Archive for the ‘U.S. Constitution’ category

Nancy Pelosi Thinks The First Amendment Covers Gun Ownership

10 February, 2013

Uh…  This is as big a blunder as John Boehner confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.  

And folks still wonder why Our government is so screwed up:

Conservative Republicans Pushing to Strengthen Constitutionality Rule

13 June, 2012

It’s amazing to me that we even have to remind politicians that ALL of their legislation must fall within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution:

MILLER: Constitution 101:
Congress shows little knowledge of the document it swore to defend
By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

With any luck, the Supreme Court will soon declare Obamacare unconstitutional. Nevertheless, conservatives think it’s not a good idea to rely on the courts to prevent the next congressional overreach from becoming law. House Republicans did their best when they took over in January 2011 in adopting a rule requiring every bill to be justified by a constitutional-authority statement. So far, however, conservative members aren’t overly impressed with their colleagues.

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) analyzes the constitutional statements for every bill and joint resolution introduced and sends out a weekly email highlighting the “most questionable.” Last week, it selected Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, for justifying his bill to authorize the president to award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to boxer Muhammad Ali by citing irrelevant constitutional clauses, including the one giving Congress the right to set its governing rules and expel members.


Lack of knowledge of the Constitution is part of the problem, but so is the enforcement mechanism. The current rule is too vague, saying only that the statement should cite “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.” Mr. Garrett and the RSC are pushing for reforms that include requiring citation of the specific enumerated power authorizing a particular congressional action.

This would have prevented Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, from citing the preamble to the Constitution to justify the creation of a Department of Peace. The exact section and clause would have to be cited, stopping Rep. John Conyers, Michigan Democrat, from writing merely that Article 1 gave him the power to introduce a job-training bill in April.


Had then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi been forced to explain the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, the public might have seen through the Democratic power grab. It’s not too much to ask members to be able to articulate the legitimacy of their actions. Conservatives are right to strengthen the rule after the election. Making lawmakers become more familiar with our nation’s founding document is worth the fight.

Official INS Documents: Native Born Does Not Equal Natural Born!

27 January, 2012

Hmm…  No wonder Obama’s defunct website “fightthesmears” (now, Attack Waaaatch!!! ) claimed only that Obama was a “native citizen of the United States” and not a natural born citizen:

The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. – Leo Donofrio

I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:

“I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:

He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:

“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)

Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:

“Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”

I am rather rocked by this find, having never seen it before, and it certainly comes to the attention of the nation at a critical moment […]

Read the rest of this article by CLICKING HERE

Obama Wants Control of Your Church

24 January, 2012

Progressive Commies are forever trying to keep religion out of the government while, at the same time, working overtime to install the government into religion:

Kathleen Sebelius vs. Religious Freedom
By The Editors
January 23, 2012 – National Review Online

Last August, under authority granted by Obamacare, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius published an “interim final rule” for comment that would require private health-insurance plans to cover, as “preventive services,” all FDA-approved “sterilization procedures” and “contraceptive methods” — and without deductibles or co-pays. We and other critics raised numerous objections, none of which were addressed last Friday, when Secretary Sebelius announced the final promulgation of the rule, which will go into effect August 1.

Since the FDA approves, as “contraceptives,” drugs such as Plan B and Ella that may cause early-stage abortions, the federal government could force nearly every employer in America to pay for abortions and sterilizations. Colleges and universities providing insurance to their students will face the same requirement.

The one exemption HHS offers is for those plans offered by “religious employers,” which is defined so narrowly that practically no one but actual houses of worship can qualify. Religious schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, social-service organizations, and charitable institutions — in short, all those who try to do good in the world by serving all who come to their table — will not qualify for the exemption, and will be forced to provide contraception, abortion, and sterilization. The alternatives are to drop health insurance for one’s employees (forcing them into the government “exchanges” and paying a hefty fine as well), or to close one’s doors.

To their credit, the Catholic bishops objected strenuously to the proposed mandate last year, as did other leaders of religious institutions. Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina filed suit, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. But none of this swayed Sebelius: The rule announced Friday contains no revision or expansion of Sebelius’s absurdly narrow “religious exemption.” Cynically playing to a compliant media eager to praise her for being “accommodating,” the secretary gave many (but not all) of the organizations outside the terms of the exemption an additional year (until August 2013) “to adapt to this new rule.” For “adapt” read “fall into line, or else.” The administration’s true purpose in the deferral is to get past the November election without this becoming a real issue.

There is also language in the secretary’s announcement suggesting that those religious institutions that do enjoy an exemption will have to refer those they insure to “contraceptive services” available elsewhere. The administration’s attack on conscience, it seems, will spare no one.

Just a week before Sebelius’s announcement last Friday, the administration suffered an embarrassing Supreme Court defeat in the most significant religious-liberty case in many years. In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the administration had argued that there was no constitutional basis for a “ministerial exception” to federal employment-discrimination laws — a First Amendment principle recognized in lower courts for four decades — and lost 9–0. The Roberts Court endorsed the commonsense principle that the Constitution protects the right of religious organizations to govern their own internal affairs without the government’s interference, and to determine for themselves what their religious tenets and doctrines require of them. It would be a strange limitation on this principle if the government could force religious schools, hospitals, and charities to pay for “preventive services” that their scriptures and traditions regard as profoundly evil.

It should be no surprise that the government’s takeover of health care is a threat to every kind of freedom. But the HHS insurance mandate — bad enough in itself for its hostility to a culture that affirms life — is a direct assault on the religious freedom of individuals and institutions that cannot, in good conscience, be complicit in such hostility. Congress, the courts, the voting public — all must come to the defense of conscience and the Constitution, and turn back the tyranny of this administration.

Our Dark Overlord Threatens to Circumvent Congress (and the Constitution), Again

14 December, 2011

Yup.  He’s a tinpot dictator:

Obama Again Says He Will Have to Circumvent Congress
by Jonathon M. Seidl – via The Blaze

The president is once again trumpeting his desire — and promise — to circumvent Congress if it doesn’t accomplish his policy objectives. It’s been an oft-repeated mantra of the president and his administration, and in a recent interview with KOAA-TV in Colorado Springs, the president again reaffirmed his position to go it alone. has the transcript:

Rob Quirk, KOAA-TV: “And one year from today we will know if this a one-term or two-term president. So, I asked the president what will it take from now until then to not only win Colorado again, but reelection as well.”

President Obama: “Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”

CLICK HERE for the video.

Once Again, NJ Governor Chris Christie Demonstrates His Failure to Understand the First Amendment

25 October, 2011

You know, not so long ago I really liked Gov. Chris Christie.  In fact, I still admire him to a certain extent.  However, his fatuous support when it comes to Islam  and Homosexuality  at the expense of the individual’s Right to Free Speech has forever tarnished his image in my mind. 

Why such an intelligent individual  such as Ann Coulter would  blindly support him for the Presidency is beyond me. 

And, after all, don’t we already have someone sitting in the White House who doesn’t give a damn about our Right to Free Speech?:

Not-So-Free Speech in New Jersey
ByJan LaRue – American Thinker

Who can say “gay” isn’t okay in New Jersey?  Judging by Gov. Chris Christie’s actions, teachers can’t.

Christie told CNN’s Piers Morgan on June 15 that he doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin even though his religion does.  To be sure that the citizens of New Jersey are aware of Christie’s beliefs, the interview and transcript are posted on the official New Jersey website.  Okay, that’s his opinion.  But read on.

New Jersey high school teacher Viki Knox may have been inspired by Christie’s comments to think that it was okay for a New Jersey public employee to express an opinion about homosexuality, as if the First Amendment is alive and well in New Jersey.

Knox believes that homosexuality is a sin.  She posted her belief — not on an official school web site, but on her personal Facebook page.  The Union High School District is investigating Knox to determine if she violated school policies.

If Knox’s First Amendment rights aren’t shed at the schoolhouse gate, as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., surely her rights aren’t shed at the gate of her house:

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

According to Jeanette Rundquist and Peggy McGlone writing for the New Jersey Star-Ledger on Oct. 18:

Knox, 49, used her Facebook page to criticize a display in her Union Township school marking Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month. She called homosexuality a “perverted spirit” and a “sin” that “breeds like cancer.”

Christie could have seized the chance to shed his reputation as a “bully” of New Jersey teachers and educate his constituents on the First Amendment.  He is a lawyer, after all.  And Tinker was on the books when Christie attended law school.  At a minimum, he should have declined to comment pending the outcome of the investigation.

Instead, Christie weighed in against Knox, giving impetus to homosexual activists and others who are demanding that Knox be fired.  He told 77 WABC Radio host Joe Crummey:

I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society. I’m really concerned about those kinds of statements being made.

Christie thinks Knox’s comments justify investigating her conduct in the classroom.  His comments jeopardize Knox’s due process rights to a fair and impartial hearing.


Texas: Student Suspended for Expressing Religious View that Homosexuality is Wrong

22 September, 2011

Welcome to the world of Liberal indoctrination where expressing a religiously held belief is now considered to be a hate crime:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Student Suspended for Saying Gay Is Wrong


FORT WORTH, Texas – A Fort Worth high school student was sent to the principal’s office earlier this week for telling another classmate he believes homosexuality is wrong.

Fourteen-year-old Dakota Ary spent most of the day Tuesday serving an in-school suspension. It was punishment for discussion in his German class at Fort Worth’s Western Hills High School.

“We were talking about religions in Germany. I said, ‘I’m a Christian. I think being a homosexual is wrong,’” he said. “It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me. I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Um…  Yeah, I’m willing to lay odds that the German teacher is a rump-rider.

An assistant principal called Ary’s mother at work to let her know he was in trouble.

Hm…  I think I just figured out who the German teacher’s riding partner is…

“At first I was in disbelief. My son is on the honor roll with great grades. I don’t have any problems out of him,” Holly Pope said.

After hearing Ary’s explanation of what happened, the assistant principal reduced the original suspension from two days to one. But Pope was not satisfied with that.

“He was stating an opinion. He has a right to do that. They punished him for it,” she said.

Attorney Matt Krause joined Ary and his mom at a Wednesday morning meeting with the principal. They asked for the blemish to be taken off his record and reassurance there would be no retaliation.

Students don’t lose their first amendment rights just because they go in the schoolhouse door,” Krause said.


District spokesman Clint Bond said the Fort Worth Independent School District does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues.

“We are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy,” Bond said.

If Ary continues taking German he’ll have to learn from the same teacher who punished him. His mom is relying on faith that things will work out.

“I want to believe the school will make the right decision. That’s something the school will need to handle,” she said.

Obama Administration Wants You to Give Up Your Passwords to Aid in Prosecuting You!

11 July, 2011

This is sheer Orwellian insanity!  The Fifth Amendment clearly states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”  By being forced to give up your passwords, you are being compelled to be a witness against yourself:

DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop
by Declan McCullagh – CNET News

The Colorado prosecution of a woman accused of a mortgage scam will test whether the government can punish you for refusing to disclose your encryption passphrase.

The Obama administration has asked a federal judge to order the defendant, Ramona Fricosu, to decrypt an encrypted laptop that police found in her bedroom during a raid of her home.

Because Fricosu has opposed the proposal, this could turn into a precedent-setting case. No U.S. appeals court appears to have ruled on whether such an order would be legal or not under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which broadly protects Americans’ right to remain silent.

In a brief filed last Friday, Fricosu’s Colorado Springs-based attorney, Philip Dubois, said defendants can’t be constitutionally obligated to help the government interpret their files. “If agents execute a search warrant and find, say, a diary handwritten in code, could the target be compelled to decode, i.e., decrypt, the diary?”

To the U.S. Justice Department, though, the requested court order represents a simple extension of prosecutors’ long-standing ability to assemble information that could become evidence during a trial. The department claims:

Public interests will be harmed absent requiring defendants to make available unencrypted contents in circumstances like these. Failing to compel Ms. Fricosu amounts to a concession to her and potential criminals (be it in child exploitation, national security, terrorism, financial crimes or drug trafficking cases) that encrypting all inculpatory digital evidence will serve to defeat the efforts of law enforcement officers to obtain such evidence through judicially authorized search warrants, and thus make their prosecution impossible.

Yeah.  Progressive Commies ALWAYS play the “child exploitation” card whenever they are about to strip you of your rights.  Funny, but I don’t recall Obama and Eric Holder as being particularly concerned about halting the abhorrent practice of killing unborn children.

Prosecutors stressed that they don’t actually require the passphrase itself, meaning Fricosu would be permitted to type it in and unlock the files without anyone looking over her shoulder. They say they want only the decrypted data and are not demanding “the password to the drive, either orally or in written form.”

Semantics, semantics.  Regardless of whether or not a citizen secretly types in the password or outright gives the password to the prosecution, the results are the same:  Forced self-incrimination.

The question of whether a criminal defendant can be legally compelled to cough up his encryption passphrase remains an unsettled one, with law review articles for at least the last 15 years arguing the merits of either approach. (A U.S. Justice Department attorney wrote an article in 1996, for instance, titled “Compelled Production of Plaintext and Keys.”)

Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. That person can, in general, be legally compelled to hand over the key. Other examples include the U.S. Supreme Court saying that defendants can be forced to provide fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings.

On the other hand are civil libertarians citing other Supreme Court cases that conclude Americans can’t be forced to give “compelled testimonial communications” and extending the legal shield of the Fifth Amendment to encryption passphrases. Courts already have ruled that that such protection extends to the contents of a defendant’s mind, so why shouldn’t a passphrase be shielded as well?


California Bans Handguns!?!

17 May, 2011

After reading the following article, I’m sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out under what set of circumstances would a private citizen in California be able to carry a handgun without having to apply for a conceal-carry license or just outright breaking the law.   I can’t think of any.   Can you?

Considering that California is a “May Issue” state wherein it is up to the discretion of the County Sheriff or local Police Chief to issue or, more often than not, deny CCW permits, carrying a handgun is a rarity among Californians.  Now, you can’t even carry an unloaded handgun in California without breaking the law!  In effect, California has just banned law abiding citizens from carrying handguns!

H/T – PB-in-AL

Second Amendment Takes Double Shot in California
Kevin Glass –

A double-whammy came down today against gun rights advocates in California. First, the California Assembly voted to prohibit the open carry of unloaded handguns. Current law had allowed unloaded weapons to be carried openly in public.

“You are disarming our citizens” while doing little to disarm criminals, said Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber.”It is not just the right to keep, it is the right to bear arms,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks.

California Democrats had seized upon the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the bill’s introduction. Unable to pass a bill last year that accomplished the same goal, they brought a similar measure to the Assembly days after the Giffords tragedy in Arizona.

The second blow came (where else?) in a U.S. district coutroom, where a judge claimed that “there is no constitutional right to carry a handgun in public” – something that came as a surprise to Second Amendment lawyer Alan Gura, who litigated the case on the side of gun rights advocates.

Judge Morrison England, a Bush appointee, handed down the decision. The real irony, though? Judge England argued that, because California law allowed the open carry of unloaded weapons meant that gun rights advocates’ concern for individual safety could be superceded. I wonder what he would have said if he knew, on this very day, that Democrats in the Assembly would be eliminating his rationale to overrule Californians’ Second Amendment rights?

United States Supreme Court Goes Fascist: Rules It’s Okay For Police to Break Down Your Door Without Warrant

17 May, 2011

First they came for the hackers, and I said nothing.  Then, they came for the drug users, and I said nothing.  Then they came for the bloggers…

This is absolutely crazy!  If you think we’re not hurtling at breakneck speeds towards a fascist totalitarian police state, think again!:

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Timesvia Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into residences in search of illegal drugs.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Think about that for a moment:  The police can now break your door down if you are merely sitting there on the throne doing your daily business when they come a’knocking and you decide to flush the toilet in the process of cleaning yourself up to answer the door!   And, what exactly constitutes “sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed?”  A shuffle?  A cough?  What?  Very nebulous indeed!  I mean, what if you, like me, like to walk around the house in your boxer shorts all day long and whenever someone knocks on the door, you have to rustle around a little to grab some pants and throw them on?  Is that rustling noise now a go-ahead signal for cops to break down your door?

Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Again I ask, what exactly constitutes sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed?  The police are going to use any excuse they can to violate your 4th Amendment rights.  It’s not their fault; they have a job to do and will use any “gray areas” and legal means necessary to accomplish that job.  But, the Supreme Court giving police the green light to break down your door if they “think” they hear evidence being destroyed is beyond insane—it’s straight out of Nazi Germany! 

Don’t blame me when innocent homeowners start shooting and killing “intruders” breaking down their doors only to find out, much to their chagrin, that it was just the po-po doing their jobs—blame the United States Supreme Court Justices!

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. “Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,” she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

Crap!  I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually agree with her “high”ness on this one!

In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Alito said, “The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.”

Uh, yeah…It’s more like a squiggly dotted line now, wouldn’t you say, Mr. Justice Alito?

One exception to that rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. Police were attempting to do that in the Kentucky case, but they entered the wrong apartment, raising the issue of what is permissible in situations where police have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed.

It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called “Police. Police. Police,” and heard the sounds of people moving.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.


Alito said the police conduct in this case “was entirely lawful,” and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

“When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do,” he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

Oh, you’re saying that private citizens may now break down my door and “lawfully” enter my residence if they hear me flushing the toilet?  Give me a friggin’ break!  You know what I do to “private citizens” who break down my door?  I shoot them!

“Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing down a toilet,” he added.


Ginsburg, however, said the court’s approach “arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases.” She said the police did not face a “genuine emergency” and should not have been allowed to enter the apartment without a warrant.

Again, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but her “high”ness is absolutely correct on this one!

%d bloggers like this: