Tag Archives: U.S. CONSTITUTION

Doug Smith: U.S. Constitution has served “We the People” for over 200 years

4 May

doug 2

Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot historian and social editor

5.4.2018

constition 2

US Constitution

Article 1, Section 8

Congress shall have power to… (among other things)

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws about Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article 2, Section 2

The President

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Article 3, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Evidently, we no longer teach civics in the public schools of these United States. Equally evidently, we neither teach it nor require it as basic knowledge of judges, or members of congress, or presidents.  If you like the extra-legal decisions made in support of your desired position, you may cheer this fact. You should not.

Case in point.

Yet another judge has chimed in to make his ruling that President Trump cannot stop the DACA program because his decision to do so is arbitrary, and besides, he is Trump. Now this judge is entitled to dislike the President. After all, I did so for the previous 8 years. But he is no more able to stop the President’s decisions because of that than I was.

To be clear: DACA is not a law. (See above. Congress never passed any law upon which DACA is based, this was simply a decision by the President, carried out by the Secretary of DHS, to “fail to faithfully execute existing law”, to wit, immigration law, because he did not like it. President Trump, whose instincts in the matter are to faithfully and vigorously enforce immigration law, nevertheless tried to do the right thing. He announced that he was going to rescind the arbitrary  decision of President Obama, and begin enforcing the law once again. However, he also tossed the ball to Congress, whose ball it was, and said, if you folks want to do something about the people affected by this decision, well do your job. Write a bill, pass it and send it to me, and THEN we can have a law to execute.

That is the sound of crickets. No bill. No law. (By the way, President Obama had a totally Democrat Congress for 2 full years. He could have gotten a law enacted then. Or, he could have compromised with the GOP, and still gotten some sort of law to deal with the situation of DACA aliens. He chose not to)

So, President Trump announced that he would end the program of failing to enforce a law that Barack Obama did not like, because, well, it IS the law. And evidently, from the actions of Barack Obama and the Congress for 10 years, that is what they WANT the law to be.

Now judges may rule that laws do not pass the Constitution, and require review if SCOTUS upholds them. What judges may NOT do, under our Constitution, is infringe upon the power of the President to enforce “existing law.” (The judge may try ruling the Law to be unconstitutional, and start the judicial review process, but he may NOT, as Judge Roy Bean did, tear a page out of the law book with the words “That’s a bad law. I repealed it.”) So, a judge may no more rule “You can’t stop enforcing the laws on immigration for non-citizens brought here illegally as children” than he can rule “You can’t stop anyone who drank milk as a child from stealing milk.”

Congress may make such laws. But not the courts. When they do, it costs a lot of money and time and suffering of injustice before they are finally slapped down by SCOTUS.  For the left, it has become the game plan, because one judge can usurp Congress’ authority and keep things going their way for a long time, without the tedious necessity of actually winning elections, then letting Congress do their job.

Tedious, and a losing proposition, because Dems are typically pressing minority opinions against the will of the people by using the court ploy.

Before you applaud the strategy, consider its cost, and danger. King Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Becket were at odds over the appointment of judges, resulting in Becket s murder and Henry nearly losing his throne. A war ensued.

Arbitrary tax laws and judges resulted in King John facing the Barons at Runnymede, and the Magna Carta being signed.

The city of New London, backed by perhaps the worst decision in SCOTUS history, took a house from a lady named Kelo under eminent domain, so they could sell the property to a developer to build a headquarters for Pfizer drug company and bring them tax money. (Congress ought to pass a law overriding the Kelo decision, but that is for another story.)  However, in a case of cosmic justice, the HQ was never built, and Pfizer left the state completely due to Ct tax increases.  Today the site is an empty lot, overrun with weeds.

Historically, arbitrary judges are not without consequence. And you should fear and loathe them.  You can predict the actions of a judge who is bound by law. You can read the law and know they cannot take your home, or car, or fine you, or force you to pay higher taxes, just because they want to. You can know that if Congress raises your taxes and you don’t like it, you can toss the bums out. Not so a judge, who rules that your area MUST charge you more taxes to pay for something he decides they should pay for. (That is making law from the bench.)

You may cheer today when a judge rules against Donald Trump because you don’t like him. But if judges can rule based on their personal likes and dislikes, tomorrow, or next year you may encounter a judge who doesn’t like, well, YOU!

Do you want him to be able to rule on your life, liberty, or pocketbook based on that dislike? Or would you prefer him bound by the laws we all think we live under?

Our judiciary needs to be taken to school on the Constitution which is the source of their authority. It does not matter that they don’t like it or think it antiquated, it is our law. And they should have to abide by it, just as should POTUS, and Congress.

Abraham Lincoln noted that our Civil War was going to determine whether “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, would perish from the earth.”  Four years of war, and half a million deaths was not enough to kill it in sound and fury.

We should not abide arrogant people usurping it and causing it to perish by dry rot, either.

We, the people are a mighty force, when we remember that fact.

We, the people, established the Constitution, and this form of government.

We, the people, fought a great war to preserve this form of government.

We, the people, need to reach the point of looking at the lack of common sense and decency flowing from those directing our institutions and shaping thought and say, Enough!

Read the Constitution. Then decide that you are going to hold any leader, from a judge, to a School Board Member, to a President, to that standard. This is our law folks. It’s done well for over 2 hundred years. Let’s try it again.

 

 

Mark Caserta: Liberals mislead regarding First Amendment

11 Jun

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jun. 11, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

I recall during a presidential debate in 1999 when the moderator asked the candidates to identify their favorite political philosopher. George W. Bush created a firestorm in the liberal media when he spontaneously and unflinchingly replied, “Jesus Christ, because he changed my life.” The media had a field day castigating Bush for bringing Christianity into politics.

For years, progressives have diligently sought the complete and absolute removal of Christianity from politics. And frankly, we’ve allowed them far too much success. The phrase “separation of church and state” has been bantered about so often by liberals, that many people believe it’s in the Constitution. But not only is the phrase not in the constitution, neither is the concept as propagated by progressives.

The text of the First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you can see, the First Amendment doesn’t contain the words “separation of church and state.” The words can, however, be traced back to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802 in response to a concern voiced by the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut about religious freedom. In his letter, Jefferson used the phrase as a metaphor depicting the First Amendment as a “wall of separation” between the church and government interference in religion.

Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that reference religion: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Today, much is said about the establishment clause, but very little is said about the free exercise clause.

While progressives often attempt to rewrite history to advance their agenda, our Founding Fathers had a keen perspective on the unique and important relationship between religion and the world they wanted to create for themselves and their heirs.

declaration signing

Leading up to the Revolution, these men witnessed their civil liberties trampled upon by the King of England and Parliament. The First Amendment was meant to protect these basic civil liberties and to ensure government was never able to force a particular religion upon the people or suppress their right to practice it openly. Their recognition of the importance of religious freedom to American democracy prompted the framers to enshrine it forever in the First Amendment.

But through the years, liberal courts and progressives have perverted the Framers’+ intent, essentially trampling upon the free exercise clause through misrepresentation of the establishment clause. Liberals would have you believe that any open display of worship, such as prayer in public schools or displaying the Ten Commandments, is somehow government “making a law respecting the establishment of religion” or “state sponsored religion,” which is absurd.

The strict separation of religion and government was not meant to prohibit openly practicing religion; it was meant to protect it!

It’s time we accept that religious freedom was never meant to be freedom from religion.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

%d bloggers like this: