Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is a gem. He continually stands up to the seemingly daily attacks upon the U.S. Constitution by the Obama Administration.
Senator Lee is currently co-sponsoring a bill to make the Obama Administration, and future Administrations, Democrat or Republican, have to seek Congressional approval for any regulations formed through the Departments, like the EPA, that have more than a $100 million effect on the national economy as determined by the GAO.
This is a welcome and much needed change, as Obama directs his administration to legislate through their implied regulatory authority as opposed of going through the People's representatives in Congress. What has transpired is hundreds of regulations that are choking our economy and individual/states rights.....
He is also looking to scale back the federal government's control over federally owned land within a state.
Just this week Lee introduced a bill in the Senate that would require the federal government to seek approval from a state legislature prior to making a federal land designation in that state. Such designations could include classifying an area as a national park, national monument or national recreation area.
"Too often, the federal government ignores the people's rights to determine for themselves how best to utilize their own land," Lee said in a statement announcing the bill's introduction. "States with smaller populations, like Utah, end up with only a limited voice in Congress. The process should include greater protections for states and local communities against unwanted and often economically damaging decisions."
The bill comes on the heels of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dedicating two new conservation areas in southern Utah this week. The areas are a result of a bill that passed through Congress in 2009 sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee's predecessor, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. Had Lee's proposal been in place then, the state Legislature would have had to sign off on the land designations.
The proposal also would have an effect on the president's ability to use the Antiquities Act to designate areas of federally owned land as national monuments. President Bill Clinton designated a portion of southern Utah as a monument via the act in 1996. Under Lee's proposal the president would need approval from the state legislature before the president's actions become permanent.
In the video below, Senator Lee appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, testifying against President Obama's unconstitutional appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board.
Mike Lee is a first term Senator and rising star in the Republican party and Tea Party community. It gives me hope to see Legislators like him, Allan West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and a few others.
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Showing posts with label constitutional issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitutional issues. Show all posts
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Obama May Be In Deep Trouble.....
....with Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court
An article by Anthony G. Martin - North St. Paul News
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the US Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . ..
And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
An article by Anthony G. Martin - North St. Paul News
According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the US Supreme Court may be inevitable.
Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . ..
And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
It's Not a Social Issue!
Recently I was listening to Talk Show radio covering the upcoming Michigan and Arizona Republican Presidential Primaries, mainly between former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA). The host was saying that these two candidates as well as the Republican leadership in Congress are making a mistake when they call out Obama on social issues, where in the host’s view, they should be concentrating on the economy.
The host saying it was a losing strategy to bang on Obama for trying to make religious institutions pay for birth control for the employees, and of course Obama rapidly backed up on that saying that instead the (evil) insurance companies will foot the bill to provide free contraceptives. For one point none of us believe that this is free in the first part – the insurance companies will pass of those costs in higher premiums to all, including the people who religious beliefs are contrary to birth control. Before you know it, it’ll be mandatory “free’ abortions.
But here’s a thought I heard on a different talk show,…..what if medical researchers found a “gay gene” which unborn babies could be tested for? Whould these liberals still be for open abortions for all? Or would they further expose their radical leftwing agenda and make some rule where abortions are okay as a means of birth control except where you want an abortion on a unborn child who has a Gay gene.
But I digress,…..the point is that the Conservative upset on Obama’s call for religious institutions to directly or indirectly fund the pill against their religious beliefs it not necessarily a social issue. It is a Constitutional issue because of, one – the direct assault on the first amendment, and two – a usurpation of powers to the executive office which are, frankly, like a Central American dictatorship.
And this is not like the first time it has happened in the last three years or since Obama took the oath of office. Obama has unconstitutionally created Czars; used stimulus funds to run conservatives out of the retail car market; ordered and/or allowed the Justice Department to let federal criminals go unpunished (such as the Black militants threatening voters in PA) and instead focused on suing the states who won’t accept either Obama’s incompetence or attacks on the Constitution. Obama gave us Obamacare,….you have to pass the bill to see what’s in it? Are you kidding me? Now we have see some of what is in it and are disgusted by it.
We have seen anti-business regulation after regulation; Obama putting this country's very security at risk with his anti-drilling and anti-pipeline positions he takes. He gave us Solyndra,….$550 million for a bankrupt company. Obama’s further violations include declaring himself, absence of congress'es approval, when congress is in session or not, then making appointments of his anti-business buddies to run the Consumer Protection Agency.
For God’s sake now we have USDA inspectors in elementary school telling mothers what makes a nutritious lunch?
Nope.....these are Constitutional issues. One man or one branch of office does not have these powers. The Democrats controlled Congress for his first two years, and who now control just the Senate, are allowing him to do this. Damn right we need to make this an issue come the late summer.
The host saying it was a losing strategy to bang on Obama for trying to make religious institutions pay for birth control for the employees, and of course Obama rapidly backed up on that saying that instead the (evil) insurance companies will foot the bill to provide free contraceptives. For one point none of us believe that this is free in the first part – the insurance companies will pass of those costs in higher premiums to all, including the people who religious beliefs are contrary to birth control. Before you know it, it’ll be mandatory “free’ abortions.
But here’s a thought I heard on a different talk show,…..what if medical researchers found a “gay gene” which unborn babies could be tested for? Whould these liberals still be for open abortions for all? Or would they further expose their radical leftwing agenda and make some rule where abortions are okay as a means of birth control except where you want an abortion on a unborn child who has a Gay gene.
But I digress,…..the point is that the Conservative upset on Obama’s call for religious institutions to directly or indirectly fund the pill against their religious beliefs it not necessarily a social issue. It is a Constitutional issue because of, one – the direct assault on the first amendment, and two – a usurpation of powers to the executive office which are, frankly, like a Central American dictatorship.
And this is not like the first time it has happened in the last three years or since Obama took the oath of office. Obama has unconstitutionally created Czars; used stimulus funds to run conservatives out of the retail car market; ordered and/or allowed the Justice Department to let federal criminals go unpunished (such as the Black militants threatening voters in PA) and instead focused on suing the states who won’t accept either Obama’s incompetence or attacks on the Constitution. Obama gave us Obamacare,….you have to pass the bill to see what’s in it? Are you kidding me? Now we have see some of what is in it and are disgusted by it.
We have seen anti-business regulation after regulation; Obama putting this country's very security at risk with his anti-drilling and anti-pipeline positions he takes. He gave us Solyndra,….$550 million for a bankrupt company. Obama’s further violations include declaring himself, absence of congress'es approval, when congress is in session or not, then making appointments of his anti-business buddies to run the Consumer Protection Agency.
For God’s sake now we have USDA inspectors in elementary school telling mothers what makes a nutritious lunch?
Nope.....these are Constitutional issues. One man or one branch of office does not have these powers. The Democrats controlled Congress for his first two years, and who now control just the Senate, are allowing him to do this. Damn right we need to make this an issue come the late summer.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
New Mexico Sheriffs Standing Tall
Sent to me by a friend, this article titled "New Mexico Sheriffs Standing Tall' was written by Larry Pratt, just before Thanksgiving. See NewsWithViews.com
Gun Owners of America (GOA) member Dr. Ray Seidel alerted me to the stirring of freedom that is taking place in his village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. I have already reported on the first battle with Mayor Ray Alborn and how he tried to impose an unconstitutional gun ban in the village. To get the full story of what happened in
Ruidoso, you can go here and listen to my first debriefing session with Seidel.
I recently interviewed Dr. Seidel a second time on my Gun Owners News Hour weekly radio program and asked him about several acts of local interposition in the surrounding counties -- all of which underscores the importance of the office of the sheriff and the militia.
For example, over near Deming, New Mexico is the Gila National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service wanted to make almost all of it off limits for people -- until the militia of Luna County intervened. They told the feds that they would resist any effort by the Forest Service to restrict access to visitors. The result? Visitors have continued to access all of the Gila National Forest!
In the Southeast corner of the state, many landowners have working oil wells on their property. The EPA told the oil operators they would have to stop operating their wells because there was too much risk of harming the environment. At a town hall meeting convened by the EPA, a woman in her 60s rose to address the feds. She pointed out that her land had been in her family for over 200 years, and she was
not about to let some official from an unconstitutional bureaucracy tell her what she could or could not do with her land.
The woman ended by warning the feds that her family has many guns and a huge supply of ammunition, and they would use all of it if needed to keep the EPA off of their land. The locals who had packed out the hearing room jumped to their feet with a shout and prolonged applause. That was in August of this year. As of November, oil is still being pumped at full tilt.
In Otero County, villages in the mountains are surrounded by forests. The county commission voted to establish an 80,000 acre plan to manage forest overgrowth. Residents wanted to cut fire breaks to protect their homes in Cloudcroft, but the Forest Service said, “No.” The residents responded that they had to for safety’s sake and were going to construct the fire break in spite of the Forest Service.
Residents were told that if they cut down any trees, they would be arrested. But Sheriff Raymond Cobos told the Forest Service that if they made any arrests, they would be arrested for false arrest.
Not only were the trees cut down with no opposition from the feds, the first tree was cut down by Congressman Steve Pearce (R-2nd District). Would that there were many more like Rep. Pearce. The folks in the Second District are blessed with a constitution-supporting congressman and a number of constitutional sheriffs backed by the militias of their counties. This is the way that local governments can push back and help the feds to live within the limitations that have been placed upon them in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
As you can see, there’s a lot happening in New Mexico. And Dr. Seidel has been at the center of a lot of it. Two weeks after the people of Ruidoso prevailed in the gun ban debate, Mayor Alborn decided to seek revenge. He went to the state capital of Santa Fe and met with federal officials there. That same week, Seidel got a notice from the IRS that he had until a certain date to file his taxes, which he has refused to do for several years.
Seidel makes no secret of his refusal to submit to the IRS which he considers as part of an unconstitutional regime in Washington. The IRS intended to encumber his assets if he did not bend his knee. Seidel visited with the county sheriff who understood what Seidel was trying to do and told him he “would have his back.” The same was true for the village police chief – the same officer who refused to have his men arrest people who were defying the Ruidoso gun ban by carrying openly in the village council chambers.
Not only was the sheriff and police chief alerted to the possibility of IRS action against Seidel, but so was the militia in Lincoln County – some 200 plus men who keep their rifle and battle bag in their vehicles 24/7. They can muster in about 30 minutes at any place in the county.
Seidel visited with the village assessor, who would be the official to place the encumbrances on his assets. Seidel explained (as he does with everyone) that Title 42, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Section 1983 of the federal code would be used to sue her personally for violating his civil rights -- that is, he would sue her if any of his assets were encumbered without having first secured a warrant from an Article III court.
Seidel has frequently argued that he will gladly submit to a federal court (authorized under Article III of the U.S. Constitution) as opposed to a mere tax court (which is an unconstitutional creature within the IRS). As with many administrative agencies, the combining of legislative, executive and judicial
powers within the same four walls constitutes the very definition of tyranny which James Madison warned us about in Federalist 47.
Seidel has used Title 42 on other occasions. One involved a state trooper with an anger management problem who made a false arrest on Seidel’s son. Since being served with a Title 42 suit, the officer has been able to control his anger.
The deadline is long past, and the IRS has done nothing, so the assessor is off the hook for now. But New Mexico is becoming a text book example of how the Founding Fathers envisioned the states would rein in an out-of-control government.
As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28: “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”
If there were more sheriffs like those in New Mexico serving around the country, we would be well on the way to safeguarding our liberties against Washington’s “invasions of the public liberty.” It also might occur to the Congress that more examples of sheriffs interposing themselves might result in shrinking down the federal government to do little more than just funding the national defense.
CowboysAndTeaParties does not necessarily agree with the federal tax beliefs of the article's main character, Dr. Ray Seidel, we do believe that the Federal Government has grown way to large and with the growth uses all manner of regulations outside the scope of enumerated powers; spends tax payer money in obscene way; and that the federal tax code needs to be simplified. Anyway, with further ado, Mr. Pratt's article:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) member Dr. Ray Seidel alerted me to the stirring of freedom that is taking place in his village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. I have already reported on the first battle with Mayor Ray Alborn and how he tried to impose an unconstitutional gun ban in the village. To get the full story of what happened in
Ruidoso, you can go here and listen to my first debriefing session with Seidel.
I recently interviewed Dr. Seidel a second time on my Gun Owners News Hour weekly radio program and asked him about several acts of local interposition in the surrounding counties -- all of which underscores the importance of the office of the sheriff and the militia.
For example, over near Deming, New Mexico is the Gila National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service wanted to make almost all of it off limits for people -- until the militia of Luna County intervened. They told the feds that they would resist any effort by the Forest Service to restrict access to visitors. The result? Visitors have continued to access all of the Gila National Forest!
In the Southeast corner of the state, many landowners have working oil wells on their property. The EPA told the oil operators they would have to stop operating their wells because there was too much risk of harming the environment. At a town hall meeting convened by the EPA, a woman in her 60s rose to address the feds. She pointed out that her land had been in her family for over 200 years, and she was
not about to let some official from an unconstitutional bureaucracy tell her what she could or could not do with her land.
The woman ended by warning the feds that her family has many guns and a huge supply of ammunition, and they would use all of it if needed to keep the EPA off of their land. The locals who had packed out the hearing room jumped to their feet with a shout and prolonged applause. That was in August of this year. As of November, oil is still being pumped at full tilt.
In Otero County, villages in the mountains are surrounded by forests. The county commission voted to establish an 80,000 acre plan to manage forest overgrowth. Residents wanted to cut fire breaks to protect their homes in Cloudcroft, but the Forest Service said, “No.” The residents responded that they had to for safety’s sake and were going to construct the fire break in spite of the Forest Service.
Residents were told that if they cut down any trees, they would be arrested. But Sheriff Raymond Cobos told the Forest Service that if they made any arrests, they would be arrested for false arrest.
Not only were the trees cut down with no opposition from the feds, the first tree was cut down by Congressman Steve Pearce (R-2nd District). Would that there were many more like Rep. Pearce. The folks in the Second District are blessed with a constitution-supporting congressman and a number of constitutional sheriffs backed by the militias of their counties. This is the way that local governments can push back and help the feds to live within the limitations that have been placed upon them in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
As you can see, there’s a lot happening in New Mexico. And Dr. Seidel has been at the center of a lot of it. Two weeks after the people of Ruidoso prevailed in the gun ban debate, Mayor Alborn decided to seek revenge. He went to the state capital of Santa Fe and met with federal officials there. That same week, Seidel got a notice from the IRS that he had until a certain date to file his taxes, which he has refused to do for several years.
Seidel makes no secret of his refusal to submit to the IRS which he considers as part of an unconstitutional regime in Washington. The IRS intended to encumber his assets if he did not bend his knee. Seidel visited with the county sheriff who understood what Seidel was trying to do and told him he “would have his back.” The same was true for the village police chief – the same officer who refused to have his men arrest people who were defying the Ruidoso gun ban by carrying openly in the village council chambers.
Not only was the sheriff and police chief alerted to the possibility of IRS action against Seidel, but so was the militia in Lincoln County – some 200 plus men who keep their rifle and battle bag in their vehicles 24/7. They can muster in about 30 minutes at any place in the county.
Seidel visited with the village assessor, who would be the official to place the encumbrances on his assets. Seidel explained (as he does with everyone) that Title 42, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Section 1983 of the federal code would be used to sue her personally for violating his civil rights -- that is, he would sue her if any of his assets were encumbered without having first secured a warrant from an Article III court.
Seidel has frequently argued that he will gladly submit to a federal court (authorized under Article III of the U.S. Constitution) as opposed to a mere tax court (which is an unconstitutional creature within the IRS). As with many administrative agencies, the combining of legislative, executive and judicial
powers within the same four walls constitutes the very definition of tyranny which James Madison warned us about in Federalist 47.
Seidel has used Title 42 on other occasions. One involved a state trooper with an anger management problem who made a false arrest on Seidel’s son. Since being served with a Title 42 suit, the officer has been able to control his anger.
The deadline is long past, and the IRS has done nothing, so the assessor is off the hook for now. But New Mexico is becoming a text book example of how the Founding Fathers envisioned the states would rein in an out-of-control government.
As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28: “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”
If there were more sheriffs like those in New Mexico serving around the country, we would be well on the way to safeguarding our liberties against Washington’s “invasions of the public liberty.” It also might occur to the Congress that more examples of sheriffs interposing themselves might result in shrinking down the federal government to do little more than just funding the national defense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)