Liberals Are Fine With Teens Rearranging The Constitution But Don’t Trust Them With Guns

Leave a comment

H/T The Federalist.

This is classic Liberal Logic 101 or rather lack of logic.

The willingness of the survivors to push for gun control has transformed them into idols of an anti-gun mainstream media.
 Gun control proponents are pushing to raise the age for purchasing a gun to 21 in response to the Parkland shooting. These same people want the teenagers traumatized by the shooting to set our country’s gun laws. Make up your mind, America.

Liberals have fallen in love with the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The willingness of the survivors to use the national spotlight to advocate for more gun control has transformed them from merely sympathetic victims of a tragedy to teen idols of a mainstream media eager to find a tipping point in the gun debate.

Some of the kids’ new fans are so in love with them, they’re claiming the voting age should be lowered to 16 so their wisdom on gun control doesn’t go to waste, and they can punish the state and national legislators who don’t obey their demands.

That was the conceit of a Sunday op-ed in The New York Times by Laurence Steinberg, a Temple University psychology professor. Liberal radio talker Dean Obeidallah echoed the sentiment in a gun control debate with me on Headline News. Both seem to think the kids deserve the right to decide the fate of the lawmakers who are allegedly endangering them by not voting for more gun laws.

Yet at the same time, gun control advocates are nearly unanimous in their view that the legal age for purchasing a weapon — especially rifles such as the AR-15 — should be raised from 18 to 21. The inconsistency here is staggering. Then again, are these ideas any more disconnected from reality than most of the liberal patent nostrums about guns being put forward as “common sense” proposals? Not really. More to the point, the focus on the kids tells us a lot about the way the Parkland survivors are being treated as abstract political symbols rather than flesh and blood children who deserve everyone’s sympathy and support.

The context for this question is the outsize role the Parkland students have played in the gun debate since their school was attacked. Gun control advocates and the media immediately recognized that as both survivors and attractive kids, there were no better spokespersons for their point of view than these students. They played a key role not only in a CNN town hall on the issue in which they bullied Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and seemed ready to burn NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch at the stake, but also in marches on Tallahassee where they sought to stampede the Florida state legislature into banning rifles labeled as assault weapons.

Their gun control push has earned them the praise of liberals but, of course in our culture, insults from those who disagreed. Some on the right leveled outrageous charges that they were actors or otherwise fake. Also outrageous was criticism of kids who were seen at marches or during their return to school laughing or otherwise doing things teenagers do because it supposedly gave the lie to their grief. In our bifurcated political culture, all too many of us seem incapable of disagreeing with opponents without delegitimizing or otherwise demonizing them.

That some of the Parkland kids were doing the same thing about defenders of gun rights, calling the NRA “a haven for child killers” or Nazis, is a product of their coming of age in the era of Twitter and is equally lamentable. So are their claims that any legislator who won’t do their bidding is a political prostitute in the pay of the NRA and other evil forces.

Yet while both the Parkland kids and their critics ought to behave better, the discussion about voting, as opposed to the one about raising the age for purchasing a weapon, is based on a myth about the young.

Steinberg argued in TheNYT op-ed that lowering the voting age is based on psychological arguments about the “cold cognitive” decision making abilities of teens to make rational voting choices — as opposed to the “hot cognitive” skills involved in using firearms. But that false distinction notwithstanding, it’s painfully obvious that he, Obeidallah and the others echoing their stand in the Twitterverse, are only making this case because they think the overwhelming majority of youngsters they wish to enfranchise will agree with them about guns.

This is based on wishful thinking, but is also a product of media coverage during the last three weeks in which the only youthful voices being heard are those teen survivors who have taken anti-gun stands. There was no effort from the mainstream media to find teenagers who might have different views, so perhaps its understandable that those credulous consumers of the liberal media believe such kids don’t exist.

But while the Parkland kids have seemed to speak with one voice about their revulsion for guns and a desire to restrict them, it bears pointing out that they live in a deep blue Florida district, not in a part of the country where opposing views would be as likely to be heard from teenagers as from adults.

Prior to the last lowering of the federal age for voting from 21 to 18 in 1971, liberals and Democrats thought this would be a huge advantage for them. That belief fueled some of the delusions behind George McGovern’s disastrous presidential campaign. But the youth of America didn’t rise up to defeat Nixon and, rather than being the prelude to a political Age of Aquarius, the amendment’s enactment was followed by a period during which Republicans won four of the next five presidential elections.

As anyone who follows mock election votes among students of all ages knows, school kids tend to vote as their parents do. That’s as true for the youthful liberal firebrands vowing vengeance on Republicans in the Florida legislature as it is for teenagers who probably worry as much about the state taking away their right to bear arms in areas where gun ownership is a way of life. That’s why all of the arguments about teenagers being as fit to vote for our leaders as their elders are disingenuous.

The 26th Amendment to the Constitution that gave the vote to 18-year-olds was largely rooted in a belief that Americans in that age bracket who were fighting and dying for their country in Vietnam ought to have a right to decide who would send them to war. Unlike that era, no one is currently being compelled to serve, though many below 21 are wearing their country’s uniform and are in harm’s way. Yet because of the murderously insane actions of 19-year-old Parkland shooter, much of the country is ready to deny gun rights to the same age group they enfranchised nearly a half-century ago.

Is that reasonable? An argument can be made that young people aren’t as responsible as their elders, even though many of the mass shooters have been over 21. Like virtually every other “common sense” new law proposed by opponents of gun rights, this is unlikely to prevent the next mass shooting.

But if we were to follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then perhaps what we really should be doing is raising the driving age to 18 or 21, since we know that teenage drivers are far less safe than more experienced ones and are responsible every year for more deaths and injuries than all the mass shooters of the latest twenty years combined.

If we were to do so — and I speak as the father of a 16-year-old — that, rather than the debate about guns would be something that would send millions of teens to the barricades demanding political change.

The Parkland kids have a right to their say and those who abuse them should be ashamed. But those who draw conclusions from the activism of liberalism’s new teen idols about guns or voting age are equally deluded about the innate wisdom of youth and the impact they might have on future elections and the restrictions on the right to bear arms.


The most underrated Founding Father: Oliver Ellsworth?

1 Comment

This is from Constitution

On the anniversary of Oliver Ellsworth’s birth, Constitution Daily looks back an important founder who helped forge a compromise that led to the Constitution, and later played important roles in the early Senate and Supreme Court.


Ellsworth was born on April 29, 1745 in Windsor, Connecticut. From a prominent New England family, Ellsworth began his education at Yale and finished at Princeton, where he started the American Whig-Cliosophic Society along with fellow students Luther Martin and William Paterson. (Other early members included James Madison, Aaron Burr and Henry Lee.)

He quickly became a successful lawyer and then became involved in the Revolutionary War, serving in the Continental Congress.  Ellsworth was also a judge in Connecticut.

Ellsworth played a very active role in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia. According to Madison’s records, Ellsworth spoke frequently at the Convention.  And Ellsworth won a debate over dropping the term “United States” from the official name of the federal government.

Ellsworth and Roger Sherman were involved in the Great (or Connecticut) Compromise that led to a House of Representatives with proportional representation and a Senate with fixed representation based on two Senators per state; he also supported the three-fifths compromise about slavery.  Ellsworth then served on the five-person committee that wrote the Constitution’s first draft, but he forced to leave Philadelphia for business reasons before signing the final document in September 1787.

During the ratification battle over the Constitution, Ellsworth wrote Letters of a Landholder, a series of articles like the Federalist Papers that supported the proposed Constitution. Seven were written about Connecticut’s ratification debate and six were targeted at a national audience.

In the first national government under the Constitution, Ellsworth was appointed to the U.S. Senate by Connecticut, and he functioned as the de facto Senate Majority Leader until 1796. His biggest accomplishment was the drafting and passing of the Judiciary Act on 1789. Ellsworth personally wrote much of the Act along with William Patterson, which defined the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system, and remains largely intact today. The Act also gave the federal Supreme Court the ability to hear appeals of cases decided by state supreme courts, which was an important step in the concept of judicial review.

Ellsworth was also an important force in the Senate for promoting Alexander Hamilton’s national debt funding and for starting the Bank of the United States. In 1796, Ellsworth left the Senate to become the third Chief Justice of the United States, and he also served as commissioner to France while he sat on the Supreme Court between 1796 and 1800. During his short time on the Court, Ellsworth tried to initiate the modern format of Supreme Court decisions, with Justices issuing joint majority and dissenting opinions.

While in France negotiating with Napoleon to end an undeclared trade war with the United States, Ellsworth resigned from the Supreme Court, citing health problems caused by his travel schedule. Ellsworth’s replacement was John Marshall.

Returning to Windsor, Connecticut, Ellsworth remained active in state politics until his death in 1807.

Despite Ellsworth’s considerable contributions in the Founding period, little was been written about him, with few biographies available. The official Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Ellsworth was written by future U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

Republican eyes DOJ budget to block Obama gun orders


This is from The Hill.

We locked and loaded against a tyrant over taxes in 1775,

Now we have another tyrant trying to destroy the Second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill Of Rights and Constitution.

A powerful House Republican is threatening to block President Obama’s executive order on guns by defunding the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department, warned against enforcing the new gun restrictions.

“The next twelve months will be an especially dangerous time for Americans who treasure our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Culberson said.

“I have formally notified Attorney General Lynch that I will aggressively protect our Second Amendment rights using Congress’ power of the purse,” he added. “I notified the attorney general that if the Department of Justice attempted to create new restrictions on our Constitutional rights that I would use every tool at my disposal to immediately restrict their access to federal funding.”

Culberson appears to be the first Republican to call to block DOJ funding over the executive action on guns.

In future budget agreements, House appropriators could specifically prohibit the Justice Department from enforcing the gun restrictions without defunding the entire agency.

Culberson warned Lynch not to “create new law” in his letter.

“The House Appropriations Committee will not provide resources to your department for the development or implementation of unlawful limitations on the unambiguous Second Amendment rights of Americans,” Culberson wrote.

Culberson’s letter follows harsh words that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) had for the Obama administration earlier Monday.

He accused Obama of “subverting” Congress by taking executive action on gun control.

“We all are pained by the recent atrocities in our country, but no change the president is reportedly considering would have prevented them,” Ryan said.

Democrats Ask for $360 Million of Your Money to Buy Your Guns!

1 Comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

I got this from the comments section.

It is time to call these traitors out on their willful disregard of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” The oath of office since 1884. By supporting legislation of the type proposed they are in violation of that oath by going against the US Constitution. Time to call them all out on it.

If the gun grabbers in DC were not desperate enough, now they are pushing a bill that requests $360 million of tax payer money in order to buy guns back from American citizens.

Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-NJ) has re-introduced a national gun buyback program called the Safe Neighborhoods Gun Buyback Act and he’s got 22 co-sponsors, all Democrat.

“Although no one piece of legislation will eliminate all gun violence, this bill will get guns off the streets and keep them out of the hands of people who wish to cause harm,” Payne said. “If we can get one gun off the street, if we can save one life, then we have to take action.”

Now, stop and think about what this guy just said if you will. First, he’s right not one piece, or ten thousand pieces of words will eliminate gun violence. We know what eliminates gun violence and that is government stops restricting gun ownership. In fact, mandatory gun ownership in Kennesaw, Georgia virtually eliminated all gun violence, except in gun free zones.

Second, Payne said that this bill will “get guns off the streets and keep them out of the hands of people who wish to cause harm.” How exactly does that work? Won’t the people who are expected to turn their guns in be law abiding citizens? Surely Payne is not advocating that criminals turn in their guns, is he? Second, are these law abiding citizens actually seeking to do anyone harm? Probably not, but then Payne seems unable to distinguishing fact from fantasy in his ridiculous and unconstitutional bill.

The Hill points out that Payne’s unconstitutional legislation is similar to one offered earlier in 2015 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and co-sponsored by Muslim stealth jihadi Keith Ellison (D-MN).

Both pieces of legislation are virtually certain to go nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress.

As part of Payne’s $360 million gun buyback initiative, the Justice Department would pay gun owners a premium of 25 percent more than the market value of their firearms.

Gun owners could turn over their firearms to state and local governments as well as certain gun dealers.

In return, the gun owners would receive a debit card they could use to purchase anything other than more guns and ammunition.

The main question that needs to be asked here is, where in the enumerated power of Congress are they allowed to spend money in such an unconstitutional endeavor? There is no such provision.

According to the bill, the Justice Department would take the guns and destroy them, but keep parts for recycling. Right! This the same Justice Department that knowingly and willfully watched as thousands of guns were purchased in the united States and trafficked across the border into Mexico to drug cartels in order to attack the Second Amendment and to take down rival cartels of Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel. These are the same drug cartels that violently assassinated Mayor of Ticquicheo Maria Santos Gorrostieta in 2012. Operation Fast & Furious has resulted in hundreds of deaths, including two federal agents, hundreds of Mexicans, a Mexican beauty queen, a dead police officer and many, many more.

Does anyone trust the Justice Department to actually bring forth any justice? Does anyone trust a corrupt Congress that just gave Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah everything he wants and enslaved us and our children in debt for it?

This treasonous action by Rep. Payne, and yes it is treasonous as he is seeking to disarm us before our enemies, along with the co-sponsors of this bill need to be dealt with justly by the American people. Here’s a list of his co-sponsors:

Rep. Scott, David [D-GA-13]*

TED CRUZ: The Left Labels Him With This Title – But Have No CLUE What It Means

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

If the things Ted Cruz stands for makes him an extremist then I proudly say I am an extremist also.

I expect to hear it from socialist college professors and Che Guevara t-shirt wearing coffee house loiterers.  But to hear it from conservatives with actual jobs is a painful reminder of the ease with which the media have convinced Americans to shut off their minds and allow pundits to do the thinking for them.  “I’m worried that Ted Cruz is too extreme.”

During the night, someone did a job on the word “extreme.”  It ain’t what it used to be.  We learned this week that the official position of Obama’s Department of Education is that men should be able to infiltrate your daughters’ shower facilities in high school gymnasiums if only they claim to feel like women.  How ext. . . extr. . . extraordinarily enlightened!

Who is extreme?  Ted Cruz is extreme because he fought to keep the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Do you know someone who has fallen for it?

When someone parrots the claim that Ted Cruz’s beliefs are too extreme, be assured that before you stands a person who hasn’t given three minutes of thought to the subject.  Let’s consider a few of these “extreme” views.

–  Senator Cruz is so extreme that he refuses to shrug off our $1,000,000 per minute accumulation of new debt.  He has spoken out against wasteful, lavish federal spending and has condemned the practice of financially enslaving our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt to which they–being either too young or too nonexistent–could not consent.  Since when did objecting to spending 140% of your income become extreme?

– Cruz believes that five robed rogues ought not be permitted to overturn a definition of marriage that has been in operation since the dawn of human civilization, across every culture, and on every continent on earth.  Is wishing to restore the will of the people extreme?  Or are the judges the real extremists?

– Cruz believes it is evil to grab hold of a living and fully-developed baby, extract her body from the womb while leaving her head inside her mother, puncturing her skull, sucking out her brains, crushing the skull, and tossing her in the garbage disposal.  He even went so far as to convince the Supreme Court to uphold a ban on this practice.  He believes human life is worthy of protection.  Scary extreme!

– He has condemned the Obama administration’s practice of sending billions of our dollars to enemy countries that foam at the mouth and chant, “Death to America!”  Where are you on that one?

– Similarly, Cruz has openly stated that we need to produce our own energy, thus supplying jobs to Americans while simultaneously reducing our dependence on countries that hate us.

– Cruz states that business owners should be able to run their companies without the federal government putting unnecessary obstacles in their paths.  When did freedom become extreme?

– Senator Cruz has repeatedly offered that since we have a Constitution, we ought to abide by it.  He doesn’t believe presidents who swear to uphold the Constitution should be above the law, granting exemptions to the laws they pass, circumventing the legislative branch, and imposing their personal whims on 330 million people.  We’re supposed to think there’s nothing extreme about the one who urinates on the Constitution.  Save that label for the one who objects to it.

– When proven terrorists threaten to invade our soil and murder us, Senator Cruz thinks that our refusal to seal our borders is a policy that should be reconsidered.  He’s just like those extreme people who live in rough neighborhoods and lock their doors at night.

– Cruz publicly called out the Republican leader of the Senate for lying to his colleagues.  He, along with Sen. Mike Lee, also took on his own party when GOP senators attempted to trick the American people into thinking they had nothing to do with a debt limit increase.  Don’t you just hate extreme integrity and honesty?

Maybe you are saying: “Wait a minute now. Ted Cruz seems to think just like I think.”  Guess that makes you an extremist too.

You are left with two options.  You can permit the leftist media to do your thinking for you and join with those who label Cruz as an extremist, or you can think for yourself and say, “If Ted Cruz is extreme, it’s exactly the kind of extremism our country needs.”

Bypassing Senate, Constitution, Lynch Subjects Americans to “Global Police Force”

1 Comment

This is from 

These blue helmets and hats will make great targets.

I am one of the extremist the UN is worried about because I believe in the Constitution.

Following a recent United Nations (U.N.) LeadersSummit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch just announced that the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) would be collaborating with several U.S. cities to form “a global law enforcement initiative,” known as “The Strong Cities Network” (SCN).

The objective is to “strengthen community resilience against violent extremism.” Lynch and others argue that American cities “are vital partners in international efforts to build social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.”

In order to build “global social cohesion” SCN states it will identify city-level practitioners and members of their respective communities to participate in a series of workshops. Chosen individuals will contribute to and utilize an online repository of municipal-level good practices and web-based training modules.

Yet, underlying all of SCN’s “collaboration” is a serious unconstitutional reality: sub-national authorities from “different regions” will attempt to enforce U.N. rules and laws on American soil to achieve SCN objectives.

Furthermore, while SCN’s stated goal appears to combat “violent extremism,” how it identifies and defines “extremism” and– what acts it seeks to criminalize– is critical to recognizing SCN as a genuine national security threat. A cursory look at those involved with SCN at its highest levels provides insight.

It is noteworthy that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, gave opening remarks prior to Lynch’s keynote address at the U.N. Zeid is known for having long opposed the most basic of all human rights: free speech.

Foreign Policy writer Jacob McHangama points out that Zeid has consistently voted to force U.N. states to criminalize acts of “defamation of religion.” McHangama writes:

“From 1999-2010, member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) successfully tabled resolutions on “combating defamation of religion” as part of their campaign to implement a global blasphemy ban under human rights law, in the Human Rights Council (known as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights until 2006) and the General Assembly. During both of Ambassador Zeid’s periods as Jordan’s ambassador to the U.N., Jordan voted in favor of these resolutions when they were introduced at the General Assembly.”

Yet, “defamation of religion” relates specifically and solely to Islam. And, Zeid not only defines but also enforces criminality for violating such defamation– according to Sharia Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws.

Also noteworthy is SCN’s International Advisory Board, which is directed by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). ISD’s links to George Soros’s Open Societies Institute are easily identifiable. Soros has made no secret about his efforts to create a worldwide government, worldwide police force, worldwide currency, and worldwide socio-economic policies.

One cannot discount the mayor of Montréal, Denis Coderre, who said of SCN: “This global network is designed to build on community-based approaches to address violent extremism, promote openness and vigilance and expand upon local initiatives like Montréal’s Mayors’ International Observatory on Living Together.” (The only American city to join Montréal’s network, is Atlanta, which is listed as part of the “World Association of the Major Metropolises.”)

Montréal’s stated focus is “inclusion and security in an era of radicalization and terror attacks.” Yet, closed door meetings allegedly included discussions focused on “creating diversity” and “taking a public stance against intolerance.” Again, “tolerance” is specifically and solely related to “minority” communities, which are allegedly being targeted for “so-called terrorist radicalization.”

Finally, and simultaneous to these U.N. events and announcements, on October 1, 2015 the National Assembly of the Quebec Legislature unanimously passed a motion condemning “Islamaphobia.” This also specifically and solely limits what can/cannot be said about Islam and Quebec’s Muslim minorities.

The common denominator among all of this “collaboration,” from the U.N. to Jordan to Canada, is the incremental implementation of Shari’a Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws. Initially, these laws impose limits on free speech and expression. Eventually, they make illegal freedom of speech and free exercise of religion– both of which are protected in America by the U.S. Constitution.

Further still, and even more troubling, is the head of the Department of Justice announcing that the United States will participate in a global plan subject to United Nations jurisdictional authority. The head of an agency allegedly committed first and foremost to enforcing the U.S. Constitution, is deliberately rejecting the very law she swore to uphold.

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that any international agreements, including treaties, can only be agreed to after first being subjected to the authority of the U.S. Constitution. No federal government official, cabinet member, agency bureaucrat, not even the President, can enter into international agreements like the SCN Lynch just announced.

The Constitution is quite clear. Only a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate can approve of entering into such an agreement. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 specifies that 67 members of the U.S. Senate must first agree. It states: The President, “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

It is doubtful if the U.S. Senate has even heard of SCN. It most certainly has not voted on it.

Yet the Attorney General of the United States decides to bypass them and the Constitution to implement a global initiative subjecting Americans to U.N. rules– and eventually Shari’a Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws.

Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson. . .

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Will there be any lawyers step up and challenge this opinion? 

Did our founders, after drafting a Declaration of Independence, fighting a war with England, and then sitting down to pen a national governing document (the Constitution) put in that document the right of a majority of federal judges to make laws for the entire nation?

Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis is testing the claim that five unelected Supreme Justices have the authority to overrule a state constitution that she took an oath to uphold and a federal Constitution that says nothing about same-sex marriage.

Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had this to say on the issue in a Facebook post:

“Inasmuch as SCOTUS so obviously overreached and acted as though it had the power to amend the Constitution (and certainly as legislators), Kim Davis should not comply. I disagree with my friends Maggie Gallagher, Rod Dreher, and Ryan Anderson on this one. The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln’s day. Civil disobedience is commendable. The only problem with Kim Davis’s position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.”

The states have rolled over on the question of judicial supremacy, and Congress is too busy solidifying its power base to take on a nation-dividing fundamental issue. Governors don’t want to make waves and get involved in a protracted legal battle with the Federal government that has unlimited money to spend and ways to hold back federal funding (money it took from the states in taxes). Wouldn’t it be great if a dozen or so states banded together and said no to the usurpation of their states’ authority?

As I’ve been reminded several times, since the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the land,” the Tenth Amendment is part of the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The power to regulate marriage was not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

But back to the constitutional question about the Supreme Court being the final authority. Here’s what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the issue in a letter to William Charles Jarvis (28 September 1820).

I chose Jefferson because he is a liberal and neo-conservative icon.


You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem” [it is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.



The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. …

The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs.

Obama: I’d Make An Awesome Third Term President, You Know

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Until I read this story and listened to the video I did not realize how delusional Barack Obama really is.

Oh Barack there is that Damned pesky 22nd Amendment to the Constitution that says your done in two terms.

Do you think President Obama would make a good third term president? He certainly thinks so.

Speaking in Africa Tuesday, President Obama made positive remarks about Africa’s democratic progress, but criticized leaders who refuse to step aside and give up power once their terms are over. He then proceeded to explain his belief he’d make a great third term president, but that the Constitution limits him to just two terms.

“I am in my second term. It has been an extraordinary privilege for me to serve as the President of the United States. I cannot imagine a greater honor or a more interesting job. I love my work. But under our Constitution, I cannot run again. I can’t run again. I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t, so there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving but the law is the law,” Obama said.

For reference, President Obama’s disapproval among Americans currently outweighs their approval.


President Obama Job Approval


Academic: Constitution Is ‘Confederate Symbol,’ Censor It

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

My fellow Patriots this is a call to action we need to step up and defend the Constitution.

If the left succeeds in rewriting or censoring the Constitution all of our liberties will be gone.


burning Constitution YouTube screenshot/FX Riot

A political scientist and former professor has penned an article calling for the U.S. Constitution to be censored in order to conceal older parts that are offensive.

“South Carolina’s battle flag may soon come down from the capitol flagpole, but other symbols of the Confederacy’s ideology remain in place,” writes political scientist and former University of Maryland professor Henry Bain in an editorial that has appeared in several newspapers around the country. “For example, consider the U. S. Constitution.”

Bain isn’t calling for the creation of a new Constitution, but rather says the current one should simply be edited to remove parts he considers immoral and outdated.

“All copies of the Constitution promulgate detailed instructions for the recapture of slaves who have run away from their owners,” he says. “They also specify that slaves are to be counted as three-fifths of a person in the Census, giving a boost to the slave-owning states in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.”

Bain is referring, of course, to the parts of the Constitution which reflect the fact slavery was legal until after the Civil War, when the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were ratified. Slavery isn’t his only problem, as he believes in removing any other text that references “embarrassing” parts of American history, like Prohibition.

Modern copies of the Constitution (such as that at typically show the text as it originally was, while also including a note that such clauses have been superseded by later amendments. That may seem reasonable, but Bain says that kind of approach is the reason nine people found themselves brutally gunned down in Charleston.

“One might justify this presentation of our national charter by saying that it commemorates an earlier time or instructs students on the nation’s political history,” says Bain. “That kind of thinking has prevailed for a long time in Charleston, only recently yielding in the face of an atrocity.”

And so, Bain says, the Constitution needs to be “reorganiz[ed]” to suit the modern era, with offensive text excised and moved to a separate back section, “where it belongs.” Such a move would create “a Constitution that deserves to be read aloud each year when the House of Representatives begins its session,” unlike the undeserving current one, which Republicans have read aloud at the opening of Congress for the last three congresses.
And who does Bain view as a good candidate to carry out this reorganization? For starters, himself. Bain is promoting his book, “The Constitution of the United States of America Modern Edition,” which he says makes the tired old document “at last readable” to the modern citizen.

Read more:

The Constitution signer who was impeached and expelled

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

I never knew this.


William Blount is one of the lesser-known men who signed the Constitution, but one of the most controversial, since he put a key part of the founding document to a critical test less than decade after it was ratified.










Blount represented North Carolina at the 1787 convention in Philadelphia and said little at the proceedings, when he was there. Blount was one of 39 delegates who signed the Constitution and he also promoted its ratification in North Carolina.

But about a decade later, on July 7th, 1797, 218 years ago today, the House of Representatives voted to impeach now Senator Blount from Tennessee, who was involved a plot to give land to the British.

Blount, who came from a wealthy Southern landowning family, had accumulated much land west of the Mississippi on credit, and was significantly in debt. When France defeated Spain in the War of the Pyrenees, Blount became involved in a  plan for Native Americans and frontiersmen to attack this land, which would ultimately be transferred to Great Britain.

An incriminating letter fell into the hands of Blount’s enemy, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering. President John Adams, upon receiving the letter, sent in to the Senate.

Blount was then the first government official to be part of the impeachment process and the expulsion process, two of the critical checks-and-balances in the Constitution.

The Constitution has several clauses that allow for the House and Senate to discipline government officials, including their own members.

Article II, Section 4, says that “the President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

And Article I, Section 5, contains the Expulsion Clause, which says that, “each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

The Senate voted to expel the Tennessean the next day, and it also ordered him to stand trial at a later date since the House had approved impeachment proceedings.

During Blount’s absentee proceedings in early 1799, the Senate didn’t move forward with a trial against Blount, deciding that he had already been expelled from the Senate. By a 14-11 vote, a resolution was defeated that read that “William Blount was a civil officer of the United States and therefore liable to impeachment.”

Since 1797, the Senate has expelled 15 members and the House has expelled five members, but no Congress member has been impeached.

As for Blount, he went back to his home in Tennessee, gained appointment to the state Senate and became its speaker. He died in 1800 after a brief illness.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: