Constitution

All things related to the Constitution, either in reference, restoring it or the violations of it daily.

Murray Sabrin Issues Statement on “Double-Dealer” Diane Feinstein

0

 

Source: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com

By

Murray Sabrin Issues Statement on “Double-Dealer” Diane Feinstein

 

The Murray Sabrin campaign has issued the following statement, following news that the CIA has been spying on Congress.

For Dianne Feinstein and constitutionally protected civil liberties, what’s good for the goose is a violation of the gander’s rights, says U.S. Senate candidate Murray Sabrin

 
murraysabrin2014“When it comes to respecting the Constitution and the privacy rights of Americans, for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, what’s good for the goose is an outrageous violation of the gander’s rights,” said U.S. Senate candidate Murray Sabrin. “It’s no skin off her nose when the National Security Agency does it to us, but when the Central Intelligence Agency does it to her, it’s a constitutional crisis.”

“Shouldn’t the same rules apply to both the goose and the gander?” questioned Sabrin.

In the wake of revelations that the CIA may have rooted through U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee files as part of an ongoing congressional review of agency practices, Feinstein, a California Democrat and chair of the committee, took to the Senate floor on Tuesday to fulminate against it for violating  “principles embodied in the United States Constitution.”

In her speech she accused the agency of violating  “Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, as well as laws against domestic surveillance.”

All well and good and, when the facts are revealed, perhaps entirely justified, but Ms. Feinstein sang a markedly different tune last month when she offered what  one report called “a full-throated defense of the (NSA’s) collection of data on billions of American phone calls.”

“There’s no question but what the NSA’s monitoring of the private communications of law-abiding Americans is unconstitutional,” said Sabrin. “And this view is shared across the political spectrum - even former Vice President Al Gore agrees with it.”

“Yes, there are real threats, and we must be cognizant of them, remaining vigilant at all times. The best way to do that is to start in our own backyard by respecting and zealously guarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties, including the right to be free from unwarranted government snooping,” said Sabrin.

“If the purpose of our national intelligence effort is to protect our freedom and liberty, it makes absolutely no sense to destroy them in the process. That thinking tosses the baby out with the bath water,” he said. “My next door neighbor on her cell phone is no less deserving of constitutional protection than Sen. Feinstein.”

Feinstein has a  track record of double dealing on constitutionally protected civil liberties. For years, she’s been one of the Senate’s leading advocates of harsh and punitive gun-control legislation, never seeing a restriction on or the outlawing of a type of firearm she didn’t like. But in the meantime, she didn’t think twice about arming herself when faced with threats against herself and her family, a right she doesn’t think Americans deserve as if they can’t be trusted with it.

And what of New Jersey’s junior Sen. Cory Booker, the politician Sabrin seeks to replace this coming Election Day – how has he weighed in on the important issue of safeguarding the constitutional liberties of Americans? Apparently, he’s a complete MIA.

A search of online news sources revealed that Booker has been silent on Fourth Amendment and surveillance issues since last October’s Senate Special Election campaign, where he was harshly criticized by fellow New Jersey Democrats who ran against him in the primary for being all over the lot on the issue in a seeming effort to please whomever he was speaking with at the moment.
This time around, he’s completely silent.

“While issues of violations of our constitutionally protected civil liberties are being debated in the U.S. Senate and throughout the country, Cory Booker is dropping F-bombs on Twitter and talking about driving to Hawaii ,” said Sabrin. “He’s not even bothering to phone it in. Maybe he’s afraid the NSA will listen in.”

###

sabrin-ad

Imaged added to Bob’s original post with image credit to murraysabrin2014.com

Related post: Surveillance State advocate Diane Feinstein cries about CIA searching of her committee’s computers

 

Where In The Constitution Does It Say Obama Can Rule By Decree And “Do Whatever He Wants”?

2

 

Source: http://endoftheamericandream.com

By Michael Snyder

Where In The Constitution Does It Say Obama Can Rule By Decree And “Do Whatever He Wants”?

 

Obama-I-Have-A-Pen-300x300By making “at least a dozen major adjustments” to Obamacare without congressional approval, Barack Obama is making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution.  Throughout human history, political power has always tended to become concentrated in the hands of one man.  The Founding Fathers knew this, and they tried very hard to keep that from happening in the United States.  A system in which the people rule themselves is a very precious and fragile thing.  As humans, we all have the tendency to want more power.  That is why a “separation of powers” was such a radical concept.  As Bill Federer is constantly pointing out, the Founding Fathers made our federal government inefficient on purpose.  They wanted a system of checks and balances that would make it difficult to push through major changes very rapidly.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama has become extremely frustrated by this and has expressed his intention to rule by decree as much as he can during the remainder of his second term.

In our system, the legislature is supposed to make the laws, and the executive branch is supposed to execute them.  But Obama does not seem to care for that arrangement too much.  Just recently, he made the following statement…

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

And during a visit to Monticello on Monday, Obama said the following…

“That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.”

Of course that was probably a joke, but it just reveals what his mindset is.

Obama believes that he has a tremendous amount of power, and he has consistently exhibited a blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

This week, Obama made another major change to the Affordable Care Act without getting congressional approval.  At this point, it has become clear that Obama believes that he can change any law, for any reason, any time that he likes.

The following is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about this most recent lawless act…

‘ObamaCare” is useful shorthand for the Affordable Care Act not least because the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the law’s employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever.

This latest “modification” directly contradicts the plain language of the law, and if the American people do not object to this it will let Obama (and all other future presidents) know that they truly “can do whatever they want”.

Charles Krauthammer is completely outraged by all of this.  He says that this is the kind of “stuff you do in a banana republic”…

But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
 
It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes — and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.

And he is right.

For those that have not read it, the U.S. Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed“.

If Obama wants part of Obamacare to be changed, he must ask Congress to change it.

He cannot change laws all by himself.

As Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell stated last year, the Office of Legal Counsel for the Justice Department “has always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to ‘refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.’”

What in the world is happening to this country?

Meanwhile, those that are objecting to the lawless behavior of the Obama administration are increasingly being portrayed as national security threats.  This is also the kind of thing that we are accustomed to seeing in banana republics.  According to a recent WND article, the Ohio Army National Guard conducted a training drill last year in which the “enemies” were supporters of the 2nd Amendment and had “right-wing beliefs“…

Internal documents from an Ohio Army National Guard training drill conducted in January 2013 describe the details of a mock disaster in which Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” beliefs were portrayed as domestic terrorists.
 
The Guard’s 52nd Civil Support Unit and first responders in hazmat suits conducted the training exercise last year in Portmouth, Ohio. In the terror-attack scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School teachers follow orders from a white-nationalist leader to poison school lunches with mustard gas to advance their “right-wing” beliefs about gun rights.
 
“It’s the reality of the world we live in,” Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin told WSAZ-TV. “Don’t forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared.”

Sadly, this was far from an isolated incident.  For many more examples, please see my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“.

Whether you support Barack Obama or you are deeply opposed to him, hopefully we can all agree that he needs to follow the law.

Hopefully good sense will prevail and Obama will stop trying to rule by decree.  There is a reason why we have a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.  One man is not supposed to make all of the decisions.  The members of Congress should be loudly objecting to this massive power grab by Obama.

Please pray for Barack Obama and for Congress.  Up to this point, they have been behaving very foolishly.  Let us pray that they will soon return to following the U.S. Constitution.

Obama-I-Have-A-Pen-460x306

 

This article first appeared here at the The American Dream.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

 

 

3dnew3-240x300


Image credit: http://endoftheamericandream.com
 

Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?

0

 

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org

By Ron Paul

Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?

 

ronpaul-tst

 

President Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority.  Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most Presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.

Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and polices without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively adding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.

Executive orders are perfectly legitimate and even necessary if, in the words of leading Constitutional Scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, they “….  guide the executive branch on how to enforce a law or…complement and supplement what Congress has already done.” The problem is that most modern presidents have abused this power to issue orders that, as Judge Napolitano puts it, “restates federal law, or contradicts federal law, or does the opposite of what the federal law is supposed to do.”

Political opponents of the president rightly condemned Obama for disregarding the Constitution. However, it was not that long ago that many of the same politicians where labeling as “unpatriotic” or worse anyone who dared question President Bush’s assertions the he had the “inherent” authority to launch wars, spy on Americans, and even indefinitely detain American citizens.

Partisan considerations also make some members of the opposition party hesitate to reign in the president. These members are reluctant to set a precedent of “tying the president’s hands” that could be used against a future president of their own party.

The concentration of power in the office of the president is yet one more negative consequence of our interventionist foreign policy. A foreign policy based on interventionism requires a strong and energetic executive, unfettered by Constitutional niceties such as waiting for Congress to pass laws or declare war.  So it simply was natural, as America abandoned the traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism, for presidents to act “without waiting for Congress.” After all, the president is “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect “national security,” they argued. Once it became accepted practice for the president to disregard Congress in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before presidents would begin usurping Congressional authority in domestic matters.

It should not be surprising that some of the biggest promoters of an “energetic” executive are the neoconservatives. They are also enthusiastic promoters of the warfare state. Sadly, they have misled many constitutionalists into believing that one can consistently support unchecked presidential authority in foreign policy, but limit presidential authority in domestic matters. Until it is fully understood that virtually limitless presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot coexist with strict limits on Presidential authority in domestic matters, we will never limit the power of the Presidency.

The people must also insist that politicians stop viewing issues concerning the separation of powers through a partisan lens and instead be willing to act against any president who exceeds his constitutional limitations. Thankfully we have scholars such as Louis Fisher, who has just published an important new book on presidential power, to help us better understand the Founders’ intent with regard to separation of powers. The key to achieving this goal is to make sure the people understand that any president of any party who would exceed constitutional limitations is a threat to liberty, and any member of Congress who ignores or facilitates presidential usurpation is being derelict in his Constitutional duty.

 

The Obama Constitution

0

 

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com

By Tyler Durden

The Obama Constitution

 

Presented with no comment…

 

obama_const

 

Source: Investors.com

 

How does money move between the States and Feds?

0

 

How does money move between the States and Feds?

 

1-11-2014 1-58-40 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

Constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira sits down with Gary Franchi and answers the question… How does money move between the States and Feds?

Download your free Next News “Heroes & Villains” Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h…

LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet

 

What are unalienable rights?

0

 

What are unalienable rights?

 

Dr. Edwin Vieira3

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

Constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira sits down with Gary Franchi and answers the question… What are unalienable rights?

Download your free Next News “Heroes & Villains” Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h…

Judge Andrew Napolitano Explains Court Ruling on NSA, Describes Conspiracy Against US Constitution

0

 

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org

By Adam Dick

Judge Andrew Napolitano Explains Court Ruling on NSA, Describes Conspiracy Against US Constitution

 

napolitano-Paul_240x166In interviews Monday and Tuesday, Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the Monday United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruling that certain US National Security Agency mass spying activities are “almost certainly unconstitutional”—a ruling that buttresses Napolitano’s column last week describing such mass spying as a criminal conspiracy to violate rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

In a Fox and Friends interview with Elisabeth Hasselbeck Tuesday, Napolitano, an RPI Advisory Board member, explains conclusions of the court ruling he believes the US Supreme Court will ultimately review:

So not only is this unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment, not only is this wrong because it permits the government to listen to all phone calls and keep copies of them forever, but there isn’t even any evidence that it works.

Speaking Monday with Stuart Varney on Fox Business’s Varney and Company, Napolitano expresses how beyond the pale the NSA’s mass spying activities are by comparing the NSA’s dragnet surveillance to Napolitano’s experience with search warrant requests in his former career as a New Jersey state judge. Napolitano explains:

You know I sat on the bench in our home state for many years. I probably signed hundreds, maybe thousands, of search warrants. If the police came to me and said, “We want a search warrant for everybody in this zip code because we are looking for one bad guy,” I wouldn’t have signed it, and no judge in the state would have signed it.

Watch the Fox and Friends interview here and the Varney and Company interview, with the portion regarding mass spying starting at time marker 2:24, here.

Napolitano describes in his column from last week the criminal conspiracies behind mass spying in the US, involving conspirators from US presidents to telecom employees to local police. The column begins with the following:

FULL STORY

Image credit: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

 

Bill of Rights Inherently Usurped by Presidents – Shahid Buttar

0

 

Bill of Rights Inherently Usurped by Presidents – Shahid Buttar

 

12-18-2013 6-48-53 PM

Next News Network video capture

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

Published on Dec 17, 2013

Every December 15th, people celebrate Bill of Rights Day. Although not a major holiday, liberty supporters and fans of American history make note of the anniversary each year.

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1789, containing the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These changes were written just eight days after the earlier founding document. It was adopted to appease anti-federalists, who may not have otherwise supported ratification of the Constitution. These amendments are meant to restrict power exercised by the national government.

Many people are now concerned that actions by governing bodies at all levels are violating human rights guaranteed by that document. Other observers contend that modern concerns like terrorism and increasingly deadly weapons make parts of the bill obsolete.

Shahid Buttar s a civil rights lawyer, author and community organizer. He is head of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and is co-director of the Rule of Law Institute. In 2004, he led the movement in Washington DC, legalizing same-sex marriage.

Buttar is our guest on the show today.

LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3

 

Why John Boehner And Paul Ryan Should Immediately Resign

0

 

Source: http://endoftheamericandream.com

By Michael Snyder

Why John Boehner And Paul Ryan Should Immediately Resign

 

U.S.-Capitol-Photo-by-Lance-Cheung2-300x300Thomas Jefferson once said that “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”  In other words, he believed that government debt was the equivalent of stealing money from future generations on a massive scale.  Right now, the U.S. government is stealing roughly $100,000,000 from future generations of Americans every single hour of every single day.  And it is being projected that the U.S. national debt will more than double during the 8 years of the Obama administration.  In other words, the federal government will pile more debt on to the backs of our children and our grandchildren during the Obama years than had been accumulated during all of the rest of U.S. history combined.  The federal government is literally destroying the future of America, and what we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is beyond criminal.  If there was one thing that the Republicans in Congress were supposed to do, it was to do something about all of this debt.  These days Republicans can’t seem to agree on much, but the one issue that virtually all “conservatives” were supposed to agree on was the national debt.  The American people gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and 2012 for a reason.  Unfortunately, nothing has been done.  Our debt has continued to spiral out of control and now John Boehner and Paul Ryan are pushing a “budget deal” that will essentially give the free-spending Democrats virtually everything that they want for the next 10 years.  That is why John Boehner and Paul Ryan should immediately resign.

This “budget deal” actually increases the deficit in the short-term.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Overall, it is supposed to reduce the federal budget deficit by about 20 billion dollars over the next decade.  But even if the unrealistic assumptions that those numbers are based upon end up working out (which they never do), the “savings” will average just 2 billion dollars a year over the next decade.

And considering the fact that federal budget deficits will likely average well over a trillion dollars over that time span, that is a complete and total joke.

It is kind of like spitting into Niagara Falls and thinking that it will actually make a difference.

Even Paul Ryan is admitting that “this isn’t the greatest agreement of all time”, and in interviews he is complaining that the Democrats wouldn’t allow him to do more.

As if we are supposed to feel sorry for him.

Look – according to the U.S. Constitution the federal government cannot spend a single penny without the approval of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Democrats cannot force the Republicans to do anything.

So if the national debt more than doubles during the Obama administration it is the fault of both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul called the proposed budget deal “shameful“, and he was exactly correct.

It is utterly shameful that the Republicans believe that it is just fine to steal more than 10 trillion dollars from future generations of Americans during the Obama years.

It is utterly shameful that the Republicans believe that it is just fine that the U.S. government has accumulated more than 200 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities that will need to be paid in future years.

It is utterly shameful that the Republicans believe that it is just fine to keep running up a debt that is now more than 37 times larger than it was just 40 years ago.

But instead of doing something to fix this, House Speaker John Boehner is blasting those that are concerned about all of this debt

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who ceded control of the budget talks to Ryan, likewise pushed back on outside groups’ attempts to influence lawmakers. “They’re using our members, and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” Boehner said, “This is ridiculous. Listen, if you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”

The Democrats don’t even have to attack fiscal conservatives anymore because the Republican leadership is taking care of that job for them.

And John Boehner has got to be joking when he uses the phrase “deficit reduction” in relation to this proposed budget deal.  In fact, even CNN is admitting that it essentially does nothing to help our long-term debt problems…

It doesn’t really move the needle much on the country’s long-term debt trajectory. That’s because Ryan and Murray opted for pragmatism, explicitly ruling out wrestling over entitlement and tax reform in this round of negotiations.

Back on September 30th, 2012 our national debt was sitting at a total of 16.07 trillion dollars.

Today, it is up to 17.23 trillion dollars.

That means that we have added 1.16 trillion dollars to the national debt in a little more than 14 months.

This is a recipe for national suicide.

We were the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet, but that was never good enough for us.

We always had to spend even more.

Now we have accumulated the greatest mountain of debt the world has ever seen, and someday if our children and our grandchildren have the chance they will curse us for what we have done to them.

Anyone that has run up massive amounts of credit card debt knows that the ride up can be quite enjoyable.  At times, it can seem like the good times will go on forever and that there will never really be any consequences.

But in the end, a very painful day of reckoning always arrives.

The rest of the world is watching what is going on.  They can see us running up all this debt.  The can see the Federal Reserve wildly printing up money.

At some point the rest of the world is going to stop using our increasingly unstable currency to trade with one another and they are going to stop lending us trillions of dollars at super low interest rates.

When that time arrives, the consequences of decades of very foolish decisions will catch up to us very rapidly.

If only we had listened to our forefathers.

Thomas Jefferson once said that if he could add just one more amendment to the U.S. Constitution it would be a complete ban on all borrowing by the federal government

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.

How much better off would we be today if we had only listened to him?

U.S.-Capitol-Photo-by-Lance-Cheung2-460x258

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article first appeared here at the The American Dream.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here



Image credit: http://endoftheamericandream.com

 

Does the radical expansion of presidential powers under Bush and Obama threaten the country?

0

 
Source: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org
By Nick Sorrentino
 

Does the radical expansion of presidential powers under Bush and Obama threaten the country?

 

20131205-125455.jpg

 
Bush and Obama have different flavors. But both are crony capitalists. Bush was the Republican version, Obama is the Democrat version. Both have sought to more closely link business and government, to expand the presidency and bureaucracy, and to reduce the inherent freedoms of the American people.

They both like power. They both (I believe anyway) see the Constitution as something to get around, not something to celebrate. Both have taken this country down a very dangerous path.

(From Real Clear Politics)

The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

Click here for the article.

Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org

Go to Top