Archive for the ‘U.S. Constitutional Issues’ Category
by Thomas E. Brewton
Since the 1930s, most Americans have come to believe in a fairy tale that has no happy ending. Democrats' victories in the recent elections have revived the fairy tale.
Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz, in a November 13, 2006, article explores the unresolved questions and internal debates remaining after the recent congressional elections.
One of those questions, as he sees it, is:
Equally important is the question of which party can adequately address the twin problems of keeping the United States competitive in a global economy and restoring the social contract that has helped provide economic security to workers and that has been shattered as a result of the corporate restructuring that globalization has brought about.
Mr. Balz is working under a false assumption: the expectation that the Federal government controls business, as well as the idea that it is possible to have a "social contract" under which government can effectively provide economic security to workers.
That assumption originates in the religion of socialism, which presumes that councils of intellectual planners, backed by technocratic administrators, are capable of managing businesses better than businessmen. Intellectuals and technocrats theoretically are motivated solely by the common good, not by private greed for profit. Businesses therefore, in theory, will be more efficient and be able to support full employment at all times when under government control.
In practice, this hasn't worked well, a typical example being the collapse of the socialistic EU's technocratically-managed AirBus and the resurgence of Boeing.
The term "social contract" was most famously used by John Locke in 1689 and by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1762. Locke's conception, not Rousseau's, was the basis of our War of Independence in 1776.
Locke erected a theoretical framework for a government of inherently limited powers. Even the king is subject to God's higher law of morality, which embraces the natural-law rights of individuals. Individuals, when they entered a social contract to create political society, retained inalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property. Hence our 1776 slogan, "No taxation without representation."
By Thomas E. Brewton
In the political sphere, Progressivism is a synonym for socialism, and for our sect called liberalism. Socialism necessitates collectivized power at the highest levels of the political state, leaving open a pathway to totalitarianism. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to march along that pathway.
The founding generation were essentially unanimous in their understanding that humans are almost ungovernable, that human nature is far from the imagined perfection of the state of nature theorized in the 18th and 19th centuries by French predecessors of today's liberal-socialists.
As James Madison famously expressed it in Federalist No. 51:
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John Jay, and almost all the other founders, understood that the Constitution would be effective only in a society ordered by morality. Just as governments were subject to the higher law of nature, individuals were subject to the higher law of morality. Free political societies require the cosmic authority of religion to keep the people at least headed in the direction of virtue.
Socialism, in contrast, is an atheistic, materialistic religion that denies the existence of natural law and inalienable individual rights. Not the individual, but an abstraction called humanity is the unit of focus under socialism.
As we saw under socialism in Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's National Socialism, when there is no overarching restraint imposed by belief in God, the dignity of individuals, and the sanctity of life, there can be no limit on the class-based, arbitrary cruelty of political leaders. When a popular majority supports the political leaders, as in Russia of the 1920s and Germany of the 1930s, whole segments of the population may be liquidated for the "greater good."
Read the rest of this entry »
Documents produced through the Freedom of Information Act now proves the existence of the fledging North American Union as a "shadow" trilateral government" between Mexico, Canada, and U.S. The U.S. Department of Commerce has had a lead hand inputting this shadow government in place without any congressional oversight.
According to WND columnist and author Jerome R. Corsi:
Among the initial discoveries, said Corsi, is the existence of an internal Intranet website that never has been revealed to Congress or the public.
"This private internal website," he claims, "undoubtedly contains a wealth of documentation that the FOIA request has so far intentionally excluded."
[...] "We have here the beginnings of a whitewash," he said, "in which SPP evidently thinks the public will be hoodwinked by a 'Myths vs. Facts' document posted for public relations purposes on their public website."
[...] "There is no specific authorization for this massive administrative-branch integration with Mexico and Canada other than what amounts to a press conference jointly issued by President Bush, Mexico's President Vicente Fox, and Canada's then-Prime Minister Paul Martin on March 23, 2005, at the end of their summit in Waco, Texas," Corsi said.
Corsi added that even the "Myth vs. Facts" blurb on the SPP.gov website admits the SPP is neither a treaty nor a law. (World Net Daily)
We should pray that Congress takes this threat against our freedoms and sovereignty seriously and puts an end to this illegal "shadow" government.
Congress appears to have had enough of the activist Supreme Court and their law making decisions. Several bills have been presented that will stem the Court from acting out of the bounds. Article I of the U.S. Constitution spells out the authority to make laws in our country to Congress, not the Supreme Court. Article III spells out the limits of the Supreme Court. It is no wonder that Article I is five times larger than Article III.
These bills will keep the Supreme Court in check.
• H.R. 1100, Marriage Protection Act of 2005:This bill would keep federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing cases related to Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
• H.R. 4364, Public Prayer Protection Act:
The Supreme Court would not be allowed to review any “establishment of religion” cases involving public prayer by a government agency, officer or agent.
• H.R. 4379, We the People Act:
“The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate: “(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; “(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or “(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and “(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).”
To quote H.R. 5013: “In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, certain agencies confiscated the firearms of [citizens of the State of Louisiana], in contravention of the Second Amendment, depriving these citizens of the right to keep and bear arms and rendering them helpless against criminal activity.”
The “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006” (H.R. 5013 in the House and S. 2599 in the Senate) would prohibit federal law enforcement officers, military officers, or others operating under federal law or receiving federal funds, while operating in support of an emergency relief operation, from seizing any firearm that would normally be legal to possess.
Additionally, officials may not require registration of any firearm, or prohibit possession of any firearm, if such actions would not normally be required in non-emergency situations. They may also not order the disarming of persons otherwise authorized to carry firearms, simply because those individuals are operating under the control of a federal agency in an emergency relief operation.
This legislation would prevent the opening of an impending loophole in the Second Amendment. Would-be tyrants could brand any situation an “emergency” in order to suspend the right to keep and bear arms. H.R. 5013/S. 2599 would nip that idea in the bud. As we write, the proposal has 106 cosponsors in the House and 13 in the Senate.
Contact your Congressman and Senators and let them know your stance on this vital issue.
by Thomas E. Brewton
The View from 1776
It’s a pity that the Bill of Rights didn’t incorporate language found in many of the contemporary state constitutions.
Many of the state constitutions, between the time of the Articles of Confederation and our 1787 Constitution, contained clauses similar to Delaware’s, granting freedom of worship “…unless under color of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society.”
Were such language in the First Amendment, vast numbers of vexatious problems could have been avoided. For instance, the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1940s of employing sound trucks to blare out messages to Catholics on their way to Easter Sunday mass, declaring that the Roman Catholic Church is the"great whore of Babylon” and that Catholics are all damned to hell. The result in some cases was civil disturbance requiring police to prevent mayhem. It was such cases that resulted in the Supreme Court’s present-day doctrines of “separation of church and state,” under the ACLU construction of free speech as inclusive of any sort of conduct, no matter how offensive to the majority of people.
Provisions against disturbing the peace, happiness, or safety of society would also have enabled authorities in the early decades of the 20th century to clamp down on provocateurs advocating the atheistic, materialistic, and anti-Constitutional religion of socialism, as well as dealing today with Islamic Imams who preach hatred and death to non-Muslim American citizens.
With regard to my categorization of socialism as a materialistic religion, see Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established National Religion.
For more information on this important series dealing with the intents of our Founding Fathers, please read: Part One and Part Two
About the author:
Thomas E. Brewton, who maintains the blog, The View from 1776, had the great good fortune in the middle 1950s at Louisiana State University to study under two of the 20th century's great minds: Eric Voegelin in political science, and Walter Berns in Constitutional law. These two professors opened the door of education to a glimpse of Western civilization and of American political and social thought as they had been before socialism was unconstitutionally established as the official national religion of the United States in 1933.
The View from 1776 presents a framework to understand present-day issues from the viewpoint of the colonists who fought for American independence in 1776 and wrote the Constitution in 1787.
The veterans organization, the American Legion, is behind the push to stop taxpayers money going to the ACLU. Many of the ACLU's legal agenda includes fighting against monuments and other public displays that display any religious symbol.
Joe March, director of public relations for the American Legion, said the legislation "would amend or revise the Civil Rights Act, in terms of eliminating the ability of judges to award attorney's fees, in cases where there is litigation brought against religious symbols in this country … and things such as the Boy Scouts and public seals."
"Not only are organizations like the ACLU and others taking action against our American values, our religious symbols, our heritage and veterans memorials, but then if they are successful in the process, then they are having the courts award them tax dollars in attorney's fees even though they are organizations that work pro bono," March told Cybercast News Service on Thursday.
The legal organizations defending citizens against the cases brought on by the ACLU never receive payment form taxpayers.
Some U.S. senators this week have heard testimony from both sides on a piece of legislation that would strip legal fees from church-state lawsuits. Such legal victories, often described as "Establishment Clause" cases, have provided the American Civil Liberties Union with millions of dollars in profits as it pursues numerous cases challenging public displays of religious belief in America.
The Public Expressions of Religion Act (PERA) (S. 3696) was the topic of discussion at hearings on Wednesday (August 2) before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The U.S. House is considering similar legislation (H.R. 2679) that is sponsored by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler. Brownback has made it clear in recent weeks that if groups like the ACLU want to sue city after city for displays of religious images, it should be on their own dime — not at taxpayers' expense. (Agape Press)
Washington D.C. – March 2, the Homeland Security and Governmental Reform Committee passed by a vote of 10-6 the Lieberman-Levin Amendment to regulate certain activities pertaining to so-called "grassroots lobbying." Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement:
"Today the Senate committee voted to impose unconstitutional and unfair restraints on non-profit, grassroots activity. The Lieberman-Levin amendment grants Congress the authority to scrutinize and regulate the constitutionally protected efforts of groups to alert citizens regarding legislative developments in Congress.
"Reasoned attempts to address the concerns emerging from the Abramoff scandal should not be used as an excuse for incumbent officer-holders to encroach upon our most basic Constitutional liberties. However, the amendment approved by the committee today violates the constitutionally protected right of citizens to petition government, stifles debate, and shuts out the voice of average citizens.
"This amendment is a red herring, it take the focus off the corruption surrounding high paid lobbyists, and attempts to make non-profit citizen groups the whipping boy. The full Senate should protect the constitutional right of citizens to petition Congress by stripping this misguided amendment when the measure reaches the Senate floor."
NEWPORT NEWS, Va.— In a recent ruling, the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia has dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit filed by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute on behalf of teacher William Lee, whose religious-themed materials were removed from the walls of his classroom while he was out sick. The lawsuit, Lee v. York County School Division, et al., was filed in August 2005 and alleged that the selective removal of Christian materials constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Institute attorneys had argued that school officials with the York County School Division deprived William Lee of his rights to freedom of speech and equal protection under the law. The District Court ruled that Lee’s expression constituted expression as an employee of the School Division in the course of the school’s curriculum and so was subject to plenary control by school officials. Additionally, the court held that notwithstanding evidence that teachers at the school were generally allowed to post matters on their walls that were of personal interest or current interest, the school had not created a forum for expression within the school in which Lee had a right to engage in personal expression. Institute attorneys plan to appeal the court’s ruling.
WEST CHESTER, Pa. – Chester County District Court Judge Mark Bruno decided at a preliminary hearing on Tuesday (2-28-06) to hold Michael Marcavage over for trial on a charge of “Defiant Trespass” for his refusal to surrender his constitutionally protected rights while ministering on a public sidewalk near a Pennsylvania college campus.
In October of last year, Repent America director Michael Marcavage was standing on a public sidewalk with a sign displaying the reality of abortion next to the state campus of West Chester University during the organization’s annual pro-life evangelism tour. In response, university officials ordered campus police to issue the ministry director a trespassing citation for not submitting to its permitting process, which requires that a registration form be completed and approved two hours in advance before any expressive activity can be conducted on or near the public campus. The permit process violates constitutionally protected rights under both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
During the preliminary hearing, prosecution argued that Marcavage violated the university policy by not registering and giving two hours notice before engaging in expressive activity. C. Scott Shields, Marcavage’s attorney, argued that there is no merit to the “Defiant Trespass” since the policy is facially unconstitutional because it prohibits anonymous and spontaneous speech on public property, and therefore, the case should not go to trial. After hearing argument, Judge Bruno decided to hold Marcavage for trial, releasing him on a $1,000 unsecured bond and ordering that he not return to the campus for ministry or for any other reason. The case is now headed to a jury trial, which could result in up to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.