Posts Tagged ‘legislation’
If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.
Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.
The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s refusal to execute Congress’s immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,” and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered “bribery.”
Read more by Michael Filozof at American Thinker
The home of laissez-faire is being suffocated by excessive and badly written regulation
AMERICANS love to laugh at ridiculous regulations. A Florida law requires vending-machine labels to urge the public to file a report if the label is not there. The Federal Railroad Administration insists that all trains must be painted with an “F” at the front, so you can tell which end is which. Bureaucratic busybodies in Bethesda, Maryland, have shut down children’s lemonade stands because the enterprising young moppets did not have trading licences. The list goes hilariously on.
But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.
Read more at the Economist.com
These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president’s desire to “do something” in spite of his severely weakened mandate.
Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can’t be agreed upon constitutionally- which is to say legally- such laws or actions should be rejected.
Read more by Cong. Ron Paul at Texas Straight Talk
Madison — Those who sue the state would get to choose their court venue under a bill the Assembly approved early Friday and sent to Gov. Scott Walker.
The Assembly passed the measure 58-34 a week after the Senate approved it 18-15, with Democratic Sen. Jim Holperin of Conover joining all Republicans. Both houses are controlled by Republicans.
Now, lawsuits against the state in most cases must be filed in Dane County, the seat of state government. The bill — backed by Republicans who have lambasted Dane County judges as too liberal — would allow citizens to sue the state in any county they wanted.
Read more by Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel
Madison - Homeowners who shoot intruders would receive strong legal protection, under a bill approved by the state Senate on Thursday and the Assembly early Friday.
The bill passed in the Senate on a bipartisan 26-7 vote and then was returned to the Assembly. All Republican senators voted for the bill along with nine Democrats, including three from southeastern Wisconsin: Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee), Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee), and Bob Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie).
The Assembly also passed the proposal on a bipartisan vote Tuesday, but since the Senate tweaked the proposal Thursday, the Assembly had to take it up again. Lawmakers in that house approved the Senate change on a voice vote shortly after 5 a.m. Friday. GOP Gov. Scott Walker has said that he supports the bill in principle but will still review it before deciding whether to sign it.
Read more by Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel
What if We Didn’t Live in a Free Country?
FBN’s Judge Andrew Napolitano asks what our country might look like if it weren’t free.
September 29, 2011
Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? Is freedom in America a myth or a reality? Tonight, what if we didn’t live in a free country?
What if the Constitution were written not to limit government, but to expand it? What if the Constitution didn’t fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, but betrayed it? What if the Constitution actually permitted the government to limit and constrict freedom? What if the Bill of Rights was just a paper promise, that the government could avoid whenever it claimed the need to do so? What if the same generation – in some cases the same people – that drafted the U.S. Constitution enacted laws that violated it? What if the merchants and bankers who financed the American Revolution bought their way into the new government and got it to enact laws that stifled their competition? What if the civil war that was fought in the name of freedom actually advanced the cause of tyranny?
What if the federal government were the product of 150 years of stealing power and liberty and property from the people and the states? What if our political elites spent the 20th century importing the socialist ideas of big government Statism from Europe? What if our political class was adopting the European political culture from which our founding fathers fought so hard to break free?
What if our political leaders no longer acknowledged that our rights come from our humanity, but insisted instead that they come from the government? What if you had to produce your papers to get out of or into our once-free country? What if you couldn’t board a plane, a train, or a long-distance bus without providing documentation telling the government who you are and where you’re going, without paying the government, and without risking sexual assault? What if your local police department could shoot down a plane? What if government agents could write their own search warrants, declare their own enemies, and seize whatever property they want? What if the feds could detain you indefinitely, with no visitors, no lawyer, no judge, and no jury? What if they could make you just disappear? What if the government broke its own laws in order to enforce them? What if the government broke down your front door in the middle of the night and shot your dog, and claimed it was a mistake?
Read more by Judge Andrew Napolitano at lewrockwell.com
Video at foxbusiness.com
by Raven Clabough, thenewamerican.com, 8/15/11
The Florida State legislature has taken steps towards securing Second Amendment rights by eliminating restrictions on firearms. The measures, which will be enacted on October 1, will impose penalties on public officials who pass or enforce gun regulations at the state level. Violators face a $5,000 personal fine and may risk being removed from office by the governor. Florida already had a law that made it illegal to pass gun regulations beyond those imposed through state statutes since 1987. The Blaze explains the necessity for this new law:
While Florida has had a law on its books since 1987 that makes it illegal to pass gun regulations beyond state statutes, there was no enforcement mechanism in place. As a result, towns and cities have created ordinances at will. In the process, many of them have criminalized otherwise completely law-abiding citizens who unintentionally ran afoul of arbitrary, localized gun rules.
As a result, Governor Rick Scott has signed into law the Penalties for Violating Firearms Preemption Law, which forces the repeal of all regulations and policies that violate the firearms preemption law of 1987.
by Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX), 8/08/11
The Super Congress created by the recent debt ceiling increase deal is a typical example of something nefarious attached to a bigger bill that is rushed through Congress without giving Members ample opportunity to consider the full ramifications. This commission may turn into an early Christmas present for the well-heeled lobbyists of K Street. This is because the commission presents a huge opportunity for lobbying firms to sneak their client’s pet projects and issues into whatever legislation is created by the commission. The fact that automatic cuts to defense are named if the committee deadlocks simply signals to the military industrial complex to bring their A game to the lobbying effort.
One red flag I am constantly aware of in my position as a Congressman is that highly complex and convoluted legislation frequently has dangerous provisions hidden in the fine print. Elaborate legislative packages force lawmakers to take the bad with the good, and often if they refuse, they are accused of voting against the positive provision - never mind the blatant Constitutional violations in the bill, the spending, the waste, and the unchecked expansion of government. I don’t usually have to read too much of a bill like that before encountering something unconstitutional, or simply unwise. Then I have to vote no.
‘Super Congress’: Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body
by Ryan Grim, huffingtonpost.com, 7/23/2011
WASHINGTON — Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits.
Senator Johnson took to the Senate floor to note that no serious effort is being made to address the nation’s fiscal crisis. He stated his intention to begin to object to legislation coming up for a vote, unless the Senate undertakes serious efforts to tackle this crisis.
YouTube, 6:36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwm9G0Ut6lQ