Dims -- lacking ANY respect for the limitations imposed by the United States Constitution -- make a habit of passing brazenly unconstitutional laws. Dims also make a habit of inventing language NOT FOUND in the United States Constitution in order to overturn entirely constitutional state laws.
We KNEW this 2010 Colorado law was unconstitutional because, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court had already judged a virtually identical law as such (click here for the actual ruling).
Well, folks, here’s a great big shock (NOT)…
Quoting Tim Hoover at The Denver Post:
“A federal court has thrown out a 2010 Colorado law meant to spur online retailers like Amazon to collect state sales tax…
The law was passed in 2010 as part of a package of Democratic-backed bills”
“Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would go a long way toward restoring federalism and frustrating special-interest influence over Washington…
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would not be a panacea for what ails the American political and constitutional system… But repeal would be a step in the direction of restraining an imperialistic central government and frustrating special-interest influence. Whether or not it is good politics, it remains sound constitutional design.”
Click the image & read the rest: Click here for more on the 17th Amendment.
Disclaimer -- I am a lifelong agnostic who believes in the THEORY of evolution. Unlike Chris Coons, I am NOT a totalitarian Marxist who would dictate which theories may and may not be taught (or even discussed) in government run schools.
In her latest debate, Christine O’Donnell had the temerity to ask her Marxist opponent:
On queue, the breathtakingly ignorant and fully indoctrinated audience laughed at what they clearly regarded as the latest gotcha moment reaffirming the utterly dishonest media created meme of just how ignorant this Tea Party rube is. The media, of course, are piling on in support of their own utterly dishonest meme.
What was missing -- both at the debate and in the media propaganda -- was ANY legitimate answer to her very legitimate question. Why? Because there is no legitimate answer to her question. Religion is mentioned once and ONLY once in the entire Constitution -- in the First Amendment. But, the First Amendment provides ONLY for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion:
If anybody was demonstrated to be ignorant of the Constitution, it was Coons. Not only does he fail to understand the extremely clear and extremely limited meaning of the First Amendment, he even misquoted the amendment -- substituting the word “government” for the word “Congress”.
Now, click here to start this clip at the beginning and listen to Christine’s defense of intellectual freedom where the question of the origin of life is concerned.
As for the various constitutional amendments Christine was asked to comment on… First, did you notice the so-called “moderator” gave Coons the advantage of requiring Christine to recall off the top of her head what each of these three amendments provided for? Second, click here for some insight into what is arguably the most destructive of all Constitutional amendments perpetrated by so-called “Progressives” (back when they actually bothered to pay any attention at all to the supreme law of the land).
Did I mention that -- for very good reason -- I really despise almost all so-called “journalists”?
“A 16-hour-old newborn was snatched from her parents by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers.
The organization collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S.
The father, Johnathon Irish, told WND that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency ‘became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.’ ”
Click the image & read the rest: If these allegations sound far fetched, then click here and here and think again.
There may or may not have been a legitimate concern about the safety of this child. What is shocking about this is the multiply sourced allegation that the government cited membership in “Oath Keepers” in their affidavit as even PART of their reason for taking this child.
Maybe the Feds know something about “Oath Keepers” that I don’t know. But, if the Oath Keeper mission is strictly what they say it is -- a pledge to passively resist patently unconstitutional orders -- then the government has NO BUSINESS persecuting members of this organization! PERIOD!
This post will highlight a strong argument in favor of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment -- or, perhaps more accurately, why it should have never been ratified in the first place.
I’m not yet certain where I stand on this issue. But, my gut instinct is to trust the Founding Fathers over the so-called “Progressives” of the Woodrow Wilson era and their “modern” counterparts.
It would appear that the Seventeenth Amendment has brought about exactly what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent!
Quoting Ross Kaminsky at The American Spectator (I inserted the links):
“The 17th Amendment is a direct attack on federalism and one of the greatest transfers of power from the states to the federal government, and particularly to Democrat senators, in our nation's history….
Following the passage of the 17th Amendment, ‘… the state governments have more and more been downgraded from independent policy-making bodies to mere instrumentalities of the federal government’…
the sad history of the past several decades in which the federal government peddled its opiate of ‘block grants’ and ‘highway funds’ other ‘free’ money to the now-addicted states is something that will require a rather potent budget-methadone treatment that many citizens -- and most politicians -- might not be able to handle…
When the Constitution becomes a topic for public debate, it forces Democrats and Progressives to explain why they routinely ignore, dismiss, or attack the Constitution with their ultra-expensive Nanny State policies…
when our Constitution takes center stage in political discussion, particularly when it can be shown that we ignore it at our own peril, America takes a baby step toward relearning the value of our Founding documents and principles.”
Please, Please, PLEASE click the image & read the rest:
3) The current method for electing United States Senators was adopted with the 1913 ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment -- during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson (a so-called “Progressive”) who, like all so-called “Progressives”, really truly had a complete disdain for the United States Constitution.
How’s THAT for irony? Watch that Dim attack ad again!
4) The Seventeenth Amendment was a creation of so-called “Progressive reformers”. Is it any wonder that today’s so-called “Progressives” treat the Seventeenth Amendment as though it was sacrosanct and beyond debate?
Remember, the very next amendment created by so-called “Progressive reformers” was the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition, ratified in 1919). Was it blasphemy to repeal that amendment?
5) One could easily argue the merits of the original Constitution vs. what we now have under the Seventeenth Amendment. In fact, there is just such a discussion in the associated Wikipedia article (which, predictably, sides with the so-called “Progressives”).
6) What is unquestionable is that the Seventeenth Amendment took us a large step closer to the European Social Democracy disaster now at or near the brink of collapse all over Europe. It also took us one giant step further away from the original Constitutional Republic envisioned by our quite brilliant founding fathers.
Conclusions: I’m not arguing for or against the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. There are reasonable arguments both ways. I AM arguing that all Americans should study the issue rather than blindly reacting to appeals to ignorance from the Dims at the DSCC.
I am also arguing that we desperately need to replace Obama’s yes man (Senator Michael Bennet) with the FAR more responsible, FAR more reasonable and FAR more thoughtful Ken Buck!
I am also imploring all thoughtful, educated voters all across America to refuse to take the utterly dishonest attack ads of the desperate Dims at face value. The Dims cannot run on their “achievements”. They know damn well that the majority of Americans HATE virtually EVERYTHING this Congress has done. The Dims can ONLY attempt to FALSELY label their Conservative opponents as “too extreme” and hope that American voters are ignorant enough to fall for their lies and deceptions. DON’T!
Click here for directly related commentary (including a powerful argument for repeal).
Quoting professor Ronald J. Pestritto at The Opinion Journal (I inserted the links):
“Whatever I or anyone else thinks about Mr. Beck's programming or political views, on one central historical issue he is correct: The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic….
Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature…
at a time when there is a serious debate about first principles—and when significant elements of the public appear receptive to criticisms of our march toward European-style social democracy—the meaning of progressivism, past and present, is surely relevant.
Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government ‘can do most anything in this country.’ And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a ‘serious question.’ Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era.”
Click the image & read the rest: Click here to learn more.
Youth of America, do not take what remains of your liberties for granted:
Click here for the specific constitutional question posed to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and cited in the above video.
The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution made the CNS reporter’s question extremely relevant. Pelosi’s response (“Are you SERIOUS?”) says it all -- she has NO respect for our Constitution, NO respect for the rule of law and NO respect for the people she purports to serve. She is a power crazed TYRANT in every sense of the word. She is VERY typical of the VERY tyranny which our founding fathers rebelled AGAINST!
Yes, Nancy -- we’re SERIOUS! It is a slam dunk certainty that this constitutional question will be brought before the Supreme Court. When pimping for this tyranny, Obama and his Dims vigorously denied that this mandate to purchase health insurance was a tax. Now that his lawyers are trying desperately to find a way to pretend that this mandate is NOT unconstitutional, Obama’s lawyers are vigorously insisting that this mandate IS actually a tax posing as a mandate.
