Amnesty, Voters and Voter Id

I sincerely believe the liberal push for amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants is a political ploy that seems to be working to the detriment of “The American Way.” Let’s face the fact that we all know there is significant voter fraud in this country. I sincerely doubt that Harry Reid or even Obama himself could have been re-elected without it I have explained my position on that many times.

The liberals would have you believe that amnesty is all about bringing into our country workers that will take the jobs Americans won’t. They would have you believe it is all about the children. They would have you believe it is all about compassion. I would have you believe that all of their posturing is a very large load of Horse Manure. There is a very well documented and practical way for immigrants to enter this country. It has worked for many, many years. My fore bearers entered this country using that series of laws to obtain entry and become citizens of the United States. I am told the day they took the oath of citizenship was the proudest day of their entire lives. Would you believe that they even had to swear that they would obey the laws of their new country? Weird? Nah, just practical. How many of the illegals have to do that?

Some of my fondest childhood memories revolve around the times my father and I would sit around the table, late at night(well past my bed time) and talk. On one of these occasions we were talking about our fore fathers and he related a simple story to me. It seems one of the friends of those forbearers had broken an unspecified law and was deported. The stated reason? He broke his “entry oath”. He was a legal entrant to this country, but he broke the law and was sent back where he came from. Please remember that an ‘executive order’ cannot make something that is illegal, legal. Illegals are not law abiding by definition. They are not legal voters, by definition. Hell, they are not legal … by definition. Please don’t let the liberal “bleeding heart” diatribe sway you from this.

The liberal objection to voter ID is all about ensuring that there are citizens that simply can’t obtain a valid photo ID that identifies them as American Citizens are able to vote. This situation may exist. I don’t know. I have engaged in a few voter registration drives and we always ask for such and I have never found even the most bed ridden citizen that didn’t have such proof. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Truthfully I would rather have a small minority of citizens disenfranchised than have millions of non Americans become registered voters. Voting is an American citizen’s right and obligation. I really don’t want non-Americans deciding who runs things in either Washington or the state capital.

Amnesty is against the law; it is against tradition; it is against America. And no amount of executive orders directing the DOJ not to enforce the laws of our country can change that.

The Best Defense

It is very apparent that the Judeo-Christian ethic is under egregious attack by the liberals in our once stalwart country. I suggest we counter attack. It has been wisely said that the best defence is a good offence. That said just how do we counter attack?

First please note that I used the term Judeo-Christian in my opening line. Make no mistake I count myself as a Christian; however, I respect other beliefs and religions. And yes I see Judaism as a vibrant and viable religion.

The thing is the anti Christian and indeed the the anti religion bigots in this country are winning the battles in this. Why? Because the Christians and the Jews, and the Buddhists and the Shintoists and every other religion in this country are not launching a counter offensive.

We counter attack by an old and tried tactic of civil disobedience and refusal to bow to misguided and sometimes wrong thinking. Civil disobedience comes in many forms. The county and city governments where I live has an ongoing tradition of displaying a manger scene every Christmas on the lawn of the County Court House! Supreme court be damned. Our children say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words ‘Under God’ included. In other words our local government practices a form of Civil disobedience. Oh, by the way, this town is considered a bastion of the democratic party.

Another way to counter attack is education. I don’t mean just in our schools, but in our everyday lives. Are you aware that there is no place in the Constitution of our country that states that there shall be a separation of church and state? The sole comment and proviso having anything to do with religion comes in the first amendment to that document and it simply says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” The underline is mine. Look at that. Posting the ten commandments in front of your courthouse has nothing to do with establishing a religion and certainly nothing to do with congress passing any law! Spread the word. COUNTER ATTACK.

The second part of that is “or prohibiting the free exercise the free exercise thereof…” It is, or should be, my right to run my business in any manner that does not threaten the life or property of another. If I should want to bar any but bible carrying Christians or Wearers of the Star of David or any other religious symbol that is MY business. It may not make good business sense, but it is my right. The Declaration of Independence has it as a God given right. The government has absolutely no power to deny me that right, even though they seem to think they do. Not even public opinion can deny me that right. It may cost me business, but that is all. There does seem to be one exception to that comment about bad for business. Many businesses are finding it very profitable to, say nothing about safer, for businesses to ban Muslims.

Another way to further the education process is to respond to any published action that is against the American God given freedoms. Have you seen a rant by homosexuals about how they have the ‘right’ to marry or adopt or attempt to bring public pressure on businesses that refuse to offer their services to them such as wedding cakes? Step up and rationally defend their right to run their business in any way their conscience dictates, in a post of your own. One caution here. Don’t post or respond with a rant. When you start with the name calling and bad language most people just turn you off as being too juvenile to be in the discussion. If you can’t respond with a modicum of reason, I suggest you take your frustration and anger elsewhere.

I was in another town a few days ago and as I was driving down the main drag my eyes came to rest on a sign in a restaurant window. I had to stop and read it as my driving interfered with comprehension. The sign read: “We are Christian Americans and your legal guns are welcome here.” I just had to go in even though I wasn’t ‘packing’. The place was comfortably full and I sauntered to the counter for a coffee and an English muffin. I looked around the room and must have seen 20 hip weapons scattered about the room. Never felt safer in my life. I had to ask to speak to the owner. I was introduced to a pleasant middle aged woman and in answer to my question she stated that her business had actually increased since she and her husband put up the sign. She said they had put up the sign in response to a robbery. Now her customers were an invincible security force that paid them for their service. I still think that was a great solution to a problem. They counter attacked.

All I am saying here is that we need to take the battle for our ideals to the enemy. Not sit around on our plush posteriors waiting for ‘somebody’ to do something. Remember – if you look in the mirror ‘somebody’ is looking back at you.

Reply to a naysayer

I received an email from a gentleman that was against an Article V Convention that demonstrated to me just how confused and wrong some people can be about a major issue in this country.  This is my response.

At the end of this post I will give you a link that will allow you to help with this cause if you so desire.

1. The Constitution is not the problem.
I submit that the constitution is the problem for one major reason, it was written by very brilliant men that were trapped by their own culture. The culture of the time could never envision a person making a career out of being a politician. In their culture, a person would stand for election similar to serving in the military. They would do their patriotic duty, serve a term or two and go back to their farms or businesses with a sigh of relief that their duty was done. That mind set could never envision politicians becoming very wealthy while feeding at the public tough and gaining enormous power while they were at it. BUT! Culture evolves, and massive changes occur. Changes the founders had no way of anticipating. Solution? Limit the amount of time that aby politician can serve and then put someone else in their place.. An informed electorate? While it is true we do need that, it probably can never happen in THIS culture. Why? Partly because of the enormous number of factions trying to do the educating and the wide variety of proposed methods to be used. What we end up with is either a confused electorate with a few wild eyed radicals insisting they know the answer. Plus how do you educate a populous that has chronic attention deficit?

Some other changes that are necessary are things like the Welfare Clause. The loopholes in that alone allowed the SCOTUS to allow obamacare among other injustices. Just a few simple words would make a massive change. The SCOTUS has never yet struck down any part of the constitution if they couldn’t find a loophole to sneak through. I could go on, but it is time to move on.

2. All Article V conventions would have the inherent power to be runaway
conventions.
This time worn argument has been so thoroughly debunked I am surprised to see it here; however allow me to address it one more time.

Number one an Article V convention is NOT a Constitutional Convention and can never become one!

Thirty four state legislatures must pass a resolution that contains exactly the same wording. Oh the preamble may differ widely but the resolution itself must be the same. If any submitting state attempts to put in any wording which might allow a runaway it will not become part of the convention. Add to this the wording in this resolution which place very strict limits on what can be considered. Her is the pertinent wording: “… kimited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.” Add to this the fact that most states have either proposed or enacted legal penalties for any delegate (properly called Commissioners) that include fines and jail time along with immediate removal form the convention and a runaway becomes virtually impossible. Delegate Overington has submitted such a bill to the WV legislature and many states have already passed such a bill prior to submitting the Convention resolution which allows the legislature to KNOW the convention will stick to the business it is convened to conduct. If this is not enough to allay any fears in this area please let me know as there are many other factors addressing this very issue.

3. An Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to
revise the Constitution in their favor.
This comment is well thought out and so very wrong. Let me quote one section: ”The power elites mentioned above have learned how to elect and influence large numbers of federal and state legislators a very long time ago.” What happened to that philosophy in the 2014 election? 2012?

Just prior to this you state and I quote: “Proponents of an Article V convention assure us that delegates appointed by state legislatures can propose amendments, the amendments can be ratified by
the states, and the resulting amendments will miraculously rein in our “out-of-control” federal government. This starry-eyed scenario is a major fairy tale. (Emphasis mine)
I guess that at this point I should ask you to point out just how influential these people are that can’t even put a stop to a proposal that could eliminate that so called power of that so called “power elite”.

You also state: “A good example of this influence is how hard it has been for grassroots activists to get state legislatures to reconsider their commitment to the special interests’ Common Core education standards.” Hard? I guess that depends upon your definition of the word. Many state legislatures, including WV have before the legislature bills to eradicate CC in their states. Chance of success? According to those polls you are so find of, better than 89%. Some things take time. People have to see the damage before they can act to correct it. Let’s get back on topic.

You stated that the Constitution is not the problem. I answered that rather conclusively.

You stated the Convention would be a runaway. I have shown you how that is a practical impossibility.

You stated that an Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to
revise the Constitution in their favor. I pretty well answered that when addressing the second point , but felt it necessary to expand on it with some specifics.

Any questions?

If your would like to join with this group I urge you to follow the link and at the very least take a few minutes to sign the petition.  Please remember to include your address as this is the only way they can determine which legislator you are petitioning.  Every time a constituent contacts an elected official at the state level it makes a difference.

http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=239046

A Look at Political Conservatives

A Look at Political Conservatism
My Father was a staunch Republican way back when that meant he and members of that party were conservatives. Whenever you spoke about a political conservative your audience knew you were talking about a Republican. The two words were interchangeable. He once defined conservative to me as someone that was against change. As he put it “What was good enough for my father is good enough for me.”

OK that was then. What about now? Today. I call myself a conservative; does that mean I am anti change? Yes, it does. I am very much against the government changing my country from one of individual responsibility, capitalism, personal liberty and so forth. Yet, here I am working hard to amend the constitution. Isn’t that change? Not really. Let me explain before you blow your top.

You see I want to amend the constitution to PREVENT change. All of those years ago when those eminent scholars got together and hammered out that truly great instrument we call our constitution they had a vision, but that vision was based on the culture they knew. The one they had lived in all of their collective lives. And each one was a die hard liberal! (Sometimes being a liberal can be a good thing. Seldom, I grant you, but sometimes.) They wanted change! They wanted to change from a government with a king that could decide what freedoms to grant and which to keep for the elite. And he did. Those flaming liberals wanted and end to that. They wanted to change everything about government! They wanted and wrote a constitution which granted the rights they saw as ordained by God, not men. Yeah, back then it really meant men. Women were not even considered to be in the mix. Remember that culture I mentioned?

Then the country and, indeed, the world slowly and over time changed. One day the state of Wyoming actually had the temerity to grant the vote to women, of all things. Who’da thunk it! Women making decisions just like they actually had brains! Turns out they did and do have every bit as good brain power as any man. Then along came the notion that the phrase “…all men are created equal…” became a recognized fact. Even if your skin happened to be a different color. WOW! What a concept. The culture changed.

It is well known that the Federalist Papers shows the thinking of the founders that those elected to the seats of government would not want that job for long. It would be, at best, a temporary job. Who would actually want to make a career out of sitting in a room with a bunch of guys talking about something as dry as the creation of law. How the culture has changed.

Today we see a man that was a Community Organizer with a barley living wage, just able to afford a house, switch his “profession” to politics and become a multi millionaire. He recently bought a house in California that had multimillion dollar price tag. No sweat. We even have elected officials bragging about the number of years they have fed at the public trough! The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves.

That defining document states in the very first article that the power to enact laws shall rest solely with the legislature. Today that self same legislature has delegated and abrogated that grave responsibility to “regulatory agencies”. So much so that one talking head states that the regulatory agencies have passed over 21000 ‘regulations in the past year alone, each with the force of law. Congress, meanwhile, passed far fewer actual laws than that.

Getting back to the founding fathers and the government they tried to establish, one that worked so well for so long, established a system of checks and balances within the federal government which had strictly limited powers, and that worked in the culture of the day. Not so today. Today the Supreme Court, appointed for life, remember, obtain their jobs by promising, behind closed doors, to follow the political ideology of the person that nominates them. FOR LIFE! Congressmen and congresswomen tell their constituents whatever they want to hear just to get the job. No one is the least surprised when it turns out they lied. That is politics. Take a look at Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia. Didn’t take her long to turn her back on those that elected her. Damn! She hasn’t even officially been sworn is as a senator yet! She still sits in her seat in the house! Oh, Well, don’t get me started down that road.

I, a conservative do not want to change the constitution. I do want to amend it so that it reflects the culture of today. Yes, I want term limits for ALL federal government officials. Even the Supreme Court. Enough of the professional politician. Let’s force the feds to balance the federal budget. Let us alter the wording of the welfare clause of the constitution to reflect today’s culture. Maybe even take a look at repealing an existing amendment like the 17th. There are a few. What about voter IDs? Racist? Give me a break! The only thing close to racist is the prevention of non-citizen and the dead from voting. Yeah, I guess I am racist at that. I honestly believe you must be a living citizen of this country to vote. I don’t care if your skin is green as long as you are in fact alive, a citizen and can prove both.

If an Article V convention can get 38 states to agree on just one or two of these types of amendments, we just might get the country of our fathers back.

I really am proud of being a conservative.

The 4th Branch

The 4th Branch

The common belief is that the constitution establishes three branches of our government. This is incorrect as I will attempt to explain. The first three are well known, but let’s go over them for old times sake and perhaps a little clarification.

The first branch of our government to be mentioned in our Constitution is the legislative. The Constitution takes some pains in laying out the duties and responsibilities of this branch and divides it into two separate and distinct houses. This has become known as a bicameral form. The primary and well delineated responsibility is the enactment of laws and the Constitution is quite clear in stating that this is the only branch of government that may do this. They have abrogated much of this responsibility through both laziness and greed in recent years. You see the founding fathers did not foresee the advent of the professional politician. The Patriot Papers make this quite clear when Hamilton points out that the expected course of events would be for a citizen to serve his time in office and go back to the private sector where he (back then it was inconceivable that a women would even want such responsibility. Thankfully that has changed.) could better support his family,. Yeah, this too has changed. Nowadays you can get rich in politics, but that is another blog.

Among the other responsibilities of the legislature is a little known one. Believe it or not, the Seargent of Arms of the United States House of Representatives is the only person with the Constitutional authority to arrest the President. Upon the direction of those elected representatives, he and only he is required to arrest the President.

The second branch mentioned is the so called Executive Branch. The duties and the responsibilities of this branch is primarily to enforce the laws passed by Congress. To be sure, there are other lesser responsibilities placed upon him, but, again that is another blog. Would you believe that the only law enforcement agency the constitution set ups is the office of county Sheriff? There is no mention that this is the only such agency that the government may establish.

The third branch is the judiciary. The supreme court is specifically designated to settle disputes of constitutionality of the laws passed by congress and the impeachment power over lesser judges.

OK, that covers the first three Articles of the Constitution. What about that 4th branch I mentioned. That is established in the fifth Article. You see the fifth article gives the power of the fourth branch by establishing the Constitutional right and responsibility pf the people to Amend the constitution and prevents any government, local, county, state or federal from interfering with that process. Upon passage by two thirds of the state legislatures a thing called a Convention of States MUST be established to propose amendments to that Constitution. Amend not rewrite. The Constitution clearly establishes this fourth branch to protect the people and to be another of those ‘checks and balances’. The Constitution was established to place the major responsibility to govern on the states. The governmental body closest to the people. A court decision may have put it best: “This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role.

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).”

What we need to do is use this Constitutional right to tighten up the constitution and return the power to the states and thus we the people.

People much better qualified than me have established a web site where you can learn all of the ins and outs and find the answers to all of your questions about this process at this link: Convention of States

Liberals and Same Sex Marriage

I am told by some of my audience that it is time to speak up about same sex marriage. I think maybe they are right, but first let me speak to my take on homosexuality. The bible says it is a sin. My mother said it is a sin. My father says it is a sin. I say it is a sin. I actually have no objection to how people express their love OR desire in the privacy of their own homes, but this isn’t essentially about homosexuality. It is about a series of laws which state that people must accept and recognize two people of the same gender being legally married. No we don’t. I don’t and cannot see any time in the future when I will. There are several reasons for that and not all of them have to do with its being a recognized sin. But, yes it does have to do with God and the founding fathers. You see I don’t think the people that enacted this law were doing it so much for the so called equal rights of that minority. I believe that it has to do with another political agenda entirely. The American Way Of Life as it has been.

We see, on a daily basis, mass media accounts of liberals attempts to break down the moral fiber of a nation. Your nation. My nation. Our nation. You see if they can do that one thing they can have their agenda in toto. They can elect whomever they please. They can gain more power and more money. It appears more and more that their sole concern is with their positions and less and less about the people of this country. They know that if they can give away enough so the lazy and indolent among us are loudly clamoring for more it will bring this country to its knees. How? Financial collapse. Moral degradation. Political disruption. Then they can establish the oligarchy they want. The constitution can be thrown out and their own set of rules put in its place. Yeah, it can happen here, too.
Back to same sex marriage, altho the above is a very large part of why the libs in government are so supportive. This country was founded by Christians. It was settled by those landing at Plymouth Rock and others because they were looking for RELIGIOUS freedom. Yeah, they thought in terms of Christian religious freedom but that simply had to evolve into an ecumenical religious freedom. They even included God in ALL of there government founding documents. The very first of those that addressed a foreign nation was the Declaration of Independence and God is mentioned in the very first sentence. Every single one of the original buildings of government in Washington D.C. has its own reference to God. The Supreme Court building has the ten commandments. The capital rotunda has several pictures all of which are religious in nature. Thomas Jefferson even held church services there every Sunday of his presidency. A practice that was followed for more than fifty years. I think we can safely assume that he knew all about the Constitution.
All of this goes back to this country being founded on the precepts of Christianity. And Christianity does not recognize same sex marriages. It actually calls that a sin against God and Nature.
Today we have children being told that they can’t refer to Jesus in the class room. I read an article where a child was prevented from attending class because he was carrying a bible intended for a church class he was taking after school.
Same sex marriage. God tells us it is not right. I think I’ll have to go with that.

The Stupidity of the Racist Tag

The Democrats have been using the ‘Racist’ tag to demonize conservatives for several years. If you don’t like something Obama does or says, they call you a racist. None, or I should say very few of you know me personally so you don’t know the color of my skin and I am going to make a few statements. You decide if I am a racist.
There are some people I don’t like and actually hate their politics and policies. I can say without equivocation that I don’t like these things about: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, B. H. Obama, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken and the list goes on. And on.
So. Am I a racist based on just that statement? The Democrats, and yes some Republicans, would have you believe that disagreement with any person of a different skin tone than my own is racist. I say that is just plain stupidity. It is impossible to judge a person’s racial bias based on any one factor. Racism is a learned mind set. To quote a song lyric …You have to be carefully taught…” to hate someone because of the chance color of their skin. Trust me, if I believe that someone is going to do me severe bodily harm and perhaps take my life, I will shoot and look at the color of their skin later and, at that point, it won’t matter one little bit to me.
Using the racist epithet to brand people that disagree with your view point is imbecilic. It is an attempt to stir an emotional response to any ones contrary ideas. Emotional. That is quite a word and a very effective political tool. Emotion is used by most professional politicians. It is used by Eric Holder andmany in the Obama administration. Yeah, it is used by many others too, but we are discussing politics here. The Liberty Alliance, for instance would have you believe that if ANY politician is not in lock step with their view of how this country should be governed, they are evil. They may well be a new type of racist. The political racist. The “it has to be our way or not at all’ people. They would have you believe that selecting the “lesser of two evils” at the ballot is in and of itself, evil. They would have you believe that voting for a person that is basically conservative, but bends to the realities of political necessity while in office is EVIL.
In my own state there is a race for the U. S. Senate that is really important to the nation. On the Republican side is Mz. Capito. Now I don’t agree with everything she does in the House where she currently serves, BUT to my way of thinking she is much more acceptable than her opponent, Mz. Tennant. Yep, the lesser of two evils. The Liberty Alliance would have you vote for a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning election rather than vote for the more conservative Shelly Moore Capito simply because she has not voted in the manner they think she should on 100% of the issues she faces. In other words throw the election to the Democrat and very liberal Natalie Tennant. Shame on them. So does that make me a racist? Not according to any dictionary I have consulted. They universally refer to a person’s actual race bias. The Natzis were and are racists. They believed in the ‘uberman’, the super race. The KKK is a very racist group. Each of those aforementioned definitions also refer to “… unreasoned hatred of any person or group due to the ethnic race …”. I on the other hand am expounding on political demagoguery. Usually used by political extremists and I don’t like extremism on either end of the spectrum.

Why I Believe in the Convention of States and Limited Government

People often ask me why I am so passionate about returning this country to a strict construction way of running the government. Well, I’ll tell you. We are breeding a race of takers. We are raising children that believe the government’s purpose is to take care of them, regardless of the cost. Shucks, they don’t even consider the cost. A very large part of that cost is our freedom. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom to think and act as we each deem best. Freedom to be positive that our vote is counted in every election and that there are no illegitimate votes cast. The freedom to express an opinion or condem the government on our cell phones without fear of reprisals. That only United States citizens elect the people in our government. Live ones. This takes a limited government. President Ronald Reagan said it best, “I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.”

Our government picks and chooses the laws they want to enforce. A great case in point might be Eric Holder, the erstwhile Attorney General, while speaking to a NAACP forum stated that “… requiring voter IDs would disenfranchise American minorities.” I’ve never understood that argument. The only people I know of that can’t get an identification showing they are citizens are people that are not citizens. I have assisted many infirm and minority people obtain an ID that shows they are citizens. It’s not difficult. Takes about an hour here. Even the laws of our states require people to have picture IDs and be able to produce them for officers of the law, upon request. So what minorities are affected? The Illegals and those with work or student visas? Perhaps,but then who cares except corrupt politicians.

We have professional politicians. It is a career path. It is a path to wealth. I know of one politician that began as a community organizer then went into politics and recently purchased a multi-million dollar home. Harry Reid is so intent to continue his career that I, personally, am of the opinion he violates the laws of the land every election. He has entered the final day of each of his elections to the senate several points behind in the polls and comes out the winner by a substantial margin. I have often wished I had the power to examine the voter roles and the number of registered votes that have been deceased for years or moved out of state long before the polls opened. But that is just my opinion. Well, mine a few others. Quite a few, actually. Requiring voter IDs seems more and more a great idea.

Now understand that this is not currently a Constitutional issue, but Eric Holder believes that it is a holy cause whereas the Constitution is just a piece of ancient writing. The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be enforced by his office. As a matter of public record it is something he believes should be ignored by the government and all manner of infringements should be imposed by the liberal government he serves. So voter IDs are wrong and the states have no power to enact their requirement, even though the tenth amendment, among others, clearly gives them the right to enact those laws in their own state. BUT, the Constitution is should not be enforced. Yeah, I want to limit his power and every other politician that thinks they way he does. I honestly believe that our once great nation can only strive to be the shining example of personal liberty and individual responsibility by plugging the holes in our constitution that our current culture see fit to exploit.

Would you believe that there is no such thing as a “separation of church and state” in the constitution? None. The only statement made is in the first amendment, part of the “Bill of Rights” no less, is this one: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” The emphasis I mine obviously. Saying a prayer at a high school football game is not “establishing a religion” Having the ten commandments on a public building in not enacting a law.

The very first article of the that great document, The Constitution of the United States of America, specifically grant the Houses of Congress the sole power to enact laws, yet the government has seen fit to give that power to its ‘regulatory agencies’. The EPA has usurped the power of the states by denying the coal industry new permits and setup regulations that will close hundreds of power generating stations in our country. They haven’t given any plan for replacing that power. It is very possible with todays technology, to limit and even eliminate the so called green house emissions if that is their goal. That alone would save thousands of jobs.

The IRS was formed to collect taxes. Suddenly that ‘regulatory agency’ has the power to target groups in any manner they choose and to create laws that have the power to imprison people for a diverse set of circumstances. The law to enact the collections of taxes and form the IRS is a few pages in length. The regulations that agency has created in response is many THOUSANDS of pages. One pundit said that stacked one on the other those individual pieces of paper making up those unenacted laws stands higher than he does. Not even the agents of the IRS have any idea what is in them. I once asked one of their agents for an opinion on my taxes and was given very specific instructions on how to handle my problem so I would not be in violation. I called every day for four days and asked the same question worded the same way (I wrote out a script) and received four different opinions, each citing specific regulations. I got audited.
I am a believer in limited government.

We can all cite examples of the federal government using the power of the purse to intimidate state governments to enact laws the legislators would rather not have on the books and the people of those states really don’t agree. But, when the federal government says it will deny money for roads or other infrastructure projects, what are the poor states to do. The knuckle under and it has become so common that I don’t they even consider the situation twice. This is a sneaky way to ‘get around’ the tenth amendment.

I’ve said it before. I am in favour of LIMITED government and power to the people.

Why an Article V Convention?

Let us define just what is an Article V Convention. It says, in full:
“Article V (Article 5 – Mode of Amendment)
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Notice that it states very bluntly that “… Congress shall call a a Convention for proposing Amendments …”. The don’t have any options here. They are required to call the convention if 2/3rds of the states(34 in this case) vote for it. They have no say in its composition (they can’t name delegates for example) or rules or anything else. The problem is the liberals really don’t want to see this happen. We will go into the whys and wherefores as a part of another discussion.
We now know how to call the convention and we know its purpose. The purpose being to propose amendments to the Constitution. Not rewrite it, amend it. Just what kind of amendments are we talking about? That depends on the wording of bill of enactment, which must be the same in all of those 34 states. Let’s suppose the bill of enactment is on a single topic such as term limits or a balanced budget. Then the ONLY thing that is to be considered is the wording of that one amendment. Nothing else may be presented much less voted on at the convention.
So how do we have a convention that enables us to address several amendments, but limited in what those amendments may address (we certainly don’t want one of those “run away” bugaboos). We word that bill of enactment in just that manner. We the people state very plainly that we want a convention limited to the topics of limiting the powers of the Federal Government. I am not an attorney so I am not going to go into the specific wording of the bill or any of the amendments; I will however, suggest some possible topics for your consideration. I did say POSSIBLE topics. Of course I cannot say that these will be a part of the Convention of States,as it is known. I do suggest that they probably will be.
Some of the amendments that might come up are:

Term limits. This could include all federally elected officials and/or appointed officials such as cabinet members, supreme court justices, etc.
Balanced Budget. This would, in all likely hood, force the feds to have a balanced budget each year. Limit them to spending no more than they take in, just like you and I must do at home.
Debt limit. This would give the constitution the poser to say the maximum allowable debt not the congress.

Voter ID. This would require each and every voter to prove, among other possibilities, that they are alive, citizens of these United States and residents of the pertinent voting district.

Limit the authority of “regulatory agencies”. This should be a given according to Article I section 18 of the constitution which states that the Congress shall have the sole power “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.” The IRS is one of those “regulatory Agencies and their “regulations” having the force of law contains many many more pages than the law which established it and gave it the power to collect taxes.

Clarify the welfare clause. This would make it more plain that if the States can fund and run a program the Feds cannot. This would get the Feds out of our personal lives all by itself.

There are more, but this will serve to give you the concept.

What about this Runaway Convention thing? This has been so debunked that even the media is no longer trying to use it. Anyone that actually understands the process realizes it won’t, in fact, can’t happen according to the bill of enactment and the rules for running the convention. It does take a willingness to do a little studying of these factors to understand this and some would rather spout fallacious buzz words than spend the time to actually know what they are talking about.

What are the possibilities of passage? The convention allows each state regardless of size, political composition or location to have one vote. Rhode Island has the same vote as say California. Guess what? There are actually more red states on the map than there are blue. Look it up for yourself.

Any question will be welcome and if I can’t answer them I have people that can, so ask away!

Originalism, Strict Constructionism, Free Interpretationism

The title of this piece gives the names of three ways of viewing the Constitution of the United States. The first two are closely related while the third is a new and very liberal manner of viewing and interpreting that fundamental document. There is a certain portion of the populace that really doesn’t care as long as the freebies keep flowing. We will take these up later. For now let’s concentrate on the three topics enumerated in the title.
Just what is ‘Originalism’? This is the view of the constitution that believes the constitution means exactly what it says and should be viewed and enforced with that in mind. After all it was enacted by a super-majority of the voters at the time it was enacted as was each of the amendments. That is a very cogent and strong case for this view.
Strict Constructionism is closely aligned with that view with the exception of a few caveats. Those caveats are supposedly based on common sense. A couple of examples would be that the first amendment gives each of us freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean that we have the right to shout fire in a crowded building. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms and that right “… shall not be infringed”. Most believe that some of the exceptions here would be people convicted of crimes of violence and/or the criminally insane. The list goes on.
Free Interpretationism is the view that the Constitution was written so many years ago that it no longer applies to our society in many cases and therefore needs to be interpreted in light of modern society. This gives rise to the Department of Homeland Security believing they have the power, in deed, the duty to suspend the fourth amendment against illegal search and seizure at their whim. They have declared a one hundred mile zone around every border as being a fourth amendment free zone when it comes to cell phones and computers. Sometimes even luggage and persons. This is a view supported by the liberal element of our country and the so-called ‘low information voters’.
So which are you? It is time to decide folks. This next election is a very important one for our country. Do you want more of the Free Interpretationism in government? Are you longing for the days when the constitution was enforced without any interpretation or do you believe in the so-called ‘common sense’ rule of law. What is our country to become? Are we a country that guarantees of freedom of religion? One that “… is endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights …”? Does the second amendment statement that the “… legislature shall make no law establishing a religion …” mean that no government entity or government funded activity may mention or portray religious symbolism much less mention any Christian belief or figure such as God or Jesus?
As for me, I am a strict constructionist and very proud to be one. Our Constitution is sacred to me as it is to many of the America people. I just hope enough of them show up at the poles in November and help me turn this country from a heading toward federal government tyranny back to the freedom loving country I was born to.