remove liberal teachers from our schools whether or not they are good teachers. They even encourage their followers to break off social relations with liberals and to totally marginalize them. And they accuse liberals of "intolerance?"

I've heard this claim, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. He's made the claim. It's up to him to prove it.

I know I don't want the good teachers to be fired. But what I don't want are educators that aren't teaching what they're supposed to be teaching and are instead indoctrinating our children, teaching them what to think, not how to think, how to reason things out on their own. These days far too many of our kids are coming out of school totally unprepared to make it in the real world. They haven't been taught the critical thinking skills that will allow them to succeed away from the indoctrination centers we call schools. All they've been taught is how to allow others to think for them and to not question what they've been told.

As far as tolerance is concerned. The most intolerant people I have come across in my life have all been liberals. For them, tolerance is something other people must have, not them.

The Tea Partiers and their ilk protest and claim that as a "grass roots" movement, they are not responsible if there are some "wackos" in their ranks. But, while urging the American people not to "paint them with the same brush," the Tea Partiers seem to paint all liberals and progressives as Marxists, communists or terrorists, if not worse. And, I am not sure that they are even using these terms accurately. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that many of their opponents tend to paint them as "racists" and "fascists."

When a large majority of the liberals/progressives in power spout Marxist/Communist ideals and support leftist/fascist dictators over democratically elected governments, then yes we'll call them Marxists and Communists and fascists.

When our President insults our staunchest allies and embraces our enemies with open arms, then yes, we will paint him with the same broad brush. To quote yet another old saying, "By their actions you shall know them." So far our President's "smart diplomacy" has done more damage to America's foreign relations in a little over a year than eight years of Dubya's presidency.

One also has to be cynical about the "grassroots" label: the Tea Partiers and their Tea Parties are being funded by some very wealthy conservative interests. Some of these interests do not want banking reform. Others have a personal stake in seeing that meaningful health care reform is eventually defeated. How else could Sarah Palin pull down $100,000 per speech? Also, one look at a typical Tea Party website shows the movement's close association with extreme right-wing national movements and organizations.

Oh, really?Just who is financing the TEA party movement? I notice he didn't name names. He made the claim, it's up to him to prove it.

On the other hand, the Democrats, and particularly the extreme left-wing of the party, has been heavily financed by multi-billionaire George Soros, an unabashed socialist (his claim, not mine) and someone who is not a friend of the American people. Like most on the Left, he believes we aren't capable of making our own decisions and he's willing to spend his billions to make sure our ability to do so will be stripped from us, one step, one right at a time. Also, much of the Hollywood elite are willing to support political causes most Americans find repugnant. They pour millions into the Democrat party to help elect candidates that are more than willing to dismantle the Constitution because we're too stupid to understand that we need the morally bankrupt progressives to tell us what we need.

As to Sarah Palin's $100,000 speaking fee: So what? When she speaks at TEA party functions she has given that money to help fund the movement on more than one occasion. Bill Clinton pulls down that much for the same thing, but Cracraft hasn't asked who's financing his speaking engagements, has he? It's a specious point. Get over it.

I have no doubt that there are well-meaning members of the "silent majority" in the Tea Party movement who are simply afraid of government and who came blame them? The Federal Government can be scary to all of us! After eight years of George Bush, who turned a federal budget surplus into a deficit through his wars and giving tax breaks to rich Americans, who would not be suspicious of the federal government and its motives? The well-meaning Tea Partiers should consider who their real "enemy" is: the "Military/Industrial Complex" (a term, incidentally, coined by a Republican, not a liberal Democrat) which has received more taxpayer money than every "welfare cheat" combined.

First, a good part of Clinton's budget surplus was funded by borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which has not been paid back and never will be.

Second, Bush didn't give tax breaks just to the rich. He gave them to every tax payer...unless Cracraft's definition of 'rich' is the same as that of the Democrats in Congress - Anyone with a job.

Third, at least one of those wars was not started by us, not by George Bush. It was started by Osama Bib Laden after his follower committed an act of war against the United States, one that was greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor back on December 7, 1941.

Fourth, the other war was started by Saddam Hussein in 1990. We merely got around to finishing it.

Initially, this anti-government movement included a large number of libertarians. While not always agreeing with them, I have always respected the libertarians more than the Republicans who seek to hijack their movement. The libertarians oppose government intrusion into any aspect of our lives. While they are against taxation and "big government," at least they are consistent. They may oppose taxation but they also are champions of personal liberty and oppose government interference in what one smokes or who one sleeps with.

I have to agree that the GOP has been trying to hijack the TEA party, trying to 'bring it into the fold', as it were. But we're too pissed off at the GOP, and particularly those within the party that we call RINOS, - Republicans In Name Only. The GOP betrayed its libertarian roots and became a somewhat less liberal version of the Democrat Party with the same spendthrift tendencies.

As we have seen, the RINOS had no problem spending money the American people didn't have. But that's no excuse for the Democrats to double down and create a deficit in one year that was bigger than Bush's deficit over eight years. (And we must remember these two things: the Democrats controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush Administration - a time during which the two biggest budget deficits occurred - and that all spending starts in the House of Representatives.)

Mainstream America is sick and tired of being ignored by our employees, who spend without our leave, impose programs upon us we neither want or can afford to pay for, and forget that they work for us, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party Movement seems to have been taken over by extreme GOP conservative hypocrites who are committed to protecting corporate interests. While they whine about government interference in terms of regulating business, they seem to have no problem with regulating a person's personal lifestyle choices. While the Tea Partiers oppose government getting involved in health care, they seem to have no issue with banning same-sex marriage or medical marijuana. I hope the "well-meaning" Tea Partiers eventually realize which side they are really on.

Oh, and the Democrats haven't been doing just that, and rather blatantly while they're at it? They haven't passed legislation that created 'regulations' and 'rules' and laws whose sole aim is to cripple competition and lock out the small guy. They aren't pandering to those same corporate interests?

Cracraft has attributed far too many motivations to the a vast majority of TEA party supporters and activists. Mostly, we want to be left alone by government, want government to get its financial house in order, want the government to start following the Constitution, want the government to stop spending money it doesn't have and won't have in the future. Abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other social issues aren't even a blip on our agenda. The resistance to health care has nothing to do with denying people health care, but does have to do with its unsustainable cost, its intrusive nature, and its destruction of one of the best health care systems in the world all in the name the overused and purposely misdefined term 'fairness'. My question is, fair to who?

'Nuff said.

I attended the Tea Party in Manchester, New Hampshire this afternoon/early evening and got back just before 9PM.

I'll have an honest to goodness post about it tomorrow Saturday.

I attended the gathering outside the Laconia, NH City Hall for Carol Shea-Porter's town hall meeting. (I didn't get to actually attend the meeting as there were only 60 seats and I got there too late to even stand in line to get in.) She was there to convince us that ObamaCare was going to do wonderful things for everyone and that there would be no problems paying for it all, but it appears most of the 60 folks actually in the meeting weren't buying it. She chose not to answer other questions asked of her, either doing a rope-a-dope, giving a non-answer answer, or giving a constituent the runaround rather than a straight answer. And she wonders why we're angry?

Since I couldn't get into the meeting I spent time talking with the folks outside, some of whom supported CSP and her vote in favor of ObamaCare and the rest that did not.

Almost all of the supporters were retirees, with one or two of the rest being dyed-in-the-wool don't-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way government-is-the-answer-to-all-our-problems-even-the-problems-the-government-created liberals. Discussing the issues with them was enlightening. One of the first things I realized about the folks I was talking to was that they had little understand of economics, particularly in regards to ObamaCare, and did not understand the implications of the heavy economic burden ObamaCare will impose. They were of the opinion that "the rich will pay for it all" and that they don't pay nearly enough. I asked one of them how much money the rich, as they defined them, made in a year. She guessed over a couple of trillion dollars a year. Even after I informed her that even if they took 100% of what the rich made in a year to pay for ObamaCare, the government would only collect about $400 billion. I also mentioned the government would only collect that much the first year and that the second and subsequent years they would collect $0 because either the rich would pack up and leave or they would 'go Galt' (go on strike).

Her response?

The government should force them to work so they could "pay their fair share of taxes." At that point I said her "So you would advocate turning the rich into slaves just to fulfill some twisted ideal of 'social justice'?" Of course she said no, but I pointed out she had just said they should be forced to work against their will. That, by definition, is slavery, something that is unconstitutional, immoral and unethical.

From that point the discussion pretty much ended as I think she realized she had strayed into a topic that was indefensible from any viewpoint and didn't want to talk to me any more.

I did manage to have an intelligent discussion with a couple of pro- and anti-ObamaCare folks. We all agreed some kind of health care reform was necessary. We merely disagreed on the level of reform needed. But after about 30 minutes of debate some of the pro-ObamaCare folks appeared to be shifting their outlook on ObamaCare as written. As one of them said, "We have to do something!" But one of us on the anti-ObamaCare said something along the lines of "True, but let's make sure it's the right something and not the most expedient and seriously flawed something like the present law."

Unfortunately I had to leave the discussion at that point to get back home. But I felt that perhaps we had put some doubt in the minds of some not-so-wholehearted ObamaCare supporters.

Resistance to ObamaCare at the state level is growing. AG's of a dozen states have already said they'll bring suit to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, in particular the part making to mandatory for American citizens to purchase a service or be fined (or imprisoned). Some states are working on or have passed legislation negating that requirement, seeing it as a violation of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.

New Hampshire State Senator Jeb Bradley has filed such legislation here in the Granite State, making mandatory health insurance illegal without due process, meaning a court could order someone to obtain it as part of divorce/custody/child support agreement, but only then.

I wonder if the Democrats, and specifically Obama, will get the message that this piece of legislation is hated by a majority of the American people. No need to answer that as we already know they know, but don't care.

Now that I've had a chance to cool down a bit and think more upon the effects of ObamaCare, I can see my initial thoughts about it were, if anything, far too optimistic.

While masquerading as a health care reform bill, ObamaCare is nothing more than yet another means to slowly achieve the socialist revolution rather than having to fight a bloody insurgent campaign. It's kind of like the old saw about boiling a frog - Don't drop the frog into the boiling water because he'll hop out. Instead, put him in a pot of cold water and slowly raise the heat. By the time he realizes the water is boiling he's already been cooked. And that's what ObamaCare is really all about, boiling the frog (or in this case the American people, our freedoms, and the Constitution).

Am I being paranoid? Could be. But the question I pose to myself is, am I being paranoid enough? Because when a bunch of progressive jerk with little true understanding of the American people, the American economy, or of the Constitution of the United States start dictating to us what is good and bad for us, it's time to take up arms, figuratively speaking, and disabuse them of the notion that they are somehow our betters. And if they still don't get it, then it may time to take up arms, literally.

The Democrats in Congress ignored the wishes of a majority of Americans. They only paid lip service to bipartisanship. (Their definition of bipartisanship is to tell the Republicans to sit down, shut up, and vote the way the Democrats tell them to vote.) While many on the Left will cite Social Security and Medicare as social programs people said wouldn't work and would severely damage the economy (which they both will unless both programs are revamped top to bottom), both of those programs had true bipartisan support. ObamaCare had absolutely none.

Well, maybe I should clarify something about that last statement. In actuality there was bipartisanship in regards to ObamaCare. Unfortunately for Obama it was bipartisan opposition to the bill.

Across America the response to the passage of ObamaCare was one of dismay, shock, and anger. Some few applauded its passage, loving the idea of a massively dysfunctional budget-busting government-run health care system. One commenter to this WSJ piece is not one of them:

I'm sure most Americans, or at least thinking Americans, those that considered their heritage one of freedom and liberty, had already condemned Obamacare on a gut level from the start, as they should, but probably few know the exact details of this gross unconstitutional intrusion into their lives and what it will mean to them. Here are the highlights divided into three lamentable categories: increased taxes and fees, spiraling costs, and reduced services.

Marc's comment, which is excerpted above, is rather extensive and covers the salient points of ObamaCare and its major downsides. As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing.

It isn't that I don't have anything to say about the debacle that took place Sunday evening in the Capitol. Rather that it's I have too darn much to say about passage of Obama's Health Care Destruction Bill, and very little of it polite.

So instead of resorting to invective and a lot of obscenities, I figured it was a good idea to put off until tomorrow my thoughts on this socialist piece of crap foisted upon the American people against their will by other people without a shred of intelligence, integrity, or honesty.

In light of the increasing pressure from the President and the Congressional Democrat leadership to pass the overreaching and economy-busting health care destruction bill, a number of states have been proactive, working to short-circuit the Left's attempt to grab even more power over the lives of their citizens.

Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

[Idaho Governor] Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

Considering Congressional Democrats and the President have been ignoring the will of a large majority of the American people, is it any wonder state legislators are taking measures to send a message to them, telling them we won't stand for having this version of health care reform shoved down our throats? The states are rebelling against the Left's arrogant belief that they know better than we what it is we need.

Throughout history such belief by the self-proclaimed elite has always led to grief, misery, and tyranny. They can justify any action as being for "the good of the people" even when it was only good for the elite. And so it is with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the other members of the Leftist cabal. They do not believe we are capable of running our own lives, that we aren't smart enough to make our own decisions, that if we don't follow their leadership that we must be deranged and need to forced to surrender our will to the State.

That's what this whole ObamaCare kerfuffle is all about - Power.

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.