DURBIN ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, senior Illinois Senator, Democrat Dick Durbin, expressed doubt as to whether bloggers deserve constitutional protection for their work online.

On the May 26 broadcast of the Sunday show, Durbin told host Chris Wallace that he wasn't sure if bloggers or "someone who is Tweeting" should be given protections under a media shield law.

Video clip from Sunday, May 26, 2013:


Chilling words - especially in that Conservative bloggers are holding the Obama administration accountable when the mainstream media will not.

Erosion of the First Amendment enables and empowers tyranny.

Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves!

If something doesn't give, if Americans don't insist on strict interpretation of the Constitution, the Constitution will go up in smoke. And tyranny will win.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: "NO AMENDMENT IS ABSOLUTE"

Schumer commenting on the First Amendment in relation to the DISCLOSE Act:

BLACK PANTHERS DISS THE CONSTITUTION

A must-watch video posted at YouTube in September 2011 (with thanks to Bloviating Zeppelin):


Article HERE.

APPALLING IGNORANCE

The word "surreal" doesn't even begin to describe what one Congressman from Georgia said.

According to Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.), the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness is in the United States Constitution and proves the constitutionality the individual mandate to buy health insurance (hat tip to The Pagan Temple) for the video below:



The Preamble of our Constitution reads as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

The Fourteenth Amendment is HERE. Excerpt:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Apparently, Congressman John Lewis does not comprehend the document he took an oath to uphold.

VIDEO: LIES

From Blunt Politics:



2010 cannot come soon enough!

Five-Part Video Series Examines Barack Obama’s Eligibility to Serve as President

Call me a kook, a right-wing nutjob, whatever, but in more than two-dozen posts during the past two years, I’ve looked at the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States. Today, I offer a five-part video series, Barack Obama: A Question of Eligibility, that includes interviews with several individuals who’ve looked into the matter in great detail. If you think you already know all of the answers related to this controversy, I challenge you to watch all five videos below with an open mind…as if our nation’s future was at stake. Because it is…

PART 1 of 5


PART 2 of 5


PART 3 of 5


PART 4 of 5



PART 5 of 5



After watching the videos above, I implore you to share this post with others. It's time to demand Constitutional justice and to demand Obama produce his long-form birth certificate. If he doesn't, he should be declared illegitimate.

FYI: To read the aforementioned two-dozen posts I've written on the subject, click here.

Angry Crowd Slams Senator Claire McCaskill’s Support of ‘Obamacare’, Soldier Demands Apology

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) held a town hall meeting last night at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis.

The subject: Obamacare. While hundreds of her upset constituents attended the meeting, the senator did not.

Instead, the loyal supporter of President Barack Obama opted instead to send a team of staffers in her place. Coward! a

As the headline above intimates, the crowd was large and angry and included one veteran of the fighting in the Middle East who was captured on video demanding an apology from Senator McCaskill for not following the Constitution.

It's good stuff! Read it and watch the videos here.

GATEWAY HERE.

Oath Keepers Publishes ‘Orders We Will Not Obey’

Though some might judge me a conspiracy nut for even posting this piece, I care little about what others think when I know something is right and just. After all, a majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama, proving anything is possible.

Anyway, someone visited Bob McCarty Writes today and, while here, posted a link in a comment below an NRA-related post. Normally, I delete comments like that one that consist entirely of a link directing people away from my blog and to another site. Today, however, I checked out the linked-to site and decided to share a portion of what it offers on this Independence Day Eve.

It turns out that visiting that site was worth my time. Read about it here.

CONGRESS ACTED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY?

So opines George F. Will in today's Washington Post:

It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.
By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile companies -- well, whatever."

[...]

The Supreme Court has said: "That Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution." And the court has said that properly delegated discretion must come with "an intelligible principle" and must "clearly delineate" a policy that limits the discretion. EESA flunks that test.

With EESA, Congress forces the country to ponder the paradox of sovereignty: If sovereign people freely choose to surrender their sovereignty, is this willed subordination really subordination?

It is. Congress has done that. A court should hear the argument that Congress cannot so divest itself of powers vested in it.

Pity that too many Americans won't listen or care, even as our Constitution is being dismantled right before our very eyes.

Respecting Tradition

Randy Barnett has been doing some writing on Libertarians and War. Most recently this Wall Street Journal piece. Which has spawned a lot of discussion with Randy at the Volokh Conspiracy.

A number of commenters have noted that the Iraq War started without a declaration of war, but instead Congress gave the President an authorization to use military force (AUMF) and gave him the money to back up that authorization. Not good enough for some Libertarians.

What ever resources (including judgment) Congress put in the President's hands with respect to our jihadi (a term from the American Colonial period) enemies can be rescinded if the Congress sees fit. In fact some Dems are trying to do just that.

This is not a usurpation of power. It is delegating to the executive the implementation of the wishes of Congress. Just as the executive enforces laws Congress passes. That is the traditional role of the executive. Don't Libertarians have any respect for tradition?

Sometimes, I think reality makes Libertarians crazy.

Cross Posted at Power and Control and at Classical Values