Home | Editorials | Constitutional Thinking: A Constitutional end run

Constitutional Thinking: A Constitutional end run

By
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

When I used to coach years ago, if my team got too far ahead, I would put in the second string, then the third string, to keep from running up the score. Unfortunately, the coaches of the Anti-American team have no decency. They keep running up the score on “We the People”. They just scored again. 

It’s easy for them when they know our coaching staff is “bought and paid for” so there won’t be a blocker to fill the hole. Where was the filibuster in the Senate?  Where were the “conservatives” on talk radio talking about this outrageous assault on our system of government? 

Are the other members in Congress willingly “second class”, or were they too scared to say anything? I didn’t hear them speaking up. We now have a “Super Congress” or “Central Committee” reminiscent of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. This new plan needs to be rescinded immediately.

James Warburg, the son of Paul M. Warburg, a secret Federal Reserve founder and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), told the United States Senate on Feb. 17, 1950, “We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

It appears we are just going to concede and roll over for our masters - Wall Street and the bankers. First of all, most of our Presidential Candidates either wear the “CFR” opposing pirate team “red” colors or have been to their training camps, including; Rick Perry (Let’s Sell Texas to China - Bilderberg), Herman Cain (Federal Reserve), Sarah Palin (Kissinger training), Michelle Bachmann (IRS), Mitt Romney (Obamacare preview), etc. 

Second, we are facing the threat of a constitutional convention pushed nationwide by many misguided conservatives at the state level. They are rightfully concerned about the out-of-control spending by government nationwide, but this is the wrong solution. They need to re-read Article V of the Constitution and check history.

Third, the “Cut, Cap and Balance” proposal is likewise wrong. We just need to demand our legislatures follow the rule book. It they fail, vote them out. There is no guarantee a balance budget amendment would even work anyway. What makes you think they would follow it? They did not even follow through on the bill they passed just two months ago to READ all bills before they voted on them! You can’t trust proven liars.

Fourth, when Congressman Davy Crocket voted to give away money that wasn’t his to give, he was called on the carpet for it and told he would not get their vote again. Today, after a congressman slaps us in the face with an un-constitutional vote, we ask them to do it again by re-electing them time after time.

We treat adherence to our Constitution like school these days, grading on the “curve”. I don’t want even a “B” rated pilot flying our constitutional plane and later saying he/she’s sorry they didn’t put the flaps down or check the fuel. The new highly rated Congressional scorecard, The Freedom Index, based on adherence to the U.S. Constitution, just came out. 

They have the current House average at just 53% and the Senate average at 43 percent. On something this serious, even a 90-95 percent score should lead to probation at best. Is it any wonder our national credit was just downgraded? We’re crashing, it was planned, and it’s going to hurt.

Joe Barton (TX), my local congressman (80%) voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and for every renewal of it, for the bailout in 2008, and now for the Super Committee. Those were votes that were not his to give. Each one chipped away at our Constitution and should have retired him. Slap them again, Joe, and tell them you’re now for cut, cap and balance. They’ll love you. Oh, sorry, I forgot; you already did that. 

Since the political prostitutes in Washington D.C. have wrecked the markets and economy, our governors were recently seen streetwalking in Salt Lake City, trying to pick up business from China. The National Governors Conference sponsored a US-China Governors Forum in July, and allowed China Daily (a Communist Party propaganda arm) to cover the event.

A long established and very accurate American news magazine, The New American, was denied a press pass, being told they “are not engaged in the dissemination of objective news stories.” Of course, China Daily surely is.  Where is our Freedom of the Press?  What are the governors covering up?

Instead of running their states like honest businesses with legitimate accounting, and American values, governors are cutting deals and looking to sell the “state jewels” for money to keep the con game going awhile longer. 

They won’t even release the Memorandum of Understanding saying what took place. Dark rooms are winning; pirates rule. Wake up America.


Subscribe to comments feed Comments (2 posted)

avatar
Publius Publicola 08/17/2011 12:15:54
While I'm against a balanced budget amendment and consider it an inappropriate solution to our current woes, I have to take issue with this statement of yours:

Third, the “Cut, Cap and Balance” proposal is likewise wrong. We just need to demand our legislatures follow the rule book. It they fail, vote them out. There is no guarantee a balance budget amendment would even work anyway. What makes you think they would follow it? They did not even follow through on the bill they passed just two months ago to READ all bills before they voted on them! You can’t trust proven liars.

What makes me think they would follow it? The Constitution does.

Currently, the Constitution provides the taxing and spending powers to the Congress, but poses no balanced-budget limitation. As a result, the Court currently won't hear legal challenges to the budgets passed by Congress. This is the way the Constitution is supposed to work; it defines the roles of the various branches, and the Court respects those roles. But if you passed a new amendment to the Constitution which required a balanced budget, then the Court would have a new reason to intervene. They could strike down unbalanced budgets as unconstitutional.

This is one of the reasons I think a balanced-budget amendment would be a mistake. It would give the Court free reign to regulate fiscal decisions currently left to the Representatives of the People. However, you're clearly wrong to suggest that the Congress could ignore a Constitutional mandate, and that nobody could make them follow it. The Court could, and likely would, enforce the amendment.

Since this is a very basic principle of our government, any lawyer who is versed in Constitutional law should understand this. Are you such a lawyer?
avatar
Publius Publicola 08/17/2011 12:18:50
While I'm against a balanced budget amendment and consider it an inappropriate solution to our current woes, I have to take issue with this statement of yours:

Third, the “Cut, Cap and Balance” proposal is likewise wrong. We just need to demand our legislatures follow the rule book. It they fail, vote them out. There is no guarantee a balance budget amendment would even work anyway. What makes you think they would follow it? They did not even follow through on the bill they passed just two months ago to READ all bills before they voted on them! You can’t trust proven liars.

What makes me think they would follow it? The Constitution does.

Currently, the Constitution provides the taxing and spending powers to the Congress, but poses no balanced-budget limitation. As a result, the Court currently won't hear legal challenges to the budgets passed by Congress. This is the way the Constitution is supposed to work; it defines the roles of the various branches, and the Court respects those roles. But if you passed a new amendment to the Constitution which required a balanced budget, then the Court would have a new reason to intervene. They could strike down unbalanced budgets as unconstitutional.

This is one of the reasons I think a balanced-budget amendment would be a mistake. It would give the Court free reign to regulate fiscal decisions currently left to the Representatives of the People. However, you're clearly wrong to suggest that the Congress could ignore a Constitutional mandate, and that nobody could make them follow it. The Court could, and likely would, enforce the amendment.

Since this is a very basic principle of our government, any lawyer who is versed in Constitutional law should understand this. Are you such a lawyer?
total: 2 | displaying: 1 - 2

Post your comment

  • Bold
  • Italic
  • Underline
  • Quote

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Captcha

Log in

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Nelson Propane

Tagged as:

No tags for this article

Rate this article

0
Powered by Vivvo CMS v4.5.2