Posts Tagged ‘ constitutional ’

The President’s Assassination List

The President has a “hit” list? You read that right. What is against the law for ordinary citizens (and should be) is permissible for the government (President). According to the Constitution we are not to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But then I guess the President knows that with his Constitution law background.

I guess when I teach government this year I will tell my class that the law of the land (The Constitution) applies to everyone, but the President.

Muse on this…

…then read this.

Excellent Primer on the Constitution

Judge Andrew Napolitano is a great teacher when it comes to the Constitution. Last week he did a series on the Constitution and Freedom. It’s definitely a must see.


Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Losing the Bill of Rights

With the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York and Guantanamo moving to Illinois, the Bill of Rights are being locked away again. It’s a shame how many people don’t see the Pandora’s box being opened when we allow our government to disregard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. With many (mainly Conservatives) blasting the decision to try Mohammed on American soil and close down the unConstitutional Guantanamo Bay detention facility, one has to wonder what we are thinking. “Terrorism” is still a federal crime in the U.S. code.

Given that federal officials now wield the power to treat one federal criminal offense—terrorism—as either a crime or an act of war, there is no inherent reason why such power cannot be expanded to encompass other federal crimes, such as drug offenses. In fact, given the interrelationship between drug dealing and terrorism, one can easily imagine that federal officials will eventually expand their war on terrorism powers to the war on drugs. All that’s needed is the right crisis. It’s a matter of time before the president and Defense Department find ever more uses for this alternate system of justice that conveniently sidesteps the Bill of Rights.

Read an excellent article here, Losing the Bill of Rights.

Response to Pelosi

Here is a good response to Pelosi’s press release mentioned in a previous post.

The Speaker is certainly correct that federal Congress has certainly legislated on “many aspects of American life.”  In fact, there is a lot more at stake with the Commerce Clause than “just” our health care — the entire authority for economic central planning rests on this single clause. I strongly disagree with Pelosi that the Constitution allows Congress broad power in this respect. First, the exact language from my job description in Powers of Congress, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

Regulation, in today’s dictionaries, means “a governmental order having the force of law.” However, this is not the historical definition.  The founders believed “regulate” to literally mean ‘to make more regular’ or, per Black’s Law Dictionary at the time, “a rule or order prescribed for management or government; a regulating principle; a precept.” In other words, regulate meant that Congress should in principle assist with Commerce disputes between the States, but did not grant Congress the power of law to inflict criminal penalties.

The Congress shall have Power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Pelosi believes that she has the power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States” and I suggest that in blunt language she instead literally means to “control the economy… of the States.”  Pelosi and her ilk accomplish this by confusing the modern meanings with the legal meaning and contemporary context of the founders.

Is Mandating Health Insurance Constitutional?

Well, CNS News.com asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that same question. Her response is classic.

“Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Then her press secretary replied.

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”   The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation.  There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”

Read the whole article. It includes audio, too.