Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Should Governor Rick Perry Bypass The Federal Government And Call Out The National Guard?

Guarantee Clause:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."  Article IV, Section 4

Source: The Heritage Guide To The Constitution 

‘We Are Under Invasion’: Louie Gohmert Breaks Down Crisis at the Border After McAllen Visit


Congressman Louie Gohmert speaks on The Glenn Beck Program with guest host Dana Loesch June 26, 2014. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)


Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) described the situation at America’s southern border as an “invasion” after a recent visit to McAllen, Texas.

Speaking on The Glenn Beck Program with guest host Dana Loesch, Gohmert said the border patrol facility in McAllen has between 1,000 and 1,200 people, which far exceeds its capacity, and the conditions are absolutely “terrible.”

“As one border patrolman said, ‘I would be livid, I would be ballistic, if my child were in this situation,’” Gohmert remarked. “But the border patrol’s hands are tied because the law says Health and Human Services has to take them, and they’re not picking them up.”

Officials estimate roughly 60,000 unaccompanied children will illegally enter the United States this year, up from roughly 6,000 in 2011. The recent flood of illegals has created what President Obama has labeled an “urgent humanitarian situation.”

“We’re a passionate society, we care, but you have to enforce the law,” Gohmert pleaded. “You have this huge surge of people coming to the American border. You’ve got border patrol and ICE whose hands are tied up … and in the meantime, it makes easy for the drug cartels to get even more drugs across.”

Gohmert said “we are under invasion, and this president will not protect our country, and he will not step in and enforce the law as it is.”

“There should not be any new immigration bill until the president enforces the law,” Gohmert concluded, “and our Department of Injustice [sic] begins to be a Department of Justice.”

Source: The Blaze

Based on Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution, it is the Federal Governments duty to Guarantee protections to the states in the event of an invasion. 
If the Federal Government won't send troops with the power to arrest those invading our country, the states being 'invaded' are left with no other choice but to take it upon themselves to protect their states from this invasion.

What do you think?

Friday, July 4, 2014

The Signers Of The Declaration Of Independence Were Declared Traitors By The King Of England

The Declaration Of Independence    

This is a post of a friend of mine, Gary Taylor, regarding the signing of the Declaration Of Independence and how special the 4th of July is in our history:


"On July 2nd 1776, about a year after the American Revolutionary War had begun, the elected leaders of the thirteen American Colonies voted to declare independence from Great Britain. On July 4th the declaration was ratified and signed by 56 patriots."

I suppose historians and folks much smarter then me will debate forever as to where and when, each of the 56 patriots actually signed the document. To me it really doesn’t matter where, or when… only thing that matters to me is the fact they had the courage to sign it.

You can bet each and every one of these brave and special men knew the dangers of signing such a document. There is much debate among historians as to what actually became of some of these men, but here is something that is not up for debate at all.

These men signed a document that gave birth to the idea of freedom, to the idea that the people of the land are best suited to control their own fate, not some hierarchy thousands of miles away.

By signing the document these men gave birth to America, the greatest nation on God’s green earth.

I am so thankful to be an American. I am proud of America and her accomplishments throughout our great history.

And I’ll be damned if I’ll apologize for it."


AMEN to that dear friend.  And may God continue to bless the United States of America. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More on the 4th of July: 

The true meaning of the 4th of July 

The Fourth of July was the day (it was actually a few days earlier) the people of the thirteen colonies through their representatives in the Congress, declared to the world that they were now independent and free States. Free from the King and Parliament and a centralized government. However, it would take a long and bloody war to actually permit these newly independent Sates to remain free.

The Declaration of Independence was signed by men who knew they were risking their “Lives, fortunes and sacred honor”. According to the King, they were all traitors who warranted death.

When the war finally came to a successful end the King and Parliament had no choice but to declare that the thirteen States were now free. The first Article of the Treaty of Paris that ended the war stated:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
It appears that we have forgotten who we are. The King had to sign a treaty that recognized all of the States independently. We are a union of States that remain free and independent. The Articles of Confederation, our first Constitution, and the current Constitution never gave up the Sovereignty of the States. In fact the States delegated only limited authority to the Federal government. The Tenth Amendment made it very clear.

How does the Declaration of Independence sum up? Read it carefully:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
So this Fourth of July why not fly your State flag? It will show to the world that you are still a Sovereign and free people who choose to remain part of a union of States. How did John Adams say to celebrate: “…It ought to be commemorated as a day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bell, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other…”

Let’s not forget who we are.
Source: The Tenth Amendment Center
 

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Constitutional Attorney, Jonathan Turley on 'dangerous' expansion of Obama's powers..."The Framers Would Be Horrified"

Jonathan Turley on 'dangerous' expansion of Obama's powers





Feb. 12, 2014 - 4:48 - Constitutional attorney reacts to the shift of gravity in Washington

The Rise of the Fourth Branch of Government


Below is today’s column in the Washington Post’s Outlook Section on the dangers of America’s growing administrative state. Ask any elementary student and you will hear how the Framers carefully designed a tripartite, or three-branch, system to govern the United States. This separation of powers was meant to protect citizens from tyranny by making every branch dependent on each other to carry out the functions of government. These three branches held together through a type of outward pressure – each holding the other in place through their countervailing forces. Add a fourth branch and the structure begins to collapse. That is precisely what is happening as federal agencies grow beyond the traditional controls and oversight of the legislative and executive branches. The question is how a tripartite system can function as a quadripartite system. The answer, as demonstrated by the last two decades, is not well. The shift from a tripartite to a quadripartite system is not the result of simply the growth in the size of the government. Rather, it is a concern with the degree of independence and autonomy in the fourth branch that led me to write this column.

There were times this past week when it seemed like the 19th-century Know-Nothing Party had returned to Washington. President Obama insisted he knew nothing about major decisions in the State Department, or the Justice Department, or the Internal Revenue Service. The heads of those agencies, in turn, insisted they knew nothing about major decisions by their subordinates. It was as if the government functioned by some hidden hand.

Clearly, there was a degree of willful blindness in these claims. However, the suggestion that someone, even the president, is in control of today’s government may be an illusion.

The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.

When James Madison and the other Framers fashioned a new constitutional structure in the wake of the failure of the Articles of Confederation they envisioned a vastly different government. Under the federalism model, states would be the dominant system with most of the revenue and responsibilities of governance. The federal government was virtually microsoptic by today’s standards. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.  [These numbers can be themselves misleading since much federal work is now done by contractors as part of "downsizing" but the work of the agencies has continued to expand.  Moreover, technological advances have increased the reach of this workforce].

This  growth since the founding has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.

The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.

This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.

The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.

These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. Just ask John E. Brennan. Brennan, a 50-year-old technology consultant, was charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration. He was cleared by a trial judge, who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech. The TSA was undeterred. After the ruling, it pulled Brennan into its own agency courts under administrative charges.

The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.

Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.

Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency.
It’s a small percentage of agency matters that rise to the level of presidential notice. The rest remain the sole concern of agency discretion.

As the power of the fourth branch has grown, conflicts between the other branches have become more acute. There is no better example than the fights over presidential appointments.
Wielding its power to confirm, block or deny nominees is one of the few remaining ways Congress can influence agency policy and get a window into agency activity. Nominations now commonly trigger congressional demands for explanations of agencies’ decisions and disclosures of their documents. And that commonly leads to standoffs with the White House.

Take the fight over Richard Cordray, nominated to serve as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray is highly qualified, but Republican senators oppose the independence of the new bureau and have questions about its jurisdiction and funding. After those senators repeatedly blocked the nomination, Obama used a congressional break in January to make a recess appointment. Since then, two federal appeals courts have ruled that Obama’s recess appointments violated the Constitution and usurped congressional authority. While the fight continues in the Senate, the Obama administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.
It would be a mistake to dismiss such conflicts as products of our dysfunctional, partisan times. Today’s political divisions are mild compared with those in the early republic, as when President Thomas Jefferson described his predecessor’s tenure as “the reign of the witches.” Rather, today’s confrontations reflect the serious imbalance in the system.

The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.

In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.

We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday) May 26, 2013

[The statistics on the rule-making and agency case figures in the piece came from Anne Joseph O'Connell, Vacant Offices: Delays In Staffing Top Agency Positions, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 913, 923 (2009) ]

Source: Jonathan Turley