Posts Tagged Supreme Court of the United States

Representative Allen West Newsletter..

It is early Sunday morning on July 1st, and I am reflecting on the astonishing events of the last week.  For me, the events center on a simple theme of individual freedom and sovereignty.

On a beautiful Saturday morning, just yesterday, I gathered with almost 500 Americans, 300 of whom were about to participate in the First Annual US Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn Memorial Frogman Swim. Aaron gave his life in service to this country as one of the Navy SEALs killed in the Chinook helicopter shot down in Afghanistan last year. I have come to know his father, Billy, and met the entire family. One thing you can certainly ascertain is that Aaron grew up in a loving Christian family who understood devotion to Duty, Honor, God, and Country.

Looking at the splendor of the Atlantic Ocean, I reflected upon the sacrifices made over all these years by individuals such as Aaron for the individual freedoms, liberty, and democracy which we enjoy here in America. The wholehearted willingness to lay down one’s life for another is truly amazing and is an essential part of the American experience, our exceptionalism.

Aaron was one of the best this country offers, a US Navy SEAL. He was part of a legacy which began not too far up the coast in Ft. Pierce, Florida, home of the Navy Frogman, Underwater Demolition Team. However, Aaron is part of a legacy that spans all the way back to the first men who answered the call to arms — those brave patriots at Lexington and Concord who fired the shot heard round the world.

It was those first “Minutemen” who stood ready to defend a new nation which embodied a fledgling idea of the sovereignty of the American individual… a sovereignty that emanates from our Creator, not from man or government.

And how those patriots would have shed tears upon hearing the decision coming from the Supreme Court of the United States of America this past week. This decision has set a precedent by collectively subjugating the individual rights of Americans to the subjective whims of the Federal Government. This decision has given the Federal Government unlimited taxing authority to unleash a new era of behavior modification by way of taxation. This decision has taken us back to exactly the point and reason for America’s founding — onerous taxation.

As we come upon the 236th anniversary of the document setting America apart from all other nations, the Declaration of Independence, consider the achievement of Thomas Jefferson all those years ago. Thomas Jefferson would create the longest running Constitutional Republic the world has ever known. He would set forth a concept that was foreign at the time, of rule by the consent of the governed, not by the monarch. His idea that our unalienable rights did not come from a single ruler but were embedded in each of us from our Creator wholeheartedly altered the relationship between God, leaders, and the people.

Yet, in a single moment five Supreme Court justices decided that Jefferson’s words had no meaning. These Justices decided that James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton had it all wrong.

Quite contrary to the serenity of the morning where we memorialized Aaron Vaughn.

I respect our concept of separation of powers and the three branches of government, but I have utmost respect for the fundamental premise in America of individual sovereignty and liberty.

My parting challenge to all who read this missive before this 4th of July — read the entire Declaration of Independence with your families. Read and understand that which Thomas Jefferson set forth here some 236 years ago.

Read the grievances which he listed from an invasive and intrusive King George III and England and find the similarities to today.

Read and understand the impeccable birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that has been given to all who earn the title of American.

Read, and notice, that Thomas Jefferson stated pursuit of happiness, not guarantee!

Read, and read again if necessary to ensure that our children and grandchildren recognize the blessing of having been born in the greatest nation the world has ever known… a nation for which men and women have given their lives… a nation for which many have left other places in order to become a citizen within the laws of the land.

Read, my fellow Americans, and when you feel that swelling of pride within your hearts and the tears well in your eyes, then you are ready to do as 56 men did 236 years ago — pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor to restoring the legacy of this Constitutional Republic, these great United States of America!

Thanks to the five United States Supreme Court Justices who have reminded us, true Americans, of what tyranny looks like.

Steadfast and Loyal,

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Me thinks Steyn is speaking to you SCOTUS, particularly Roberts..

Constitutional Contortions By Mark Steyn

Great. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf macchiato in the Supreme Court snack bar. There’s nothing constitutionally seemly about a Court decision that says this law is only legal because the people’s representatives flat-out lied to the people when they passed it. Throughout the Obamacare debates, Democrats explicitly denied it was a massive tax hike: “You reject that it’s a tax increase?” George Stephanopoulos demanded to know on ABC. “I absolutely reject that notion,” replied the president. Yet “that notion” is the only one that would fly at the Supreme Court. The jurists found the individual mandate constitutional by declining to recognize it as a mandate at all. For Roberts’ defenders on the right, this is apparently a daring rout of Big Government: Like Nelson contemplating the Danish fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen, the chief justice held the telescope to his blind eye and declared, “I see no ships.”

, , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Dedicated to all those Tweeters, including buzzy feed and buzzy feeders

Buzzfeed uses liberals’ tweets to portray conservatives as stupid  via http://twitchy.com/

17 people who said they are moving to Canada because of ObamaCare.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-…

buzzfeed_lrg

Yesterday, Buzzfeed ran an article, “People Who Say They’re Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare,” featuring 17 people who claim they are moving to Canada to protest the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. The snarky subhead: “I’m sure they’ll like the healthcare just fine there.”

Shorter Buzzfeed: Stupid conservatives! So very, very stupid!

Continue reading →

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

What the hell do you care, Politico? YOUR HERO 44, wins either way this thing goes. That is until the CROCodile eats you last..

Politico:30 minutes ago

States could be in a bind on mandate  —  If the Supreme Court strikes down the health reform law’s individual mandate, the states at the forefront of implementing the law could find themselves like Wile E. Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons: racing ahead only to discover there’s no ground underneath their feet.

, , ,

Leave a comment

Ain’t Gonna’ Happen, Mugabe..

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT

President Obama has made it his mission to wield the club against the other two branches of government in a manner unprecedented in American history. He wants what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once called The Imperial Presidency. He wants the Supreme Court to do his bidding, or shut up. He wants Congress to get out of the way. He wants power, in its purest, most unbridled form.

via  http://www.breitbart.com/

, , ,

5 Comments

Four more years for this bozo and there ain’t gonna’ be A U.S. Constitution. Good thing IS, that’s when the blood starts to flow..

THE VETTING: OBAMA TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — PART II

via Breitbart/ Big Government  by BEN SHAPIRO

Yesterday, we explored President Barack Obama’s teachings at the University of Chicago Law School from 1996. We explored the first question (and answer) of his December 1996 final exam. Today, we move on to the second question.

To recap: question 1 revealed that President Obama does not believe that “tradition” is an important justification for laws; that he thinks childbearing and childrearing have almost nothing to do with marriage; and that legal realism is the way judicial decisions get made – i.e. that judges make decisions according to their own politics, rather than based on statute or law.

Question 2 is even more interesting, and sheds light on how deeply Obama was influenced by Derrick Bell‘s Critical Race Theory.

This question concerns a fictional “Mayor Dudley Duright,” the first African-American mayor of Wazoo City. The population of the city is 50 percent black and 50 percent white, and highly segregated. 

The Mayor decides to deal with two issues: racial disparities in city contracting, and racial disparities in the city’s Fire Department (foreshadowing the Ricci case, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor was overruled). 

Obama’s fictional mayor hits on two solutions. To deal with city contracting, he takes money from Project HOPE (Obama’s already doing the hope thing) and uses it to help firms located principally in the “low-income community,” as a proxy for race. 

To deal with the disparity in racial composition of the Fire Department, the Mayor implements a plan wherein everyone takes a basic competence exam, and then a lottery takes place to select firefighters. The firefighters’ union in the state of Wazoo quickly launches a referendum to stop the plan, and use one based on merit through testing.

So, are these measures constitutional? Let’s look to Obama’s answer sheet.

Here’s Obama’s analysis of the contracting plan:

  • The first measure – the affirmative action contracting program – is constitutional, says Obama. Just because the Mayor knew that the plan would disproportionately benefit blacks “does not, by itself, prove invidious intent.” In this case, says Obama, the government is “simply interested in promoting opportunities for residents of poor communities, a disproportionate number of whom happen to be black.”
  • The problem isn’t with the program, Obama says; it’s with white contractors’ “unwillingness to relocate into ‘low-income’ communities or hire ‘low-income workers.’”
  • Overall, says Obama, “it would appear that under current Equal Protection doctrine, white plaintiffs would have a very difficult time proving that the Mayor’s plan is based on an invidious intent to discriminate against whites—a telling example, perhaps, of why an ‘intent’ test is now a particularly fruitful means of analyzing disparate impact claims in a society where the socio-economic disparities between the races are so stark, pervasive, and deeply rooted.” This seems vague, but what it’s saying is pure Critical Race Theory: in evaluating a law, we shouldn’t look to intent but to effect, because the system is simply so corrupt and perverse. This is the same logic underlying the Holder Justice Department’s attempt to shut down the Texas voter ID law: the notion that the system is too corrupt to allow for laws of neutral application to go forward.

And here’s Obama’s analysis of the Fire Department plan:

  • First, he acknowledges that it will be difficult to get the referendum struck down.
  • Then he launches into his real opinion – or what he calls his “more controversial” reading of the case law. The case law, Obama argues, “recognizes that blacks are burdened not only by intentional racism but also by facially neutral processes that nevertheless place blacks in a structurally subordinate position.” Affirmative action programs, Obama says, “help alleviate structural inequality.” While such programs aren’t constitutionally required, to Obama’s obvious chagrin (he scoffs at “the Court’s ‘negative charter of liberties’ reading of the Constitution and theories of judicial restraint”), he says that once implemented, they cannot be overruled. Why? Because the white majority cannot “change the rules of the game so as to make it more difficult for blacks and other minorities to achieve such affirmative programs through the give and take of the democratic process—by resort, for example, to state-wide initiatives and referendums in which minority influence is lessened.” This is a highly radical legal approach. It is based in critical race theory, which states that structural racism is inherent in the system; it is based in an anti-democratic notion that racial minorities must be allowed outsized influence over the process so as to prevent the white majority from reinforcing that structural racism. This is radical stuff.
  • And it gets even more radical. Obama argues that the Mayor could say that “there are no pre-political, non-racial, ‘legitimate ways to select a tire [sic] department or determine ‘merit.’ The Mayor’s plan is ‘racial’ in the sense that it represents an affirmative effort to increase black representation on the police force without resorting to quotas or lowering standards of performance.” In fact, this purely racial program is “no more racial than is the union’s plan to maintain the status quo through a regime of written examinations.” Note the moral relativism here: Obama believes that a battery of non-discriminatory tests is as discriminatory as a clear affirmative action program.
  • And Obama continues along these lines, reiterating his distrust for democracy: “The union is free to debate the pros and cons of the Mayor’s plan in the public square; it can put pressure on the City Council to block the Mayor’s proposal, and can organize to vote the Mayor out of office. What it cannot do is shift decision-making over these racially-charged issues to the state level, where (we assume) blacks have less of [sic] political clout.” In other words, you can vote on it; you can stump against it; what you cannot do is win by taking it to the people more broadly. Obama does admit that this newfangled approach will probably not fly with the Supreme Court.

So here’s what we’ve learned today. Lecturer Obama believed deeply in Critical Race Theory – so much so that he advocated creative legal strategies to argue Critical Race Theory into law. He thought that facially neutral statutes were discriminatory thanks to the racism of the system. He even argued that the people of the states be stripped of their power to change local law, if such changes cut against narrow minority interests.

More to come …

, , , , ,

7 Comments

Just in case this has been forgotten..

U.S. Supreme Court

Image via Wikipedia

obama more than likely will have the opportunity to nominate additional Supreme Court justices over the remaining period of his reign. The U.S. Senate, which is now held in majority by democrats (53-46), confirms or rejects nominees.

obamacare, anyone?

,

4 Comments

%d bloggers like this: