J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

Rick at Wizbang felt all Americans should hear Pat Condell speak.

If you are one who cherishes our values and freedoms then his suggestion is not a half bad idea:

*While we do not agree with the atheist views of Mr. Condell, the balance of the video is well worth viewing*

One of the key elements in this commentary comes at the three minute mark:

The American government has now done something, that if they did it in their own country would violate the constitution.

They have co-sponsored a UN resolution that puts a limit on freedom of speech.

As if that was not enough, we now receive word that for the first time in history the United Nations will investigate the United States for human rights violations. If you have not seen this story already, be certain to read it in its entirely. HT:Gateway Pundit

Here are a few of the pertinent facts:

For those of you who have never even heard of a “Special Rapporteur,” you may be surprised to find out that one has been appointed by the United Nations (UN), under a special mandate from the UN Human Rights Council (the successor to the corrupt and anti-Israel UN Commission on Human Rights), to open a probe—for the first time ever— into human rights violations by the United States because of a perception that there isn’t enough affordable public housing in urban areas.

and the real kicker:

The report will be bad. That is a foregone conclusion. How will the UN punish the United States? That remains to be seen. Who gave the UN the right to send a Special Rapporteur on this tour of American cities in the first place, since UN Special Rapporteurs can only visit countries that have agreed to invite them?

emphasis-admin

Who gave them this right indeed? If permission was granted without the consent of the White House then shame on the administration for not taking immediate action to see it was reversed. If this tour was granted by the White House then it is an egregious move on their part.

My thoughts. Kick the United Nations (which has never done anything productive for the United States) out of America and use what we foolishly pay in UN dues to feed and clothe the homeless or provide medicine and food to seniors or children who are unable to do so for themselves.

Oh, and about all that hope and change. How are the recent unemployment numbers working out for you? Are you excited about the government taking over major corporations and limiting executive pay? How about that anticipation of being taken care of by government run health care institutions?

Then of course there is the disgraceful attempted marginalization of those opposed to the administration on talk radio and television. What’s next, perusing the internet and shutting down all contrary views?

If the UN decides we are not generous enough in providing housing in urban areas, then by all means, let’s turn over all we have earned or saved to show the world that America is a compassionate, giving country.

Talk about that old cliche, the people get the government they deserve jumping up to bite us.

America deserves better.

Tweet This Post

Short on time, but did not want to let this pass.

Well, “my friends,” it’s all about how you interpret the Constitution…sheesh, is it any wonder the GOP lost in 2008?

Head over to Hot Air and view the first video of this two parter and read commentary by Allahpundit.

Tweet This Post

Tomas Paine then:

Common Sense[1] was a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine. It was first published anonymously on January 10, 1776, during the American Revolution. Common Sense presented the American colonists with an argument for independence from British rule at a time when the question of independence was still undecided. Paine wrote and reasoned in a style that common people understood; forgoing the philosophy and Latin references used by Enlightenment era writers, Paine structured Common Sense like a sermon and relied on Biblical references to make his case to the people.[2] Historian Gordon S. Wood described Common Sense as, “the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era.”[3]

“Thomas Paine”, now: (While the video is 6 minutes in length, it is worthy of viewing to completion)

When a silent majority allows their nation to lose their common sense, that nation is lost.

Tweet This Post

Since the Illinois legislature failed to pass a bill to hold a special election for the vacant seat of the president-elect, and did not act to forbid indicted Governor Rod Blagojevich from appointing a replacement to the seat, Roland Burris is legally the new senator from the state of Illinois and should be seated. Period.

Instead the Secretary of State is playing games with his signature not really certifying Burris is the new senator and Harry Reid and Company seem to think the rules of the senate will prevail over the Constitution of the United States.

Like it or not, Blagojevich had the authority to appoint Burris and the new Congress was being sworn in. He had an obligation to fill the seat so the state of Illinois had two senators instead of one.

Adam Clayton Powell, the late Congressman from New York, had a similar thing happen to him before he died. Congress refused to seat him and after two years the Supreme Court decided against the stand of Congress and for Powell. This set a precedent and I hope it doesn’t take two years to settle this case.

Now in Minnesota Norm Coleman is contesting the election, claiming some votes were counted twice and in some cases more voters than were on the rolls were casting ballots.

It’s a long shot for Coleman and it looks as though we will have a real comedian in the senate. Al Franken isn’t very funny, though, and is such a partisan I fail to see how he can help in what is being called a “post-partisan” era.

But Reid and Company want to seat him.

Nancy Pelosi has laid down her iron hand and decided Republicans will not get a say in debates, if there are any, and if she decides to bypass committees she will do it.

Republicans will be unable to offer amendments or offer a resolution to recommit.

It seems in 2006 she was the one whining the most about not having certain rights as the minority in the House and now she’s clamping down on the very rights the minority party did have.

In normal times it would cause her party to be thrown out in two years, but we are not in normal times. Many people in this country have wool over their eyes and think this is the best thing since sliced bread.

But there is a downside to this. With the Democrats completely in control, to the point of not allowing Republican representatives a voice in legislation other than a yes or no vote, everything that happens in the next two years can be laid at the feet of the Democratic party. Maybe it will be good, as I hope, but maybe it will make things worse, as I fear.

It appears Pelosi and Reid think they have served longer than the president-elect so they don’t really have to take orders or suggestions from this young whippersnapper. After all, five years ago he was a state senator from Illinois. Who does he think he is now, the incoming President of the United States?

Bush will be blamed for the economy when many things and people caused it for years to come. The Democrats will try to milk it for eight years at least.

The president-elect wants to spend our way out of this recession, but the fact is Roosevelt did the same thing and extended the Depression by a couple of years.

We just are not ready to build that many roads and bridges to get the economy working, and even if we do, what of the people who are not doing the building? How do they make it while construction workers do?

I just go along with what Jesus said, Don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself.” It’s worked so far for us and I can’t think of Anyone better to give me advice.

See you after jury duty, unless something inspires me in the middle of the night as it did tonight.

Tweet This Post

It’s not often I read a post which I believe echoes the sentiments of the majority of Americans.

This, however comes as close as I think I’ll ever get:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We, the little people want you, our elected leadership to do just that, and only that.

form a more perfect union.
establish Justice.
insure domestic tranquility. *
provide for the common defense.
promote the general welfare.
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves** and our posterity

Those are the things that are charged in the preamble to the constitution, from which you derive your authority to legislate.

We don’t want you wasting your time, or our money making proclamations which do not serve us–for example, things like recognizing “Cuba solidarity day,” Honoring Arnold Palmer for his distinguished career in the sport of golf and his commitment to excellence and sportsmanship, Recognizing the importance of bicycling in transportation and recreation, National Day of the American Cowboy, Congratulating Albania and Croatia on Talks with NATO, et cetera. If you come across a resolution or proclamation that sounds good, but has no real impact on our lives, don’t bother with it.

We, the little people, are paying you for a service. The service you provide as a member of the legislative branch is to work as hard as you can to make our lives just a little bit better, within the bounds of the constitution. We don’t want you to use the money we give to the government to “create” jobs, as a capitalist democracy, we want you to encourage the free market to create jobs.

We, the little people, don’t want anyone in our nation to be denied basic needs of food, water, shelter, and clothing. We would rather donate our monies to charities that can assist those less fortunate, than to an enlarged government bureaucracy that does the same thing, just not as effectively.

There’s more at the link.

Tweet This Post

No matter your religious preferences, this statement by Mike Huckabee should be enough to make you take a step back and ask if you can support someone who would not be a President to all, but rather to those who have only his Christian beliefs.

Thanks to Rob at Say Anything for providing the video.

He offers these thoughts:

Now, I understand that Christians believe the word of God (as defined by the various denominations) is the ultimate truth. And I understand that Christians want to incorporate that truth as they see it in our laws. But what we need to remember is that while Christianity dominates America’s spiritual landscape not everyone in America is a Christian. We’ve got Jews and Muslims, Buddhists and atheists too. And they may not want the Constitution to reflect the word of God as Mike Huckabee sees it.

This is why our founding fathers put, in the very first amendment of the Constitution, a clause ensuring that our national government would be a secular government. They realized that all Americans should be free to practice the religion of their choice.

Do I believe that Mike Huckabee has a deep and abiding faith? Absolutely. I think the same of President Bush, but as President you must govern all equally.

Your thoughts?

Tweet This Post

There is a wonderful post up at Hillbilly Politics, explaining why our Constitution is just fine as it is.

Excerpts don’t begin to do this column justice, but I’ll give you the first claim by Larry Sabato and Hillbilly’s answer to it:

The presidential candidates are offering prescriptions for everything from Iraq to healthcare, but listen closely. Their fixes are situational and incremental. Meanwhile, the underlying structural problems in American politics and government are systemic and prevent us from solving our most intractable challenges.

If we really want to make progress and achieve greater fairness as a society, it is time for elemental change. And we should start by looking at the Constitution, with the goal of holding a new Constitutional Convention.

Sound radical? If so, then the founders were radicals. They would be amazed and disappointed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments that the founders could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, insisted that “no society can make a perpetual Constitution. … The Earth belongs always to the living generation. … Every Constitution … naturally expires at the end of 19 years” (the length of a generation in Jefferson’s time).

The Constitution remains brilliant in its overall design and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation. These constitutional bits affect the daily life of the republic and every citizen in it. A few examples:

The founding fathers and framers of the Constitution foresaw the need for changes based upon advancing societies. Therefore, they built in to the Constitution a mechanism for making those changes while safeguarding that changes could not be made arbitrarily upon the whims of a select few. It’s called a Constitutional Amendment ,of which the founding fathers made use of, and giving us the Bill of Rights. Before I address the taking of Thomas Jefferson’s statement out of context as the premise for the articles entire argument, I’d like to address the arguments presented.

Please do yourself a favor and read this excellent piece.

Tweet This Post

One of the things I admire most about Fred Thompson is that he is a clear and precise speaker/writer.

This article entitled “On Federalism” is yet another example of those attributes.

The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.

The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

What a powerful statement from beginning to end and well worth taking the time to read.

HT: Instapundit

Tweet This Post

The Democratic House of Representatives is hell-bent on confrontations with the president as to what authority belongs to whom.

Now they are set to approve a bill that would fund the troops only until July, a scant two months away.

President Bush would veto a bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday.

The Democrats’ proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war through September.

“There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said on Air Force One traveling with Bush.

Asked directly if Bush would veto the House bill in its current form, Snow said, “Yes.”

Bush vetoed an earlier bill because it set deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The new proposal is aimed at appeasing Democratic lawmakers who want to end the war immediately and are urging leaders not to back down after Bush’s veto. But lacking a firm endorsement by the Senate, the challenge by House Democrats seemed more for political show than a preview of another veto showdown with Bush.

If you know it’s going to be vetoed and you can’t override the veto, why engage in fruitless effort?

Congress has the power of the purse and, as such, can withdraw funding for the war at any time. If they don’t want to compromise to make our troops safe longer than two months then use the constitutional power they have and defund the war.

All this other nonsense is just that.

Tweet This Post

Big Mo has a wonderful post up at Hang Right Politics, showing us, according to James Madison, one of our founding fathers, why Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria which has been described by Rep. Tom Lantos as “an alternative Democrat foreign policy” is possibly going to get us into a constitutional crisis.

Some quotes:

For proof that what she and her party is doing is so outrageous, I give you none other than the father of the Constitution, James Madison, who explained the necessity for the separation of powers in Federalist #51:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

From Federalist #53, speaking on House members:

And although the House of Representatives is not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation, and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation.

And in a speech on June 8, 1789, to the House, proposing the Bill of Rights:

The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.

No matter who the president is and no matter if we agree or disagree with his foreign policy it is his turf and his turf alone. Certainly not the turf of the Speaker of the House.

Tweet This Post