Citizen Verbally Assails Reid - Left Promptly Complains

G.M. Heller's excellent Berkshire Blog had a wonderful story today. It seems that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) was out shopping (at an upscale market, naturally) when he was recognized by a citizen who proceeded to ask his vocally and repeatedly why he was holding up the repeal vote on ObamaCare. Reid refused to answer and literally ran away from the encounter, leaving in a fleet of black SUVs. An interesting discussion has developed in the comments between those who (like myself) see this as a good thing and those who seem to thin that now the Democrats run the country, dissent should no longer be allowed. A typical comment from this side of the aisle is the 7:19 PM comment from 'Anonymous' re-posted below:

That's what you would expect from a stupid Republican. Thank God he did not have a gun and shoot Harry. Republicans love to RELOAD their guns. Normal people don't act like those Tea Bagger wackos. Where are the Death Pannels Consevative Republicans lied about for months. Oh yeah - Death Pannels are where the Iraq missles of mass destruction are. I guess with my statement I'm being an ass just like the person that annoyed Harry.What goes arround comes arround.

This is sadly typical of so many on the political left. They cannot argue; they can only post vile epithets and baseless accusations. In response to the thread, I posted the following comment:

Senators, Representatives and the President himself are all elected representatives of The People. This is a point we would do well to remember. They work for we the people. We are not their servants, their subjects or any other position less prestigious.

If said representatives actually held regular meetings with their constituents (as opposed to the reality we witnessed during the run-up to ObamaCare when most of them ducked and ran) this sort of behavior would not be necessary. Unfortunately, most if not all of these self-important hypocrites do their utmost to restrict their actual meetings with their constituents to stage-managed affairs where as many attendees as possible are hand-picked from their special-interest supporters.

In light of that reality, this citizen was not out of line, from what I can discover. I do not see any indication that profanity, violent rhetoric (unlike that seen constantly among the Democrats and their tools in leftist media) or any threatening behavior was used in this encounter. The citizen appears to have been merely verbally forceful. And the security forces present did not see any need to interfere, which would seem to indicate that they did not see any threat either.

As for the argument about 'harassment', it was only two short years ago that the media and Democrats were claiming that 'dissent is the highest form of partiotism'. And throwing shoes at a sitting President was hailed in that same media as being 'heroic'. Very well. This citizen was dissenting. Why then the disapproval from the left side of the political divide? Isn't dissent patriotic anymore? Or is it that those who made that claim only want free speech for their side, not for their opponents? if so, I find that attitude both reprehensible and entirely unwelcome in this country.

Our elected (and appointed) representatives need to be reminded frequently that they serve at the pleasure of We The People. They are our servants not our rulers - a distinction that too many of both parties tend to forget. Therefore, when they do things like ObamaCare that are against the interests of those same People, they should expect to be called to account for their behavior. Which this citizen did. And which the rest of us should do as well. We should be be polite. We should be courteous. But we should be forceful in expressing our opinions. Remember - they serve us, not the other way around.

I do not think that Senators, Representatives, Presidents or judges for that matter should enjoy any superiority over the rest of us. All of the branches of government can and often do, get things wrong. The Supreme Court authored the horrible Roe decision in a blatant example of judicial over-reach and has stretched the Commerce Clause out of all recognition. In addition, it has invented new 'rights' for prisoners-or-war as well as those explicitly denied POW rights under the Geneva Conventions as laid out in the blatantly unfounded Boumediene decision), ignored Constitutional language (the 10th Amendment, the 4th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment) that is plain and unambiguous. Not to mention the blatant re-creation involved in the Kelo decision that allowed government to redistribute private property against the plain intent of the Founders.

Congress meanwhile has acquiesced as the courts have legislated wildly from the bench and has itself tried to make a mockery of the Constitution with laws dating back to the New Deal. ObamaCare is only the latest statist power grab. And the Executive has itself a sorry record of abusing its powers as well. So why should any of these so-called 'betters' be treated with any respect?

To my mind, they have not earned it and they should be required to answer to their fellow Americans often. Forcing someone to defend their mistakes is a far better way of forcing those mistakes to be rectified than pretending that somehow a mistake is 'settled case law'. In any event, I applaud this citizen. I only wish that more of us would do the same.

Federalism

With the recent power grab by the federal government in the person of the health care takeover (which followed the automotive takeover) ther is some talk of a Constitutional amendment. These are difficult, but the States can call one at any time.

Over at the Volokh Comnspiracy, Randy Barnett has posted his suggestions, provoking some fascinating comments. Barnett writes,

THE FEDERALISM RESTORATION AMENDMENT
The legislative power of Congress shall not be construed to include mandating, regulating, prohibiting or taxing the private health insurance of any person; nor shall the power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states be construed to include the power to mandate, regulate, prohibit or tax any activity that is confined within a single state and subject to the police power thereof, regardless of the activity’s economic effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme.

I commented with the following:

As long as we're dreaming brainstorming:

1. The Commerce Clause shall be interpreted as follows: Congress may not regulate any commercial activities confined solely within the borders of a State.


2. Congress may not nationalize or have any ownership interest in any business, industry or other commercial endeavor.


3. Congress may not pass unfunded mandates.


4. Congress may not link funding to any specific actions on the part of the States or the People.


5. Neither Congress nor any State may mandate the individual purchase of any goods or services.


6. States may not tax businesses not physically located within the boundaries of that State.


7. No executive order may remain in effect for more than 365 days without Congressional review and approval.


8. No Act of Congress may remain in effect for more than five years without Congressional review and approval.


9. Any Act passed by Congress will apply to all elected, appointed and career members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.


10. Any Act passed by Congress must be on a pay as you go basis.


11. No regulatory agency has authority to alter or amend its scope or requirements without said regulation being reviewed and approved by Congress.


12. Prisoners of War and non-legitimate combatants are not entitled to any access in any US court.


13. The Second Amendment shall be read as written. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


14. The rights and privileges enumerated in this Constitution are restricted to US citizens and legal residents only.

I'm no lawyer, but I think that by framing it this way, the Equal Rights parts are unaffected. We want to restrict the power of the feds to use the Commerce Clause to stick their noses into things they shouldn't be. Thoughts?

Congressional Power Grab - Athletics Edition

The United States Constitution clearly spells out the areas in which the U.S Congress is entitled to exercise authority. I don't recall college athletics as being mentioned anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution. However, this has not stopped some of the Constitutionally illiterate members of Congress from attempting to impose their authority on yet another area where they ought to leave well enough alone. According to an Associated Press report posted on FoxSports.com today, U.S. Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who really should know better, sponsored a law to force the NCAA to have a playoff. The AP reported,

A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters on its plate.

The only Representative to vote No was Democrat John Barrow of Georgia.

"With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.

Barrow is right that this should have been hastily voted down, but he has his rationnale a little mixed up in my opinion. The United States Constitution's clear text on Congressional powers is pretty simple. As follows:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I don't see anything in that text that allows Congress to regulate whether or not college football's Division One schools have a playoff system or not. It is obvious that the current system is a pathetic disgrace, the more so since every other division in college football has a playoff system. However, until the schools themselves decide to change things, Congress should focus their attention on things that are within their province. The utterly unconstitutional power grab by the EPA with their recent decision to class carbon dioxide as a pollutant - never mind that CO2 is a substance that is vital to human life on Earth - as a pollutant would be a good place to start.

It would be nice if our Congresspeople were actually cognizant that Congress - like the President and the court system - are not granted the power to do whatever they wish. There are limits on government power in the Constitution. If only our government would actually respect them!

Courts Destroy Citizen Rights, Part 2,000,000

It has always been my understanding that the courts' major job is to ensure justice and uphold the law of the land. Pity that so many of them seem to have signed on to the statists' big government mantra. Starting with the empowerment of government over citizens in the Progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century, the courts have steadily ceased to perform their role as limiters of government's constant power grabs.

The latest example of courts riding roughshod over citizens' rights occurred in Brooklyn, New York. The New York Supreme Court ruled that the government could use eminent domain to force homeowners and businesses to give up their property so that a multi-millionaire developer could build a new sports arena among other things.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the Founders supposed that the government would not attempt to engage in mass redistribution of wealth at the expense of their subjects - er, I mean citizens. Therefore, they wrote in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (which statement is echoed in the New York Constitution),

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that nowhere do they specifically say that property may not be taken for public use. Nor is there any mention that property may not be taken for private use. Thus the government is not breaking the letter of the law, though they have long since broken the spirit into a million little pieces (see Kelo).

The answer, I regret to say, is a Constitutional amendment stating that no private property can be seized for any reason save those specifically stated, and that under no circumstances can private property be seized for transfer to any non-public use. We have a government and a court system that wants to impose government oversight over every aspect of its citizens' lives. The only way to prevent this is to specifically bar the government and the courts for being allowed to impose. We have gone a long way down the road to serfdom already and unless we act, we will wake up in a feudal system - which of course is precisely what the big government proponents in the courts and the government want - a hierarchy where they may enjoy the fruits of everyone else's labors.

More Thoughts On Boumediene

So the Supreme Court has decided that our rights belong to our enemies, not to us, with their decision in the case of Boumediene v. Bush. Yesterday, after reading the decision, I posted my thoughts on this despicable and completely unconstitutional decision and I remain convinced that with this decision, the Supreme Court has laid the germ of the United States' eventual destruction. And of course they have fulfilled the wishes of the media and the left-wing Democrats who so badly want their own country to lose and fall under the control of fundamentalist Islam. The most disturbing part of this scene is that they have managed to prevail in spite of our brave soldiers actually winning the war on the ground. However, facts are irrelevant to the media and their allies in the legal profession. They have handed eventual victory to Islam in their centuries-old war to destroy all opposition to their imperial religion.

The Constitution does not set up judges as the ultimate arbiters of power in this country. There have been bad Supreme Court decisions before- anyone recall Dred Scott? However, there is nothing preventing the President from refusing to enforce any Supreme Court decision that is based either in bad law or that breaks the Constitution's separation of powers. This decision quite clearly does both- it is based on absolutely no precedent that I can discover (no previous cases have ever conferred access to US courts to aliens captured in combat, either lawful or unlawful combatants), and it over-rides the President's Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief. It also over-rides Congress' powers to legislate as they have twice passed legislation stripping the courts of jurisdiction over enemy alien combatants- most recently in 2006.

However, none of that appears to matter to five justices on the Supreme Court, as they have decided that the people and their representatives must not be allowed to make decisions- only the unelected, unaccountable justices of the Court are allowed that right. As they did in striking down the Fifth Amendment in the near-equally disgraceful Kelo decision, the justices have once again flouted the Constitution they are sworn to serve, have violated the wishes of the people via their elected representatives and most shockingly, have ignored the fact that Congress twice specifically removed jurisdiction from them. None of this stopped five justices of the Court from imposing their own wishes over those of the vast majority of their fellow Americans.

I repeat- when Islam achieves its goal of complete control over the United States and the rest of the Western, civilized world, those to blame will be the lawyers who fought so hard to give them access to the reins of power, the media who covered for them, and told Americans ceaselessly that we were the bad guys, and the elected politicians (especially those in the Democratic Party) who were too craven to assert their own Constitutional rights and instead allowed these five judges to over-ride centuries of law and the prerogatives of Congress itself.