Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

U.S. Only Two States Away From Rewriting Constitution

12/11/2008 10:13:00 PM

(0) Comments

God_Forbid_-_IV_-_Constitution_of_Treason_cover Before you start your tin foil hat conspiracy finger pointing, the one question that should be on your mind is; How did we get only two states away from rewriting the Constitution with no one knowing about it until now?

Via WND

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which “today’s corrupt politicians and judges” could formally change the U.S. Constitution’s “’problematic’ provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society.”

“Don’t for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn’t revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a ‘collective’ right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

“Additionally could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the ‘right’ to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more,’ the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lends of current events.

“The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the state can call for a convention,” the alert said.  “If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction.  And it’s a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Construction.”

[…]

Further, WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

MORE….

As a reminder;

2nd Amendment:  Right to bear arms.
4th Amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
5th Amendment:  Protection of due process, incriminating one’s self and eminent domain without “just compensation”.
10th Amendment:  Protection of State’s Rights including sovereignty, freedom and independence.

And one wonders why there is a new government program to have our U.S. Army deployed in the United States………  If you have no idea what I’m talking about, Army Brigade homeland tours started October 1, 2008 in the United States.

Do you want to call only being two states away from changing the Constitution a "tin foil hat” conspiracy theory with an upcoming president that wants the Constitution changed, combined with Army Homeland Tours?  Change is coming……

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

,

It’s Official, Obama Breaks Constitutional Law. Will the US Senate Be Next? [End of this Blog]

12/01/2008 09:00:00 AM

(0) Comments

UnitedSocialistStatesOfAmericaFlag Obama announced this morning that Hillary Clinton would be the next Secretary of State.

“I assembled this team because I am a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions,” he said.  “I think that’s how the best decisions are made.”

The only thing Obama forgot to say is that he also believes in violating the United States Constitution.  Hillary Clinton is NOT eligible for the position of Secretary of State via the Constitution.

I ask you how can a man ethically take the oath for Presidency which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, when he isn’t even following or respecting Constitutional Law?

The final step for Obama to truly break this law is for confirmation by the Senate for Clinton, along with Holder and Napolitano, to these positions.  I ask you, is this still a Democratic sovereign nation, if 1.  our next president willfully and voluntarily breaks Constitutional Law, and 2.  our own Congress willfully and voluntarily breaks Constitutional Law?

I urge everyone to email, call or write their Senator and demand that our Constitution be followed.

And, this is the end of this blog.  No one cares how many Constitutional Laws that Obama is trying to break.  It does not matter that he plans on violating the 13th Amendment with his required America Serves program.  It does not matter that Obama refuses to end the debate over whether he is a natural born US citizen or not, even if it is a crazy conspiracy theme.  He’d rather deal with it for the next 4 years instead of ending the accusations now.  Those who voted for Obama, you wanted “change” you got it.  The Constitution is dying.  Say good bye to all your rights.  But all the US citizens seem to care about is who wins “Dancing with the Stars” or who wins “American Idol” or what happens next week on “Desperate Housewives.”

A year from now, you will have no one to blame but yourselves for the destruction of the Constitution and the true beginning of Socialism.

And I am wasting my time trying to blog the truth. 

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

, , , , ,

Obama Ignores Constitutional Law Prohibiting Clinton As Secretary of State.

12/01/2008 04:14:00 AM

(0) Comments

unconstitutional-the-movie1Gee look, another instance where Obama ignoring Constitutional law, and thinks his word is golden, although the man has a law degree and formerly lectured on Constitutional law. 

One other thing to remember in reading all this is that Obama did sign an “American Freedom Pledge” during the Democratic presidential election, which encourages the restoration of basic Constitutional principles. [*KOFF KOFF*] On a side note, it took quite awhile for the Obama camp to agree to sign the pledge.

In this document it simply asked the candidates to affirm a statement that read:  “We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. [NOTE:  Does this include in times of declared war?] I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President.”  The only person who did not sign this document was Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton can not legally be Secretary of State due to a clause in the Constitution under the “Emoluments Clause”, or salary or other compensation for employment.  In other words, Congress cant create new jobs or give raises to existing jobs, and then take those same jobs for themselves.  In “regular Joe” verbage, this means that Congress cannot take an appointment for which the pay has gone up during the time that person held office in Congress. 

Article I, Section 6, Clause 2

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time:  and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

PAY INCREASE

By Executive Order dated January 4, 2008, President Bush ordered the salaries of Cabinet Secretaries to be raised from $186,000 to $191,300.  So thus, the pay for the Secretary of State increased this year.  This is the salary increase or the “emolument” increase .  Senator Clinton’s current term runs from 2007 to 2012, thus she is ineligible for taking said Secretary or State position until the end of her term.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Eugene Volokh, who is a Professor of Law at UCLA teaches free speech law, criminal law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law.  Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  He has also written three textbooks,over 50 law review articles and over 80 opinion-editorials.  Here is his take on things:

So, “Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?”  In a word, Yes – or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.

The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”  As I understand it, President Bush’s executive order from earlier this year “encreased” the “Emoluments” (salary) of the office of Secretary of State.  Lat I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time.  Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be appointed to an office for which “the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased” during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator.  The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment … if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn’t on these matters, of course).

But presidents Taft, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all ignored the Constitution, and used a loophole around it.  They did it by lower the pay, after the fact.  But still, this is not necessarily legal. 

In Nixon’s situation, he nominated Sen. William Saxbe (R-OH) to serve as his Attorney General after the Saturday Night Massacre, but the AG’s salary had been increased in 1969 during Saxbe’s term.  Nixon persuaded Congress to lower Saxbe’s salary to the pre-1969 level, and the “Saxbe fix” was born.

Volokh continues on this matter about the Saxbe Fix:

Then there’s the infamous “Saxbe Fix” precedent, which I discuss in Lloyd.  Couldn’t Congress pass a repealing statute, or President Bush (or even President Obama) rescind the executive order, selectively, as to Hillary and make everybody happy?  Nope:  The clause forbids the appointment of someone to an office the emoluments whereof “shall have been increased”.  A “fix” can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events.  The emoluments of the office have been increased.  The rule specified in the text still controls.

Additionally on the Saxbe fix, Sen. Robert Byrd was opposed to this fix, saying the Constitution was explicit and “we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.”

ANOTHER OPINION

Volokh hased John O’ Connor, who wrote an article on the subject, The Emoluments Caluse:  An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995) [PDF], for his opinion on the matter.

“I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State.  I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.

… Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been increased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected,” or until January 2013.

… By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been increased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased. … The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.

The more difficult question is whether Senator Clinton’s ineligibility for appointment may be cured legislatively through the “Saxbe Fix,” where Congress reduces the Secretary of State’s salary to a level at or below where it was when Senator Clinton’s current term began in 2007. …

It is in my view that the Saxbe Fix fails to remove an ineligibility for appointment.  I believe the Saxbe Fix is ineffectual based on the plain reading of the Emoluments Clause and is also contrary to the intent of that clause.  The Emoluments Clause provides an ineligibility for appointment to an office the emoluments of which ‘have been increased.’  Even if the emoluments of the office are later reduced, it seems to me that they ‘have been encreased’ during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term even if they are later decreased.”

NOT THE FIRST TIME FOR THE CLINTONS AND THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE

In 1993 President-elect Clinton sought to confirm Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) as his Treasury Secretary, despite his having been reelected to the Senate in 1989 prior to a Cabinet pay raise.  On January 5, 1993, Senator John Glenn and others introduced S.J. Res. 1, which read in its relevant parts:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the compensation and other emoluments attached tot he office of Secretary of the Treasury shall be those in effect January 1, 1989, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under--

(1) the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-194) or any other provision of law amended by that Act; or

(2) any other provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of January 3, 1989, and ending at noon of January 3, 1995.

[…]

This joint resolution shall become effective at 12:00 p.m., January 20, 1993.

It passed both Houses without objection, and was signed into law by President Bush on January 19, 1993.  Bentsen would receive an annual salary of $99,500 for his Cabinet service, far less than his colleagues at $148,400.  When the issue threatened to resurface in 1996 upon the nomination of Cong. Bill Richardson and Sen. William Cohen to UN Ambassador and Defense Secretary, respectively, the USDOJ Office of Legal Counsel mooted the issue by noting that the pay increase for Richardson’s position occurred prior to his current term in Congress, and that Cohen’s Senate term would expire before his being sworn in.

Again however, this goes back to what Volokh said on the matter that a"’fix’ can rescind the salary, but it cannot repeal historical events.  The emoluments of the office have been increased.  The rule specified in the text still controls.”

Additionally, President Bill Clinton re-wrote part of the Constitution in 1998.

BOTTOM LINE

The mostly Democratic Congress will just type up a new “bill” to fix everything, thus changing our Constitution so that Hilliary can sit in office.

Just like Obama not needing to show his "Birth Certificate” but instead choosing to show a document titled “Certification of Live Birth” which does not show his birthplace, thus a Constitutional violation.  Additionally his Aunt stated she witnessed his birth in Africa.  And the Kenyan Ambassador has stated that Kenya is planning on building a monument in Kenya at Obama’s birthplace.

Just like Obama wanting to require school aged children and college students to “serve” by doing hours of community service, which is a 13th Amendment violation.

And all of this before the man is even in office.

All I have to say on the matter, is that if Clinton is appointed to the Secretary of State seat, this blog will end as our Constitution is slowly being killed off by Obama.  The “change” will be that there will no longer be a Constitution, and thus all your rights including freedom of speech, right to freedom of religion, and simply your right to freedom.

And what is truly sad, is that no one seems to care.

SOURCES:

 Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

, , , ,

Electors in California File Lawsuit Over Obama’s Natural Born Status [Constitutional Law]

11/15/2008 03:05:00 AM

(0) Comments

 flagconstitution A case has been filed in California, yes another lawsuit however this one I think has the legs to go the distance, for Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen.

The only thing I have to say about all this is that it would be just so simple for Obama to earn trust in those of us who do have doubts as to whether he is natural born, and to believe his claims that he is natural born, by simply showing a stupid piece of paper.  It’s that simple.  What Obama does not seem to understand, or believe is that so far there have been at least 8 lawsuits against him, wanting to prove his is natural born, with two still active at this point and now a new suit, and that until he produces the document asked of him, chances are, it’s not going to stop.  Or does he wish to keep dividing the masses of us versus them?  Those that follow him versus those that do not trust him.  Trust is earned over time and actions, it is not automatically given.  There is NO substitute for time and actions.  Did many of you trust Bush when he first went into office?  Did many of you automatically trust Clinton when he went into office?  And for a President-Delegate to not want the trust of the United States citizens, then that alone says quite a lot about the man’s personality and mentality.

This is not so much about Obama being president, as it is that someone is possibly hiding the fact they are not natural born, and thus are not entitled to be President of the United States according to our Nation’s Constitution.  Or is the Constitution, something that is suppose to be the supreme law of the land, nothing more than just a piece of paper anymore?

What is increasingly more interesting about this case, is that the major news outlets, or the MSM, have not picked up on it, yet it seems to be spreading on the “Internez”, like wildfire.

CALIFORNIA LAWSUIT

alankeyes A petition has been filed in California by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Alan Keyes (left), the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors on Thursday, Nov. 13.  Named as defendants in the action are California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, President Delegate Barack Obama, Vice-President Delegate Joe Biden, and a list of California party electors.

bobclatimes424_0[6] The “Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.  The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.” 

The State of Hawaii considers a “Certificate of Live Birth” a secondary source of identification for the purpose of establishing Hawaiian ancestry.  This is the document that can be seen on the “Fight the Smears'” website.  It is not a “Birth Certificate.”  Thus, the claim alleges that the “Certificate of Live Birth” posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges since it does not show the hospital of birth, or a doctor’s signature.  [NOTE:  A high resolution scan of the document can be found here and here.

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama’s time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship.  Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama’s mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.  Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be “naturalized",” not “natural-born.”

The petition is a request for the Superior Court of California in Sacramento County to issue a peremptory writ barring Secretary of State Debra Bowen “from both certifying to the governor the names of the California Electors, and from transmitting to each presidential Elector a Certificate of Election, until such documentary proof is produced and verified showing that Senator Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States and does not hold citizenship of Indonesia, Kenya or Great Britain.” 

The petition states that the California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, and issue a writ barring California’s electors from signing the Certificate of Vote until documentary proof is produced.

“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal,” the action challenges.

Citing the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural born” citizen, the case discusses other state and federal court cases regarding “aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Senator Obama.  Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President,” the case said.

“There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process.”

“Since [the Secretary of State, SOS] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United State of American is received by her.”

“This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

“To this date, in this regard, SOS has not carried out that fundamental duty.”

In response to questions about why the suit was being filed, Keys commented:

“I and others are concerned that this issue be properly investigated and decided before Senator Obama takes office.  Otherwise there will be a serious doubt as to the legitimacy of his tenure.  This doubt would also affect the respect people have for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.  I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt.  This will be good for him and for the nation.”

INTERESTING FIND

obamakenyan08rz2 On the “Fight The Smears” website, that was designed to set the “record straight” about Obama.  However, FactCheck.org left a note stating:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.  As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

If this is true, then Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

But yet later, FactCheck.org stated that the “certificate of live birth” to be valid.  The thing to remember here is that yes, the “certificate of live birth” may be valid however, under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178, Obama could have been born in Kenya, and been brought back to Hawaii and received this document.  Additionally at that time in Hawaii, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate.

What makes this important is Obama’s grandmother in Kenya who has stated, and can be heard in the video below during a phone call from the Bishop of Anabaptists Churches of North America, Ron McRae, that Obama was born in Kenya.

Ron McRae: … I would like to see his actual birthplace when I, when I come to Kenya in December.  Uh, was she present when he was, was she present when he was born in Kenya?

Translator to Sarah Obama:  Alikuma zalima Obama (unintelligible)

Kewli Shuhubia:  He is asking her, he wants to know something was ah she present when he was born?

Translator:  Yes.  She says “Yes she was!  She was present when Obama was born.”

Ron McRae:  Okay.

 

OTHER THOUGHTS

In Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, pg. 204, Obama states he lived in Indonesia for five years.

“During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia…….”

At that time, only Indonesian citizens were allowed to enroll in public school.  If Obama’s citizenship was switched to Indonesian, and later switched back, he would then be referenced as a “naturalized” citizen, and not an “natural born” and thus, is not eligible for president.

THOUGHTS TO PONDER

I believe all the above facts themselves warrant an investigation into whether Obama is infact a natural born citizen.  It’s a simple thing.  Produce the original “Birth Certificate” and all is done instead of fueling the fires of doubt against him and wasting taxpayers money in courts.  How can one believe in anyone, if they won’t be truthful, or attempt to gain trust?  Or again, is that what he wants, to divide this nation into believers and non-believers?  Just thoughts to ponder……

PREVIOUS POSTS:
SOURCES:
 Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

, , , , ,

Obama "Scrubs" Change.Gov Web Site About Requiring America Serves [Busted]

11/07/2008 11:58:00 PM

(0) Comments

AmericaServes2 Earlier today, probably about 10 hours ago, I blogged about how according to the new "Office of the President-Elect" that according to Obama's "America Serves" program, that middle school children were going to be required to serve 50 hours of  community service, and high school students were going to be required to serve 100 hours of community service, as part of the new "America Serves" program.  You can find the original,now cached, version HERE.

I had stated that this was a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 13 specifically stating:

1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Now what surprised me of this statement on Obama's web site is that he is suppose to be a Constitution Law Attorney, and how could he ever miss this one?

Then a couple of hours ago, I blogged about Obama' new Chief of Staff, Rahm Amanuel, and an excerpt from his book, The Plan:  Big Ideas for America, in which he describes "a first draft of the new conditions, new requirements, and new terms that our new era will demand."  His book includes his idea of "The Plan" and "Universal Citizens Service".

americaserves-2 Well, it has come to my attention that the Change.Gov website has "changed", specifically the part about America Serves.  So I took a look, and guess what?  It has changed..... and it was changed at 11:46PM, Eastern Time.

The page no longer states "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."

It now states: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America , by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."

I still want to see how the Obama Socialist Cult, Administration plans on doing this without breaking the 13th Amendment........

Know your country's history.  It may protect your life, your rights, and your freedom.  You can get a free "pocket" copy of the US Constitution from The Heritage Foundation.  It's really nice to have.

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

, , ,

In Video Philly Police Arrest Man For Wearing McCain T-Shirt [Police State]

11/07/2008 07:06:00 PM

(0) Comments

gagged_med A few days ago I blogged about feeling safe while wearing a Presidential-Candidate's t-shirt or pin other than Obama, and asking do you feel safe?  Well here ya go....

In Philadelphia a video blogger went to the streets to capture the madness cheers for Obama.  In the video cars are honking all over, people are walking in the street and cheers can be heard everywhere.  Meanwhile down at City Hall, people are just plain going crazy with excitement over the announcement that Obama has won the election, and streets are crowded with people. 

But what the man didn't plan on was this;  finding one man who was wearing a McCain t-shirt with police surrounding him.  One officer states to the man "Come back here with me please", leading him away from the crowd.  There doesn't seem to be a riot against the man, he doesn't seem to be in a fight with anyone, he's just simply there.

What the police officer says next to the man is inaudible however, the man says he's not there to cause trouble.  The police officer says to the man "I'm not going to tell you again."  The man replies pointing to his McCain t-shirt that its called "freedom of speech." 

A separate officer attempts to grab the man's arm and he turns to face the other officer and the man finds himself surrounded by now three officers who are forcibly removing him from the street.  What is interesting to note at this moment is that "Boos" and thumbs down are heard and seen from the Obama crowd at this action.

Once the man is on the sidewalk, he is told by the police to just "walk away".  Another officer is heard saying "You know what, don't tell him no more, don't tell him no more, just lock him up."  The man initially stands there and walks over to the man with the camera starting to talk to him, he is grabbed forcefully by the police, [hearing now the crowd behind the scene chanting "Obama.. Obama.. Obama..." while watching the police arrest the man and obviously realizing that the man was wearing a McCain shirt and not an Obama supporter], the man is handcuffed and led away to a police vehicle.

When the man is placed in the police vehicle, cheers can be heard in the background.

One thing to note, the man does have a styrofoam sword in his shirt.  If this were the issue, then when the sword is taken by an Obama fan, then the police would have gone after that person, the the McCain shirt man.

Welcome to Socialism people and the end of your Constitutional Rights aka Martial Law.

 Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

, , , ,

Obama Is Not President Elect... Yet. [Constitutional Law]

11/05/2008 10:36:00 AM

(0) Comments

Photo of the Constitution of the United States of America. A feather quill is included in the photo.The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest codified written national constitution still in force. It was completed on September 17, 1787. Reading this morning's news reports, blogs and such I always like to take a look at the comments section to see what people have to say.  One major thing I noticed is that people seem to believe that Obama is now President.  Well, here's a shocker for you Obama folk;  He's not President, he's not even the President-Elect.  What he is, is the President-Delegate, and is not legally the President-Elect until after the Electoral Vote which is voted on December 15th, 2008, with the votes not being counted until January 6, 2009,  and not the President until after noon Inauguration Day on January 20, 2009. 

Just because a candidate won a popular vote as a result of Election Day, November 4th, does not mean he automatically becomes President.  There are still votes to be made in accordance with our Constitution.  And until January 20th, 2009, after noon Eastern Time, the President of the United States remains George W. Bush.

Read on to understand how one does become President after Election Day, November 4, 2008.

PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE

So what is the president-designate?  Well, first one is officially the president-elect only after being chosen by the Electoral College, but unofficially the person chosen in the November general election.  He is the presidential-designate until the Electoral College meets and elects the president.

The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States; since 1964 the electoral college has had 538 electors.  In 2008, it will make its selection on December 15.

POPULAR VOTE

map So how does this effect the Presidency?  Well "We the People" rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, cast the popular vote or votes for electors.   Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress, which is based by the 2000 census.   Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates.  The ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' a certain party's Electors.  So when you vote, you are not voting for President, but you are voting for pledged Electors to a specific candidate.  So thus when you vote, you are voting for the "popular vote".  From the popular vote determines how many Electoral Votes will be given to designated Electors to a certain party.

Forty-eight states and DC have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote where voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific presidential and vice presidential candidate.  The candidate that wins the most vote in the state wins the support of that state's electors.   For example, California has 55 Electoral votes. Since California went Obama or Democratic, that means that 55 Electors that represent California, will have votes that have pledged a vote for Obama.  In two other states, Maine and Nebraska, the used a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote.   

Thus, U.S. presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous elections (50 states plus DC), rather than a single national election.  This is based on our Constitution that was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government.  The Congress would have two houses, one state-based (Senate) and the other population-based (House of Representatives) in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general.

ELECTORAL VOTE

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:  but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

The congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Article II, Section 1, Cause 3 of the Constitution provided the original fashion by which the President and Vice President were to be chosen by the electors.  The primary difference was that each elector voted for two Persons for President, rather than one vote for President and one vote for Vice President.  After the choosing of the President, whoever had the most electoral votes, among the remaining candidates, would become the Vice President.

The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:

  1. Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
  2. Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
  3. Candidates for either office would not pair together on the same ticket.
  4. The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress.

However the Twelfth Amendment replaced Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 which allows electors to cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President.

Electors chosen meet in their respective state capitals on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President.  In 2008, that meeting will be on December 15.

After voting, the electors complete the Certificate of Vote.  This document states the number of electoral votes cast for President and Vice President, and who received these votes.  Five copies of the Certificate of Vote are completed and signed by each Elector.  Multiple copies of the Certificate of Vote are signed, in order to provide multiple copies in case one is lost.  One copy is sent to the President of the U.S. Senate (the sitting Vice President of the United States) by certified mail.

The Certificates of Vote are collected by the Office of the Vice President and prepares them for the joint session of Congress.  The Certificates are arranged - unopened - in alphabetical order and placed in two boxes.  Alabama through Missouri are placed in one box, and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box.

The envelopes are not opened upon receipt or before they are put in the respective boxes.  The Twelfth Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session and federal law mandates that such joint session to count the votes and declare the winner take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential elections.  The boxes are brought in, and each house appoints two tellers to count the vote.  If there are no objections, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote.

The thing to remember here however, is that just because a candidate won the popular vote, does not necessarily mean they will win the electoral vote.  This has happened in 1876, 1888 and 2000.  Electors who do not vote what they are pledged are called a  "faithless elector."

FAITHLESS ELECTORS
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect, or who refuses to vote for any candidate. 

There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states.  In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952).  The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge.  As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government.  Therefore, states have the right to govern electors.

The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casing a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

ELECTORAL VOTE TIES

PRESIDENCY (House of Representatives)
If for some reason no candidate for the Presidency receives a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President.  In this event, the House is limited to choosing from among three candidates who received the most electoral votes.  Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively.  A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect.  Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place.  The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

VICE PRESIDENCY (Senate)
If however, no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to elect a Vice President.  The Senate is limited to choosing from only the to two candidates to have received electoral votes (one fewer than the number to which the House is limited).  The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case.  However, two-thirds of the Senators must be present for voting to take place.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that a "majority of the whole number" of Senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election. 

The only time the Senate chose the Vice President was in 1837.

DEADLOCKED CHAMBERS
If the House has not chosen a President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifics that the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until the House should select a President.  If the winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become Acting President until either the House should elect a President or the Senate should select a Vice President.

THINGS TO REMEMBER

However, just because a candidate wins the popular vote, does not mean that a candidate will still be president.  This has happened in 1876, 1888 and 2000.  This is not "stealing the vote", or changing the popular vote.  The popular vote remains the same (the people) however, electors changed their vote which has not been determined constitutionally illegal by the Supreme Court.

So thus, as of this exact moment, until the Electoral Vote has been completed, Barack Obama is only the Presidential Designate, not the President-Elect, or even President.

And what I find said, is that so many newspapers are reporting Obama as the President-Elect, and showing that they know nothing about the United States Constitution.  Have a look: 

Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

Misery Index

, , ,