Thoughts for the Day

I don't really know what to say. If you have not been paying attention, start paying attention. Our country is being sold, the constitution is being ignored and trampled. If we aim to keep our rights, we must actively fight to keep them. 


From Wolfshield
==========================
"The [Supreme] Court ruled 9-0 that Obama couldn’t make recess appointments when the Senate said it was not in recess. It ruled 9-0 that the government couldn’t decide whom a church could classify as clergy. It ruled 9-0 that the government couldn’t fine landowners $75,000 a day to appeal an administrative order blocking construction in an alleged wetland. The Constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws and requires the president to faithfully execute them. Obama seems to take that as not so much a requirement as a suggestion, one he sees fit to ignore when he wants to 'change the law.' The Constitution’s framers wrote the faithful execution clause because they remembered that King James II claimed and exercised the power to suspend laws passed by Parliament whenever he liked. James was forced to flee England in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and in 1689 Parliament passed a Bill of Rights declaring 'that the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal.' There is a continuum between lawful exercise of discretion and unlawful suspension of the law. Time and again, Obama has lurched toward the wrong end of it."
 –Michael Barone

---------------------------------------------

Did you Know?

U.S. Senate short-circuits the Constitution on taxes, again. 

By Dr. Harold Pease

The Constitution is exceptionally clear on the origin of all taxes.  “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” not the Senate (Article I, Sec. 7).  When is the House going to protect its powers from the Senate’s intrusive attempts to steal its power?  Recently the Senate passed the “Marketplace Fairness Act” by a vote of 69-27, an Internet sales tax, giving states the authority to require online retailers, with no physical presence in those states, to collect sales taxes.  Americans will pay more taxes with this bill than without.  It is a bill for raising revenue and it did not originate in the House as mandated by the Constitution.

To put the Senate in its constitutional place the House should never take this bill up.  Instead, if they feel such legislation is needful, they should originate their own bill after which invite the Senate to take a new bill through the committee process and to the floor once again.  I might also suggest not doing so for a year or two just to make the message stronger.  “You are infringing on our constitutional jurisdiction.”  If the Senate will not do so, the House should consider the bill non-existent.  Under no circumstances should they accept this bill as appropriate action on the part of their sister law-making body.  Retailers, on the other hand, should refuse to pay this tax and challenge it in the courts on the constitutional grounds cited above.

Unfortunately, this is becoming a practice on the part of the U.S. Senate.  Yet another infringing piece of legislation has also just passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 13-5 vote, the so-called “Gang of Eight” immigration bill, S.744, obviously originating therein.  The Heritage Foundation estimates that this bill will cost taxpayers a net $6.3 trillion above what illegals contribute through taxes over the next 50 years providing benefits for millions now living in the United States.  There may be debate over the numbers but what is clear is that the bill did not originate in the House of Representatives as constitutionally required and that Americans will pay more taxes with this bill than without it.  Therefore it constitutes an unconstitutional tax.

The worst of all such recent intrusive taxes was “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” known as Obamacare, also originated in the Senate, not in the House as constitutionally required.  Weeks ago I wrote of the extensive efforts on the part of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to cover this up following the judicial decree of Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. proclaiming it a tax when the administration had argued otherwise.  The establishment media should have been all over this story and was not.  Obamacare may be the only revenue-raising bill in American history originated and processed by the Senate alone.   Nothing could be more unconstitutional!!

So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits.  Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm.  The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them.  The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses.  The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population.  The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.

As far as I know the United States is the first, possibly the only, country in world history that puts its tax base with the masses who pay the taxes.  It is a priceless freedom.  If we are over-taxed in the United States we have chosen to be so and one body alone is responsible—The House of Representatives.  No tax can constitutionally originate with the President or the Supreme Court, (even if Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. says that it is okay), not even the Senate, although it can modify as on other bills once originated by the House.  The House is also in charge of spending.  We must not let this freedom dwindle or allow the line between the two legislative branches to be blurred into oblivion.

By letting “origin” slide in these three matters, the House looses its clear distinction on the origin of taxes and the people their right of first approval of taxation for generations yet unborn and probably forever.  If left unchallenged these three offending bills, one already implemented, severely damage Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.  All involved are under oath to preserve the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution more clear than this.  Liberty is lost one piece at a time.  It is also restored one piece at a time.  Pass this around.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

The Rising Storm

Some thoughts on the political landscape of the day:

Voter Suppression? 
- Apparently Pennsylvania recently passed a law requiring photo ID to vote (it is currently under dispute). I have mixed feelings about this: it's good in that it helps to prevent voter fraud but it may be a voting hurdle for those who do not have picture ID. I think that in conjunction with this law that the state should create a way to easily obtain an official state picture ID and maybe create a marketing campaign to help people be aware of the situation.
- In Florida they are trying to purge the voter rolls of illegal aliens, etc. Some people are outraged because Whites and Republicans are less likely to be targeted. I understand how this may seem unfair but doesn't it mean that there are fewer illegal aliens who are white and fewer illegal aliens who are registered Republicans? Also, if they are ILLEGAL they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to vote anyway.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/voter-suppression-and-political-polls/

Chick-fil-A - 
- First off, I have always thought "Chick-fil-A" was a dumb name. Now, those who flooded Chick-fil-A establishments all over the country yesterday were doing it (supposedly) to back up the owner who expressed that they were in favor of traditional marriage. They also went to show their support of traditional marriage (or against making marriage apply to same-sex couples - however you want to see it). The issue was not pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality (I hope. There are always those who miss the point) but about defending marriage and expressing conservative values.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/02/no_tolerance_for_chick-fil-a_--_tea_party_critic_morgan_freeman_gets_a_pass_114977.html

Suburban Warfare - 
-Perhaps the most startling article I have read recently (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz?pg=2) talks about how Obama is part of a scheme to suppress the conservative vote by slowly forcing the integration of suburbs into cities. It's hard to explain  and maybe a bit paranoid but it does bring up some very interesting ideas and definitely deserves some studying.