Tag Archives: Supreme Court

To Keep the Republic

By Rod & Sherri Dodsworth, guest writers

“A republic madam, if you can keep it.” What did Ben Franklin mean by his famous retort at the close of the 1787 Federal Convention? Here’s a clue: Voting every two years is insufficient effort to keep a republic.    BEN FRANKLIN 2

Franklin and his convention peers knew that unlike tyrannies and absolute monarchies, republics required the people’s active participation. This wasn’t a new concept; our Framers were well aware of Roman and Greek republics, all of which amended and improved their unwritten constitutions as changing times warranted. It was from their love of liberty and dread of consolidated power the Roman Republic spanned 450 years. They kept their republic.  

Greek City-State of Athens
Greek City-State of Athens

 

While the Framers structured the best government they thought possible for their times, they knew their plan of 1787 must be likewise amenable to change. Article V provided for the peaceful change they envisioned for a free people. Make Ben smile.

Over the next one hundred forty plus years until the New Deal, Americans applied the Framers’ Article V gift to amend their constitution over twenty times. We refined existing national powers and expanded individual rights. We kept the republic.

Yet, with the New Deal, Washington DC increasingly assumed   

New Deal Politics
New Deal Politics

powers not remotely granted by the Sovereign People. So many wholesale judicial amendments to settled constitutional clauses were made that they required the new term, “living and breathing” be used to describe the Constitution of the United States.

Why, since the New Deal, did the people relinquish their God given and Article V right to define the breadth and depth of their government and largely turn such decisions over to lawyers in black robes?  

Roosevelt directs the corruption of the New Deal
Roosevelt directs the corruption of the New Deal

 

Through disuse, Americans had forgotten the second amendatory process within Article V, which provided for an end run by the people and their states around the Washington DC elites. Having never been used in modern times, Americans were not familiar with convening by state delegations. They were further informed that any attempt to keep the American Republic by the state amendatory process was dangerous, that it could easily run amok and spoil an emerging SCOTUS-designed, social justice Utopia.   

SupremeCourt
SupremeCourt

 

Consider:
1) Should employers be required to recognize Labor Unions as per the National Labor Relations Act of 1935?
2) Should the scope of the Commerce Clause include intra-state commerce as per the Wickard v. Filburn decision of 1942?
3) Should there be a wall of separation between Church and State?
4) Is there really a 9th Amendment right to abortion?
5) May the Executive branch assume Article I legislative powers?

If so, and in order to keep our republic, these issues and so many more should have been decided along the way by the American people through Article V. Had this been done over the decades, America would not be on the verge of a police state. Article V wasn’t designed to be used solely in extreme situations such as the runaway Obama tyranny; it was and remains to this day a fundamental tool to secure liberty.

Reverse the tyranny. Keep the American Republic. Article V NOW!

Supreme Court has made confiscation of firearms a breeze

By Doug Book, editor

Last year, Democrat Senator Ed Markey (NY) and Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (Mass) introduced legislation suggesting Barack Obama’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) be paid $10 million/year to fund “…research on gun violence prevention and firearm safety.” According to the far left Markey, “it is time we study the issue of gun violence like the public health crisis that it is. If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it.”

Truth be told, Markey and Maloney believe the best way to prevent gun violence is by making it illegal or at the very least, impossible, to own a gun. Maloney recently introduced legislation which would require all gun owners purchase liability insurance for their firearms and pay a $10,000 fine should they be discovered without it. Naturally, members of law enforcement would be exempt.

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” said Maloney. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur.” Only a leftist would claim that liability insurance is necessary to make gun owners exercise appropriate caution with their firearms.

Each year, about 60% of gun deaths are the result of suicide. Would Maloney demand insurance companies pay off in cases of suicide? Would a suicide “victim’s” estate be charged the $10,000 fine if he was found to have been uninsured?

As to “fair compensation” in the event of a crime or accident, it is rumored that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by criminals. The odds against thieves, killers or rapists carrying liability insurance on their stolen firearm would be astronomical. Will Maloney recommend Progressive or The General provide “no fault” gun insurance, just in case? And would that absolve the criminal of guilt for having committed the crime, or just for having used a gun?

Perhaps the real question is why Representative Maloney believed it necessary to introduce this legislation in the first place. The nation’s hoplophobes have already been given the ultimate, winning hand against gun owners.

In 2012, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the federal government may demand the American people purchase a required item and tax anyone who refuses. Last month, Roberts and 5 other justices decided that the president, the Internal Revenue Service, even the Court itself may write, re-write and implement legislation. An act of Congress is no longer necessary, conflicting claims in the Constitution of the United States notwithstanding.

Given these recent rulings by the Roberts Court–the first on ObamaCare, the second in King v Burwell–Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will have the authority to create legislation demanding the purchase of a $1 million liability policy by every gun owner, for every gun owned. Those who refuse could be taxed the sum of, say,  $100,000 for each uninsured firearm. Simple and legal, at least according to the Court. And for those unwilling to either pay up or relinquish their weapons, Barack and the Supremes will confiscate their house!

Though such abuse of the American people may not happen over night, rest assured that it WILL happen.

 

Texas Two Step and recusal refusal at Supreme Court

By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

This week’s Supreme Court decision in regard to legitimacy of homosexual marriage just well may be illegitimate itself whatever way the Court decides. And because of this very fact, 2016 and its crucial election must include initiatives to institute TERM LIMITS for SCOTUS along with a swift and very definitive process for removal of any member of the U.S. Supreme Court!

Just consider the fact that their rabid feminism pushed both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan to “marry” two same-sex couples though they knew full well they were being called upon to give definitive judgment in the Obergefell case. Also, “Justice Ginsburg had gone so far as to strongly suggest in public that the time for same-sex marriage had arrived.” (1) Both female judges are insulting America’s highest legal authority, insulting ethical restraint in regards to conflict of interest, insulting the American family and, in fact, insulting the basis of our country’s rule-of-law underpinnings.   Kagan

This final step in the use of historicity to re-write our constitutional laws and legal process is a step that must be called out now. “If it didn’t happen that way, then it should have,” said an Afro-American teacher to me one day. She was referring to something that happened in the race-relations controversy and historical milieu in our country. In other words, she wanted the laws re-written the way she wanted them written and she wanted it done NOW.

Well, this version of Ginsburg-Kagan historicity is beyond anything the lib/Dem bulldozer through America has done so far. Their rabid hubris and out-of-control feminism have taken our country to a whole new level that in no way is America. But what is shaping up to be another slap in the face of honest rule-of-law has to do with how court employees manipulate “motion” versus “filed” to accomplish what the justices themselves really want done.   Ruth Gunsberg

“The Foundation for Moral Law had submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of traditional marriage (and) had also submitted a motion in support of Justices Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s recusals. . .not only had the Court not ruled on the Foundation’s motion, but the motion had not even been POSTED (emp. added) on the Supreme Court docket. Did someone at the High Court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?” (2) In other words, docket clerks somehow did a Texas two-step to delay amicus curiae motions-filings.

Again, let’s repeat: “Did someone at the High Court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?” (3) The first motion to recuse was submitted on April 27, 2015, and so time-stamped–THREE ENTIRE WEEKS “before the Supreme Court claims that it was RECEIVED on May 21, 2015!” The Moral Law Foundation filed a second motion to recuse on May 21, 2015, after Justice Ginsburg “married” another gay couple. The docket titled this motion as merely a request. This reporter recalls similar Texas two steps that docket clerks danced in the Obama birth eligibility case facing SCOTUS.

Lowly clerks appear to be doing the Court’s work for it by delay and obfuscation and ultimately “deciding” its cases in the mail room! Same-sex marriage is not Kagan’s first conflict of interest case. As I recall, she represented Obama himself in his eligibility defense legal maneuverings. Payback was her appointment to the nation’s highest Court. This begs the question, did the Ginsburg-Kagan rule-of-law insult itself come from the White House?

These same-sex marriage docket clerks did not engage in either delaying effort without winks and nods from higher ups. IMHO, both of these critical issues, were, as they say in Chicago, “GREASED” from the git-go! Is America still a rule-of-law democracy? Is America still ruled by the impartial administration of justice? Is America a joke in jurisprudence? America is as the lib/Dem leftist rulers say it is. End of Story, end of country.

SOURCE: all footnotes are from http://www.westernjournalism.com/same-sex-marriage-efforts-to-have-justi. . . 6/22/2015, at 6:19pm by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson/ go to traditionalmarriage@lawandfreedom.com or twitter.com/Olsonlaw Constitutional law professor Herbert W. Titus & William J. Olson filed amicus curiae briefs in this recusal action.

BTW: Did Ginsburg and Kagan not take Anatomy 101 while undergrads?

Supreme Court finds Congress irrelevant as Justices award law making powers to president and…Supreme Court

By Doug Book, editor

Coach is Right recently alerted its readers to the importance of the upcoming Supreme Court decision in King v Burwell, a case which would determine whether the Internal Revenue Service had the authority—on the orders of Barack Obama–to re-interpret the Affordable Care Act in a manner favorable to Obama and contrary to the clear language and intent of the Act as written by Congress.

Though Obama and members of his Regime have already re-written the Act (contrary to the Constitution) on 31 separate occasions, it was hoped—certainly it was never more than a hope—that the Court would uphold the will of a Congress which wrote 7 times in the Act that subsidies to ObamaCare policy holders would be made available only by ObamaCare Exchanges built by one of the 50 states. The law clearly made subsidies and tax credits unavailable in any state with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the federal government.

A ruling which found that “An Exchange established by the State” was indeed “An Exchange Established by the State” would of course make subsidies unavailable in the 34 States with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the Federal Government. Policy prices would not be competitive in 2/3rds of the nation and the Affordable Care Act would rapidly meet its demise.

But on Thursday, the Court’s decision was published and as many feared, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the clear language and intent of Congress were not acceptable to the Court as the clear language and intent of Congress. As Justice Scalia wrote in the dissent he shared with Justices Alito and Thomas, “…normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act MUST be saved.” (My Caps)

Justice Scalia’s dissent is one for the ages as he not so politely eviscerates the majority, for “The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax…‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

For anyone not paying attention, Justice Scalia has just accused his colleagues of being dishonest. It is a statement beyond the simply critical of Justice Roberts and to a lesser degree, Justice Kennedy, as Scalia goes as far as he can in accusing both of malfeasance, corruption and, well, dishonesty.

The increasingly corrupt and pernicious purveyors of the legal system in the United States make predicting what should be the most straightforward of rulings virtually impossible. An irrepressible appetite to further a politically inspired agenda has replaced the Constitution as the foundation of American jurisprudence. Such a disgraceful and dangerous perversion of the most senior of American courts “…ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

But the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts in the lead, has twice “mended” the Affordable Care Act, improperly re-writing and willingly—shall it be called misinterpreting—both the text and the clearly presented desires of Congress.

America’s conservatives have lost the Supreme Court to the corruption and perversity of the left. As wanton dishonesty has replaced honor and integrity on the bench, it is difficult to imagine a time or means of returning the Court to an honest application of constitutional law.

Only 1 week until Supreme Court ruling on the future of ObamaCare

By Doug Book, Editor

Coach is Right has written extensively about the Affordable Care Act—ObamaCare—from its initial, unconstitutional passage by a Democrat controlled congress, through the disgraceful 2012 Supreme Court ruling which featured the inexplicable treachery of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Sometime during the next week the Court will decide King v Burwell, a case which will determine whether the United States and the American people may still depend upon the Constitution to defend their liberty and rights from the unlawful schemes of a tyrant.

On June 17th, CiR asked whether the Supreme Court would deliver one last ruling in defense of the illegal and unconstitutional workings of the Obama Regime.

Today, Coach is Right will publish in its entirety the commentary of Twila Brase, president of the Citizens Council for Health Freedom. A longtime expert on healthcare in America, Brase asks the key question:

Will the Supreme Court Set 37 States Free from Obamacare?

by Twila Brase

The U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the King v. Burwell Obamacare subsidy case by June 29. But pro-Obamacare forces are busy pressuring Republicans to let 6.5 million people keep their illegal subsidies (expand Obamacare) if the administration loses. Here is one example from Politico Pro:

“Inside the Beltway, we’re all on eggshells waiting on the Supreme Court’s King ruling. Outside the Beltway, not so much. The new Kaiser poll finds seven in 10 Americans have heard either nothing at all or only a little about the Obamacare case. Just 13 percent said they had heard “a lot” about it.

“Still, most people in the nearly three dozen states that could lose their subsidies said lawmakers should act to keep those flowing. About 63 percent of people overall said Congress should step in if the plaintiffs win, compared with about 55 percent of people in the states that would be affected, which are mostly controlled by Republicans….”

So the 70% who know little to nothing about the lawsuit are competent to advise Congress? I wonder what they’d say if they actually understood the law. For instance, before the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll team asked them if Congress should continue the illegal subsidies, did they ask these individuals:

· Is it OK for the President to expand Obamacare even if it’s against the law?
· Is it OK that subsidies are paid for by taxes and higher premiums on many people who can no longer
work fulltime due to Obamacare?
· Should people in 37 states be free from Obamacare’s mandates and penalties or be forced to buy health
insurance so 6.5 million people in those states can receive subsidies?
· Would you rather be able to work more hours and have more job opportunities or let the 6.5 million people
keep their illegal subsidies?

The Affordable Care Act ties mandates and penalties directly to the availability of Obamacare subsidies. Without subsidies, employers and most individuals would be free from the law’s mandates and penalties. This means employers and individuals in the 37 states without a state exchange would be free because subsidies can only be issued by an exchange “established by the state.”

Every member of Congress took an oath to defend the Constitution. In 2010, Obama and Congressional Democrats violated that oath by enacting Obamacare. But every Republican voted no.

If the justices rule against the administration (Burwell), Republicans have an opportunity to:

· Deprive the ACA of subsidy and enrollment funding it needs to stay viable.
· Implode Obamacare’s exchange and its IRS enforcement system.
· Obstruct 2,700 pages of law and more than 20,000 pages of regulations.
· Restore health care choices and decrease health care costs.
· Undo government controls over doctors and patients.

If the administration wins, freedom-restoring options include defunding and repealing Obamacare. There must be no extension of the illegal taxpayer-funded subsidies.

If the administration loses, Republicans must refuse to help Obama save his national health care legacy. The only health care legacy worth saving is health freedom — and that will take an act (or perhaps in this case, an inaction) of Congress.

In freedom,
Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President and Co-founder