Tag Archives: Constitution

Birthers go crazy on Glenn Beck; Birthers demand evidence. None seem to have read the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Dear Glenn — welcome to a world that you helped create. Fun ain’t it?!
Jonathon M. Seidl, a writer for Beck’s new ‘The Blaze’ news website wrote a short item that now has Birthers up in arms (B).Beck and Seidl got a walloping ‘what for!’ of ‘Where’s the birth certificate’ on TheBlaze.com after defending Obama’s legitimacy on the birth issue.

Glenn Beck may get crazy about President Obama on other issues but Beck is not a birther.

Beck has repeatedly asserted that Obama is a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

Within hours of the article’s posting, a huge number of comments followed, with at least 45 people questioning Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. It must have stung that less than 10 commenters supported Beck’s position and rejected Birtherism.

WorldNetDaily (WND), in its commentary on the issue asserts: “Several readers pointed out that the biggest issue regarding Obama’s eligibility is not his birthplace, but whether any child of a non-citizen parent could possibly satisfy the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” At the time the Constitution was written, the phrase “natural born citizen” was understand ordinarily to mean a child born of two citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, and, in fact, never was a U.S. citizen.” (A)

WND’s assertion that two parents are required to be a “natural born citizen” seems to have no historical basis nor source of reference. Since President’s Obama birth eligibility has been challenged twice before the Supreme Court then there would appear to be no basis for a constitutional challenge on the ‘two parent’ interpretation.

There have been several historical Supreme Court challenges as to the definition of “natural born citizen”.

In 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote is his dissenting opinion (C):

— First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
— Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
— Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
— Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.

If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.

Of course, dissenting opinions do not set precedent, but it was the first time that the Supreme Court addressed this particular issue.

TRUMP CARD

Perhaps most importantly is that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution trumps all definitions of “natural born citizen” as it provides an explicit description of who shall be citizens: “making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States”.

The Fourteenth Amendment definition was used in 1872’s Supreme Court case of SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) 83 U.S. 36 (Wall) with the outcome that the Constitution has settled this issue is plain English. (D)

READ MORE:

(A) http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=208961
(B) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/top-dem-warns-gop-poised-to-take-up-birther-a…
(C) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
(D) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=83&invol=36

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Health Care Reform Act Headed for the Supreme Court due to Partial Victory by Virginia Constitutional Challenge? Yes.

by Bill Golden
Bill4DogCatcher.com and JeffersonConservative.com

The Health Care Reform Act, AKA ObamaCare as it is called by both supporters and detractors, has stumbled badly in its attempt to fend off a constitutional challenge posed by Virginia.

On Monday, August 2nd, 2010, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson denied Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia challenging the new health care insurance law. His ruling stated that it is far from certain Congress has the authority to compel Americans to buy insurance and penalize those who don’t.

The stumble comes from the entire Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) depending upon the individual mandate for the HCRA to have meaning. Please remember that Virginia chose carefully as to how it challenged the HCRA’s constitutionality: it did not challenge the power of the Congress to pass such a bill; Virginia challenged the constitutionality of requiring individuals to have health insurance.

Failing to overcome Virginia’s challenge, the fate of the HCRA now goes to a court trial to begin October 18th, 2010. Win or lose, both parties will undoubtedly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The effective outcome is that many states will delay beginning to implement the HCRA until its constitutionality is determined. Just as Arizona is stymied in its ability to implement portions of SB1070 so is it the same for the HCRA whose first requirements and benefits went into effect as of July 2010.

My view is that Arizona will ultimately prevail at the Supreme Court level and Virginia may well also prevail.

Back on March 21st 2010, just hours before the vote was taken in the House on the Senate version of the HCRA, I gave my opinion and an overview of the constitutional issues facing the HCRA.

My opinion then and now:  “As much as I believe health care reform is needed, and needed now, the senate version of health care reform is both unconstitutional and overreaching. If the senate bill should be passed by the House then it will be more of chimeral victory that will be defeated in the SCOTUS due to its many flawed provisions, rather than the total sum value of its intent.”

For more info: What the press is saying about this development.


Bill Golden is an independent observer of American politics, trends and economics. Bill’s political views meet at the crossroads of conservatism, libertarianism and being a practical centrist. No longer a member of any political party, Bill would undoubtedly be declared a DINO if he were a Democrat and a RINO if he were Republican.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

U.S. Attempts To Block Constitutional Challenge to States’ Challenge of Health Care Reform Law

By Bill Golden
JeffersonConservative.com

The Obama administration has now adopted a strategy of trying to preempt court consideration of the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act by arguing that states have no legal basis or standing to challenge the Health Care Reform Act.

A secondary Obama administration argument is that Congress has the power to regulate interstate trade and that authority is enough by itself to make the measure constitutional.

The Obama administration challenge is officially being made by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, now known as ‘Virginia v. Sebelius‘.

Virginia is being made the test case to see if the federal strategy will work. Virginia must respond by June 7th to the federal challenge.

Federal attorneys argue that individuals, not the state, are affected by the requirement to buy health insurance, meaning that the state has no standing to sue over the issue.

CHALLENGE: The Health Care Reform Act forces both individuals to buy something that they did not previously have to (5th Amendment protection – you do not lose rights just because they are not specifically listed in the Constitution; in this case you and I have a right to not buy health care insurance) and the new law forces states to increase their financial support and thus to increase taxes for delivery of medical services (health care high risk pools, medicare, etc.).

Actions by the federal government that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner violate the due process of the fifth amendment. “Discrimination” in this sense is that the Health Care Reform Act forces some individuals, but not others,  to purchase health insurance.

A counter argument is that all Americans are required to purchase health insurance, but receive an exemption if they can prove that they purchased a policy personally or through their employer.

A reasoned position by Virginia is that it is representing the collective rights of its citizens in both cases, by protecting both their individual rights and the phantom requirement to increase state taxes in order to provide additional non-federally funded medical services.

Learn more by googling: Virginia v. Sebelius and Fifth Amendment Due Process


Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Arizona – If You Do Nothing Then ‘We The People’ Have The Right To Do Something

by Bill Golden
aka JeffersonConservative.com

Arizona – lots of talk of boycott of Arizona for its new law requiring identification for those stopped by police for some violation of the law and suspected of being a non-U.S. citizen.

Yet out of those same mouths there seems to be no forthcoming suggestions about how to prevent the illegal alien problem to begin with. No talk of securing the borders.

Is citizenship itself racist? One person wrote me and said that all citizenship laws are racist. They said that people have been migrating throughout the Americas for 30,000 years. Technically that may be true. But once they stopped migrating they created boundaries. What I call a citizen someone else calls a tribal member.

Take the time to do some quick research and you will find over 400 documented inter-tribal wars between native American tribes over their own boundaries just since the arrival of settlers at Jamestown. The Aztec and the Mayan also had rather draconian methods of dealing with out-of-season migrations further to our south. No, I do not think migration is a natural reason for doing nothing.

Is it legal? Any number of folks have suggested that Arizona’s new law is unconstitutional or violates U.S. law. Sorry. No. In fact, Arizona must submit any law for prior review to the U.S. Department of Justice if it potentially affects the 14th and 15th amendment rights of citizens because Arizona is under restrictions imposed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act — which is meant to strengthen and to protect the rights of minorities. Arizona did due diligence and has a Washington DC Department of Justice review and approval ‘yes you can’ certificate in hand.

Arizona’s Impact on America: A week or two ago there were huge rallies to show Arizona that its fellow American citizens and the Latino/Chicano/Hispanic community weren’t happy with its new law. Don’t blink. Many of the rallies were massive. Don’t blink. Many of the rallies worked hard to paint Arizona as racist and repressive. Don’t blink. The hypocrisy was so huge that national support for Arizona’s new law has surged from 51% to now 64% of Americans support Arizona the state and Arizona’s new law — per an MSNBC/WSJ poll just this week.

So when all is said and done, nothing has been done by Washington DC to fix Arizona’s borders or to address its concerns. Arizona is not a province. Arizona is a state — and ‘state’ has meaning. Arizona has its own ‘We the People’ and they have made a decision.

Want to boycott Arizona? Fine. Free choice is yours.

Want to poke fun at Arizona? Go ahead. Enjoy your 1st Amendment rights. But beware, Arizona’s spirit is contagious and a number of other states have ‘We the People’ too — and a number of states are considering Arizona-like laws to include CO, GA, OH, OK, MD, MI, MS, SC, TX, UT.

You can fix a problem, or you can ignore it and someone will eventually fix it to their own liking. When they do then it really is too late for you to care.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Political Quotes that make me crazy.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
–Abraham Lincoln

So how does that work? Who gets to decide who is the perverter and who is the patriot? Who and how and when will we know? I’m pretty sure than an open, fair election could settle this.

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.”
— Thomas Jefferson

So if resistance to government is valuable yet violently wrong, and God save us should a wrong-headed rebellion occur, should we just laugh it off or consider that by encouraging continuous resistance as a way of life is itself a perversion of the U.S. Constitution? Dear TJ, you are one of my heroes but this wishy-washyness about recurring rebellion being good is a bit  … let me think about it.

“Laws just or unjust may govern men’s actions. Tyrannies may restrain or regulate their words. The machinery of propaganda may pack their minds with falsehood and deny them truth for many generations of time. But the soul of man thus held in trance or frozen in a long night can be awakened by a spark coming from God knows where and in a moment the whole structure of lies and oppression is on trial for its life.”
— Sir Winston Churchill

So you meant to say ‘Stuff happens’ at the most unexpected moments? This is one of those rousing calls for eternal hope that sounds great … but only when it comes to rallying folks to your side. Sir Churchhill was one of the (mostly) good guys, although he had another side, too:

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

… and Churchhill once also said:

“There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.”

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind…War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” – John F. Kennedy

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

You want good government? Or do you want the government that you deserve?

Want good government? Then don’t make excuses for bad government.

Want responsive government? Always question party-line votes. Political parties that put their survival and success first are major dragons among us.

Want others to be good, civil citizens? Then be one yourself, and find the courage to call out your fellow believers when they cross the line — and you know it happens across the political spectrum. No excuses.

Yes, there is always a lunatic fringe. Every group has them. The difference between a mob and a group is that groups have leaders that speak up. Does your group have leaders or just people pointing the way?

Great kudos goes to the The Hampton Roads (Virginia) Tea Party which has taken a very public stand for good citizenship: “The Hampton Roads Tea Party does not condone nor will it tolerate racism, sexism, or religious intolerance or bigotry in any form within the ranks of its membership or at any of its sanctioned events. Such beliefs, attitudes, and activities are contrary to the basic rights of all humankind as outlined in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.”
— Hampton Roads Tea Party Board

We can argue about whether government is too large or not large enough. We could debate about how interest groups influence government in the wrong way — mostly your groups, not mine. But why?

I believe that the best course of action is to be agnostic about government. If the processes are in place to create a responsible and accountable government then the issues will work themselves out at the polling booth.

Where folks go a bit off the edge is when government patronizes them. Pandering may be an art form but it is not an acceptable process.

In discussing this, let us remember that sometimes we get the government that we deserve. If we work hard to make sure that our side wins and the other side loses — whether through procedure, issue manipulation, smoke and mirrors, whatever — then we will always have unresponsive government.

Let’s Slay Dragons Together

Bill4DogCatcher.com has a new project: I would like to see a coalition of the willing, those willing to focus on what brings us together, not pushes us apart.

I’m calling my new project — please don’t laugh or throw rotten stuff — the Coffee Party & Tea Party Coalition – a Bill4DogCatcher.com Project. Am exploring what can bring us together at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=102925266411916 (does anyone know how to point someone to a Facebook group with a better looking URL?).

The dragons that I want to slay are process-focused.

At the end of the day our anger and frustration comes not so much from knowing that the other side doesn’t appreciate our position on issues — of course, it’s not like you or I pay much attention to the what the other side is actually saying so why pretend?! — our anger and frustration comes from believing that the system is fixed! The outcome is almost preordained so why make the effort to be civil and logical? But we must try … we really, really must.

The Dragons That We Must Slay

Areas that I would like to see Coffee and Tea work together on — because the self-perpetuating political parties won’t:

  • A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
  • A Term Limits Constitutional Amendment
  • A Taxation Transparency Act – up front accounting of categories of spending and who is getting what from whom.
  • Political Campaign Funding Transparency — Any contribution over $50-100 should have publicly available names attached.
  • Political Action Committee (PAC) Contribution Transparency — Do not make me wait and scramble to read various political candidate reports and match the numbers up. PAC contributions need to be publicly available records within 30 days of giving money to a candidate. We should be able to see that ABC Persuaders, Inc. gave $X to A, B and to Z.
  • Keep ’em Honest Promise Trackers – regardless of what party or part of the spectrum politicians live, are they keeping their ‘promises’? We have lots of ways to determine how liberal or conservative or libertarian or whatever someone is … but we have no common way of tracking how honest to their stated intentions they are.

There are many ways we can have more responsive government, but we must be willing to lay aside our issue differences to get to where we all want to be. Let’s avoid discussing issues. Let’s focus on creating processes that keeps government honest and moving forward.

So how would you slay dragons? Send your thoughts to Bill@Bill4DogCatcher.com or please visit the Coffee Party & Tea Party Coalition – a Bill4DogCatcher.com Project at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=102925266411916


This blog article originally appeared on 2010.03.23 as ‘Listerine Won’t Keep Dragons From Ruining Your Day. Time To Take On The Dragons!’ … Cute name but it violated a reality of journalism: what is your topic about. So … if you think you’ve read this article already then it ain’t deja vu at work.


Bill Golden is an independent observer of economics, politics and human resource management issues. Politically conservative but considers himself to be both Coffee & Tea. Solutions come from dealing with reality, not emotional responses.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Listerine Won’t Keep Dragons From Ruining Your Day. Time To Take On The Dragons!

Want good government? Then don’t make excuses for bad government.

Want responsive government? Always question party-line votes. Political parties that put their survival and success first are major dragons among us.

Want others to be good, civil citizens? Then be one yourself, and find the courage to call out your fellow believers when they cross the line — and you know it happens across the political spectrum. No excuses.

Yes, there is always a lunatic fringe. Every group has them. The difference between a mob and a group is that groups have leaders that speak up. Does your group have leaders or just people pointing the way?

Great kudos goes to the The Hampton Roads (Virginia) Tea Party which has taken a very public stand for good citizenship: “The Hampton Roads Tea Party does not condone nor will it tolerate racism, sexism, or religious intolerance or bigotry in any form within the ranks of its membership or at any of its sanctioned events. Such beliefs, attitudes, and activities are contrary to the basic rights of all humankind as outlined in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.”
— Hampton Roads Tea Party Board

We can argue about whether government is too large or not large enough. We could debate about how interest groups influence government in the wrong way — mostly your groups, not mine. But why?

I believe that the best course of action is to be agnostic about government. If the processes are in place to create a responsible and accountable government then the issues will work themselves out at the polling booth.

Where folks go a bit off the edge is when government patronizes them. Pandering may be an art form but it is not an acceptable process.

In discussing this, let us remember that sometimes we get the government that we deserve. If we work hard to make sure that our side wins and the other side loses — whether through procedure, issue manipulation, smoke and mirrors, whatever — then we will always have unresponsive government.

Let’s Slay Dragons Together

Bill4DogCatcher.com has a new project: I would like to see a coalition of the willing, those willing to focus on what brings us together, not pushes us apart.

I’m calling my new project — please don’t laugh or throw rotten stuff — the Coffee Party & Tea Party Coalition – a Bill4DogCatcher.com Project. Am  exploring what can bring us together at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=102925266411916 (does anyone know how to point someone to a Facebook group with a better looking URL?).

The dragons that I want to slay are process-focused.

At the end of the day our anger and frustration comes not so much from knowing that the other side doesn’t appreciate our position on issues — of course, it’s not like you or I pay much attention to the what the other side is actually saying so why pretend?! — our anger and frustration comes from believing that the system is fixed! The outcome is almost preordained so why make the effort to be civil and logical? But we must try … we really, really must.

The Dragons That We Must Slay

Areas that I would like to see Coffee and Tea work together on — because the self-perpetuating political parties won’t:

  • A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
  • A Term Limits Constitutional Amendment
  • A Taxation Transparency Act – up front accounting of categories of spending and who is getting what from whom.
  • Political Campaign Funding Transparency — Any contribution over $50-100 should have publicly available names attached.
  • Political Action Committee (PAC) Contribution Transparency — Do not make me wait and scramble to read various political candidate reports and match the numbers up. PAC contributions need to be publicly available records within 30 days of giving money to a candidate. We should be able to see that ABC Persuaders, Inc. gave $X to A, B and to Z.
  • Keep ’em Honest Promise Trackers – regardless of what party or part of the spectrum politicians live, are they keeping their ‘promises’? We have lots of ways to determine how liberal or conservative or libertarian or whatever someone is … but we have no common way of tracking how honest to their stated intentions they are.

There are many ways we can have more responsive government, but we must be willing to lay aside our issue differences to get to where we all want to be. Let’s avoid discussing issues. Let’s focus on creating processes that keeps government honest and moving forward.

So how would you slay dragons? Send your thoughts to Bill@Bill4DogCatcher.com or please visit the Coffee Party & Tea Party Coalition – a Bill4DogCatcher.com Project at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=102925266411916


Bill Golden is an independent observer of economics, politics and human resource management issues. Politically conservative but considers himself to be both Coffee & Tea. Solutions come from dealing with reality, not emotional responses.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized