Posts tagged Constitution

UPDATE: Up to 5,000 Armed Militia Members Will Be Arriving in Bunkerville, Nevada Today

0

 

Source: http://www.shtfplan.com

By Kimberly Paxton

UPDATE: Up to 5,000 Armed Militia Members Will Be Arriving in Bunkerville, Nevada Today

 

Update: Word on the street from sources close to the militia movement is that up to 5,000 armed militia members will be arriving in Bunkerville, Nevada sometime today. (See full report below)

SHTFplan.com Editor’s Note: It is apparent that the Federal government was under the impression that they could simply move into the ranch land surrounding Bunkerville, NV and have their way with the property and livelihood of the Bundy family. What they didn’t count on was the outcry from Americans across the country. And now things may be headed to the next level. As Kim Paxton of The Daily Sheeple notes, citizen militias in several states have been called up. Many members of those organizations are taking up arms and are making their way to Nevada.

And it’s not just the citizen militias that are preparing to take action. The governor of Nevada has officially condemned the federal government’s actions, though he has yet to take any steps afforded to him under State law. Sheriff Richard Mack of Gilbert, Arizona has weighed in and calls the actions “terrorism.”

At last count there were some 200 federal agents from various agencies on the ground in Nevada and it appears that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of armed militia members will soon arrive to confront them.

The Federal government will no doubt step up their efforts, as they are facing the possibility of a widespread rebellion resulting from their actions against a private citizen whose only “crime” was to graze his cattle on the land his family has used for this purpose for over a century. It would not be at all surprising to see the President of the United States call up National Guard troops and more militarized law enforcement officials for fear of having this spiral out of control. A declaration of martial law to go along with already established First Amendment Areas is not out of the question.

We may well be on the cusp of a serious stand-off involving thousands of people. Keep in mind that most of them will be armed.

Given the circumstances, things could turn very bloody very quickly.

American-Standoff-2014

Militias Are On Route: Is the 2nd American Revolution Starting in Bunkerville, Nevada?
By Kim Paxton via The Daily Sheeple

An area just outside of the little town of Bunkerville, Nevada, with a population of around a thousand people, may go down in history.  This little spot in the desert may be compared with Lexington, Massachusetts, the site of the “shot heard round the world” – the first shot fired in the American Revolution.  Because it looks like the second American Revolution may start there…and soon.

Yesterday, The Daily Sheeple reported that tensions were running high outside of Bunkerville. It seems that the US government, in all of their infinite wisdom, has declared war on a cattle rancher named Cliven Bundy.

In a stand-off that has been likened to Ruby Ridge and Waco, the federal government has now deployed armed agents in a case of what the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has deemed “trespass cattle,” escalating a 20-year battle over grazing rights and what actually constitutes “public land” use in Southern Nevada.
 
Cliven Bundy, a 67-year-old rancher says his family has worked the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s and that they were there well before the government’s Land Management Bureau ever came along. (source)

Armed federal officers have arrived to steal Bundy’s cattle and close down the land he is using.  What’s more, they have declared a zone around the area to be free of the restrictions of the Constitution, specifically, the First Amendment right to assemble and speak freely. They’d like to keep their reprehensible actions quiet and out of the public eye. It’s really difficult to mow down a bunch of protesters ala Waco with the whole world watching.

Yesterday, tensions began to rise even further and numerous protestors were tazed and assaulted.  (You can see the actions of those brave BLM officers on this video HERE).

It looks like tensions will rise even further because Americans have had enough.

Militias have been mobilised. It’s going to get real.

Bundy may be facing down a bunch of armed federal thugs but he’s going to be backed up by militia members from across the country.

This is the day that Patriots have been talking about and training for. They will not stand down.

YouTube Preview Image

CBS reports that militias from Texas, Montana, Utah, New Hampshire, and Florida will be standing with Bundy against the Bureau of Land Management.

If you aren’t a combatant, this doesn’t mean that you can’t participate in this revolt against tyranny.  This is a call to action.

Here are the pertinent email addresses and phone numbers:

(source)

Share information in support of these people who refuse to stand idly by while theft, violence, and tyranny occurs at the hands of the government.  If we all spread the word, there is no way that another Ruby Ridge or Waco can quietly occur. We can combat the disinformation spouted by the mainstream media by publishing REAL photos, REAL videos, and REAL accounts of what is happening. We can keep the communication open and tell the world what the United States government is doing to its own people.

Share this and other stories through email, through social media, through links in the comments sections of mainstream news sites.  Whatever you do, don’t wait for someone else to take action. Now is the time to speak up for liberty.  Make this story too viral for the mainstream to ignore.  Do not allow these brave people staring down the barrel of a gun to do so without our support.

The Bureau of Land Management has picked up a snake by the tail, and it looks like that snake is going to bite.

blm-nevada

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.

###
Let us hope calm heads prevail and the situation does not escalate into a violent nature.


 

Nationalism or Internationalism? (video)

0

 

Nationalism or Internationalism?

 

111a

Next News Network video capture

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by Gary Franchi

About:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama are working both sides of the Atlantic this week. But their mutual target is Russia. Reid is busy on Capitol Hill in that regard, while the President is on a week long European tour. While Reid and Obama are wrestling with several issues besides Russia, they’re sending a mutual message that the U.S. will punish Russia for its military operation in Ukraine.

Furthermore, a pricey aid package for the newly installed Ukrainian government based in Kiev is in the works.

President Obama is meeting with leaders from the G-7 nations. His stop in Holland yesterday was widely regarded as an attempt to isolate Russian President Vladimir Putin and deter him from moving his forces beyond the Crimean peninsula and further into Ukraine.

Obama and the G-7 allies have also firmed up their decision to remove Russia from the annual G-8 economic summit. The removal appears to be official, which is why the G-8 is now being called the G-7.

Notably, the G-7 will meet in June 2014 in Brussels, Belgium, to discuss what organizers say is “a broad agenda.”

But what Obama and his allies are doing overseas has a way of softening up the folks back home in America—to justify foreign aid for Ukraine.

On the home front, Sen. Reid is stumping for an aid package for Ukraine as Congress embarks on a marathon session this week. Reid expects the Senate to work right through the weekend as President Obama wraps up his overseas trip.

For the record, the Senate:
· Will reconsider extending jobless benefits.
· Furthermore, unless Congress takes corrective action by April 1st, Medicare reimbursements to doctors will be slashed by nearly 25%.
· Reid also wants to officially raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. But Republican support is lacking on that so far.

However, the first order of business this week will be the Ukraine-aid bill, which calls for $1 billion in loan guarantees.

Reid noted: “I am hopeful and somewhat confident that this legislation will receive the bipartisan support it deserves.”

But does a Ukraine-aid bill really deserve support?

During this busy phase in Washington, the missing argument is that the U.S. can scarcely afford the time and the money to play both sides of the ocean to aid Ukraine via the IMF.
Foreign aid is preferable to going to war, but the Constitution is silent on foreign aid. This means that the national charter does not authorize providing such aid in the first place.

Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced: “[I]t’s important to note that for every dollar the United States contributes to the IMF, other countries provide 4 dollars more.”

Lew added that the U.S. has developed an actual “package of bilateral assistance focused on meeting the most pressing needs in Ukraine, to include a 1 billion-dollar loan guarantee.”

Lew also has urged Congress to approve legislation to “support the capacity of the International Monetary Fund to lend additional resources to Ukraine.”

However, if money must be spent, it’s arguably better to avoid Medicare cuts and extend jobless aid for Americans—instead of extending foreign aid.

Indeed, all this talk in Congress and by President Obama to isolate Russia misses a key point.

That point is as follows: In a way, America needs to isolate itself from world commitments which force U.S. taxpayers to guarantee international loans. Like never before, the U.S. needs to get its own house in order.

Simply put, we need to operate on a more nationalistic impulse—not more internationalism.

http://NextNewsNetwork.com | Next News Network’s WHDT World News Program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://usmediavault.com/WHDT.html

WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.

WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.

More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT

Like us on Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet

Follow us on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…

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

 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Achilles Heel?

0

 

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Achilles Heel?

 

2-18-2014 6-09-17 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

WASHINGTON DC | President Obama’s pledge to forge huge free trade deals may conflict with his party loyalties. Furthermore, the way these trade deals work virtually guarantees that the president will negotiate them without Congressional oversight. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to properly regulate trade with foreign nations. But several Congress members have complained they’re being kept in the dark.

The New York Times reports that Obama wants to finalize the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal in greater Asia. But that’s not all. The president also is pursuing a U.S.-European Union trade agreement supported by NATO, the Brookings Institution, Bilderberg Group members and other globalist jet-setters.

These two trade pacts cover an enormous part of the world’s population and GDP. Together, they make NAFTA look like chump change. But, like NAFTA, they threaten to further pillage national economies and create more poverty while the world’s top elite reap most of the rewards.

But beyond negotiating these deals without Congress, the president is getting his pants caught on a nail regarding party politics. It seems these trade deals conflict with Obama’s more immediate political goal of maintaining unity among fellow Democrats. Many Democrats believe that these free trade agreements will harm the economy and destroy Democratic Party efforts to enhance income equality.

Furthermore, Democrats fear a backlash from these trade deals in midterm House and Senate elections.

Free trade agreements typically are put into force with strong Republican backing. Democrats have the honor of saying their party is less to blame for inflicting these trade deals on the nation. After over 10 years of NAFTA, the hand writing is on the wall that these trade deals spell bad news for the manufacturing sector and the middle class.

If the president wants to save face with his party and the American people, he’s in a tough position. Given high employment and several other problems during the Great Recession, this is one case in which party politics and constitutional considerations could combine to slow down the pace of these trade deals.

That would buy precious time for Congress and the American people to lay the groundwork for the possible defeat of these and other trade deals.

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

Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin

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

 

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.

 

Obamacare’s Darker Side

0

 

Obamacare’s Darker Side

 

2-6-2014 7-24-19 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

 

WASHINGTON DC | Some analysts have expressed concerns that modifying the Obamacare health-insurance law through presidential executive orders is a sure sign of tyranny. But heavy-handed government can proceed along several fronts. One of the latest developments is that the Obama administration is fighting a major Catholic University because the school wants relief from Obamacare’s contraception-coverage requirement
.
On Tuesday, Obama’s Justice Department filed a legal brief with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opposing Notre Dame University’s latest effort to be exempted from Obamacare’s mandate that contraception coverage must be made available to insured Notre Dame employees and their dependents.

From a traditional Catholic perspective, this federal effort is seen as an assault on the deeply held belief that contraception encourages illicit sex.
Furthermore, Catholic teaching says that sexual relations are for having children and sustaining the human race. Under a strict view of Catholic teaching, contraception, like abortion, is a population-reduction tool disguised as “freedom of choice” by the secular state.
Notre Dame tends to take a more liberal view of Catholic principles. For now, the university is complying with the coverage rule while fighting the policy in court.

The northern Indiana school lost a similar effort in the 7th Circuit late last year. Notre Dame re-filed its petition after a favorable ruling last month by the Supreme Court involving another Catholic institution. While Notre Dame employees and other beneficiaries are now receiving contraceptive coverage, the co-ed school’s case is expected to be argued before the 7th Circuit on Feb. 12.

Many Catholics across the nation have been publishing articles in church bulletins about how this Obamacare rule runs roughshod over freedom of conscience. They maintain that religion is no longer freely exercised if fundamental beliefs are molested by the central state in Washington.

There have also been indications that Catholic hospitals and health facilities may be forced to violate their faith by providing abortion services or be punished with hefty fines, thanks to Obamacare. The president has made overtures to find common ground with religious institutions to address various concerns. But whether meaningful compromises will be reached remains to be seen.

Beyond religious matters and executive orders, some Americans are happy with Obamacare making health insurance available to those with preexisting conditions. Before Obamacare, health insurance was largely out of reach for those with such conditions. However, some critics say Obamacare unduly protects and empowers certain insurance companies, thereby playing favorites in the marketplace while fostering monopolies.

Meanwhile, fundamental questions won’t go away. As Washington Examiner columnist Gregory Kane has written: “Where, exactly, in our Constitution does it give the federal government the power to compel individual American citizens to buy a product or service? It’s not in there.”

Kane, a Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer, added that forcing citizens to buy a product or service they may or may not want cannot even be justified under the Constitution’s elastic commerce clause.

As Kane wrote: “There’s a world of difference between regulating an insurance company that has branches in two or more states and jack-booting citizens into buying health insurance from that company.”

One thing’s for sure: Whatever its benefits, Obamacare’s darker side is quickly becoming evident during the president’s lame-duck term.

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
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3

 

GOP Challenging Obama’s Executive Orders?

1

 

GOP Challenging Obama’s Executive Orders?

 

2-3-2014 7-04-36 AM

 

YouTube Preview Image

Published by NextNewsNetwork

 

WASHINGTON DC | Congressional Republicans may be taking President Obama to court over the executive actions that Obama touted during the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech.

Obama’s overtures to sidestep Congress and pass laws by himself are adding fresh urgency to Republicans’ legal efforts. They say Obama is using his authority in ways never-before seen.

The Hill, a Washington journal, added: “[House] speaker John Boehner said Republicans would not sit idly by as Obama takes unilateral actions like raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour.”

GOP Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, noted: “We can go to court. We haven’t got many more options except [to] tell the American people that we’re seeing an abuse of the intent of the Constitution.”

Republicans especially want to legally challenge the president on his Obamacare enactment. The National Security Agency’s spying programs also have made the GOP’s lawsuit list.

Speaker Boehner declared: “We’re going to watch very closely, because there’s a Constitution that we all take an oath to, including him, and following the Constitution is the basis for House Republicans.”

But what WHDT alone dares to ask is this: What’s what the GOP’s sudden ‘constitutional conscience’?

Take Obamacare: If constitutional checks and balances are paramount, then:
· Why did the GOP-led House allow Obamacare to become enshrined in law in the first place?

· And didn’t the 2010 vote to approve the Affordable Care Act lay the groundwork for Obama’s executive orders?

The Hill noted: “GOP lawmakers argue the administration’s selective enforcement of the healthcare law amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of power. They point to [Obama's] decisions to delay health insurance requirements, cap out-of-pocket costs and expand the employer mandate penalty. They are also challenging the healthcare law’s contraception mandate.”

That mandate requires healthcare providers to make contraception available. Eighty-eight lawmakers have signed an amicus brief filed by Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri and Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia. It argues the Department of Health and Human Services violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in implementing the contraception mandate.

Meanwhile:
· Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky plans to file a class action lawsuit against the NSA.
And Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson has sued the Office of Personnel Management for allowing lawmakers and their staffs to receive federal subsidies for their Obamacare coverage.

Democrats believe Obama is acting within his authority—which is doubtful at best. They say Republican obstruction has left Obama with little choice but to issue executive orders.

The war on terror is a major excuse for continual NSA spying in the first place. Back during the Bush administration, Republicans could have demanded that U.S. troops be brought home. And we’re left to wonder whether the apparently unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were worthwhile at all.

Congress can de-fund nearly any program it dislikes through its normal legislative functions. If Congress wanted to de-fund the NSA tomorrow, it could. If Congress does not want Obamacare improperly applied, or doesn’t want it at all, then the GOP would have to bite the proverbial bullet and repeal it.

But instead GOP lawmakers are looking to the courts, rather than harnessing their own legislative powers, to reign in an abusive president.

The very same Constitution they say Obama is abusing was abused by both parties when they launched the war on terror without the Constitutional requirement of Congress declaring war. What followed was a trillion-dollar war which, by its very nature, converted the U.S. into a spy state at home and a perceived bully abroad.
Filing lawsuits makes big headlines. Some of the lawsuits may have merit. But this approach suggests that Congress is the weakest branch of government. The nation’s founders would have expected better. A weaker executive and stronger Congress would be their advice.
####

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
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3

 

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

 

Go to Top