Archive | Constitution of the United States RSS feed for this section

Real Hope and Change in 2012?

12 Feb

I actually now despise the word “hope” thanks to our current President’s past election campaign, however, today I just have to use the word in reference to one of my all-time favorite human beings, Ron Paul.

Ron Paul (Texas congressman) won the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw pole – which means that there is some money and thought on him being a contender for the 2012 presidential election – believe it or not – there has been money and thought there for quite awhile.  Now, the main-stream-media will probably ignore this, as they have for nearly decades, but WE THE PEOPLE will not.  We know.

Is there an opportunity for a libertarian-leaning man to be in charge of our country?  I sure think so.   This would equate to fiscal conservatism, respect of the opportunity for peace, keeping government out of our bedrooms, and an adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America – ideals that I cling to and I believe would make for a prosperous future for this fine country.

Ron Paul has gained the admiration and respect of millions of Americans because of his approach to limited government and his accessibility to his constituents, not to mention, his accessibility to many students and the next generation of voters.  He is a good man – not a man who is in politics for power, but a man who is representing people in his district – in his country.  This, of course, separates him from other contenders in several ways – and in doing so, he is often ignored by main-stream news junkets.

Grass-roots organizing and marketing efforts are Ron Paul’s main way of disseminating information, and those efforts are visible more and more every year.  It is up to us, as citizens to become the media to talk to others about what is really going on in government, and to make good decisions about who will represent us.  We must talk, we must listen, we must become the media (the true check on government), and we must be resilient.  It is working.

The Coming Constitutional Debate

16 May

We will be taking a hard look at the Constitution of the United States of America and the implications of the judicial involvement within the words and interpretations of those words in the Constitution.  Our inspiration comes from a phenomenal piece by Stephen J. Markman, where it appeared in Imprimis in April of 2010.

Here we will outline, and continue in additional blog posts, the cases that are made my Mr. Markman.

1. Privileges or Immunities Clause

Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or those that believe in a “living constitution”  see the due process clause of the 14th Amendment as a way to seek additional federal oversight into  state and local laws.

2. Positive Rights

Again, using the privileges and immunities clause, proponents of the 21st century constitution may desire to change the Constitution from being a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government” which would therein guarantee “positive rights” to people.  The Framer’s Constitution “defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you,” (Markman, 2010), NOT what the government should provide to you or guarantee you a right to (i.e. Healthcare).  This has many potential negative implications for the concept of liberty and the opportunity for prosperity (not a guarantee of prosperity).

3. State Action

The requirement of state action as a precondition for the enforcement of rights (as set forth in the due process and the privilege and immunities clause), is another barrier for 21st century constitution proponents. State powers (as re-emphasized in the 10th Amendment) protect individuals and states from federal intrusions (i.e. protecting states’ funds from being manipulated or re-distributed to other states).

4. Political Questions

Federal courts are beginning to assert themselves into decisions where the judiciary had never before been involved. In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison explicitly stated that political questions were not to be made in court.  As recently as 2008, the Court decided upon a case dealing with foreign nationals, the military, and prisoners of war (Boumediene v. Bush).  One can see the implications from having the Court decide more and more political questions.

5. Ninth Amendment

“Many 2st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges” (Markman, 2010).  The 9th Amendment was created to emphasize the limited power of our national/federal government – not leave this an open-ended statement up for interpretation.

6. Transnationalism

This is the concept of having international law meld and mix with domestic law.  This would make domestic judges more reliant upon foreign laws to make decisions affecting the United States, and could potentially open a pandora’s box of sanctions against people of this country for “war crimes” and “violations of the Earth”.  And again, more and more decisions would be given to judges as officials and interpreters of the law.

Read the Whole Essay Here

Folks, we have so much work to do to secure the Constitution as written and interpreted by FREE MEN – The Founders and Framers of the United States of America.

– Tisha Casida

EYES on 2nd Amendment Rights

11 May

The Arms Trade Treaty, which will likely be pushed by the United Nations as we near 2012, represents threats to our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Those who desire having such a universal declaration against arms may believe that weapons in the hands of individuals are dangerous.  I believe that those who support such a treaty have not fully investigated what is really dangerous – evil people.

Guns do not kill people.  PEOPLE kill people.  And unfortunately, those that have evil motives are often the first people to find ways around any type of legal barrier to obtaining weapons.  The innocent people, who need weapons to defend themselves against the lunatics, are then harmed by such legislation.

Anti-gun activists may want to protect kids, protect wildlife, etc.  However they must be cognizant that with a universal treaty like that of the Arms Trade Treaty, that liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be defended by We The People.  It is the opposite of safety – the 2nd Amendment is what keeps us safe!

The government’s role is to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION and the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.  Many actions that the government takes today are the opposite of that.

Please read up on the Arms Trade Treaty, and see this excellent post about its affect on American gun ownership.

– Tisha Casida