Category Archives: Constitution

Mark Levin Trashes Secession But Looks To The States For Salvation

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, Liberty, States' Rights

For the umpteenth time, conservative radio talker Mark Levin got unhinged today over the quintessentially American ideas of state nullification and secession. “Neo-confederates” is Levin’s latest pejorative for patriots who think that these Jeffersonian principles are the last hope for freedom.

To reclaim the republic, Levin and his listeners look to the states and their role in the amendment process, as stipulated in Article V of the Constitution. Never mind that the states, contrary to the mistaken predictions and hopes of the Constitution makers, have never initiated a constitutional amendment; and never mind that even in the event that the states demand a constitutional convention, there is no mechanism to compel Congress to act.

The great constitutional scholar James McClellan was no “neo-confederate.” Yet even an ardent defender of the Constitution as McClellan conceded that, sadly, “the Framers relied on the good faith of Congress for the observance of the requirement” and that “there was no way to force Congress to act.” (“Liberty, Order, And Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” p. 310.)

Levin and his listeners are deluded if they think that from the “free” states—all four of them (New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota and Alaska)—will come our salvation. The legislatures of two-thirds of the states have to unite to call on Congress to hold a national Constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the dead-letter Constitution.

ObamaCare ‘Settled Law’? More Like Legislative Sleight Of Hand

Constitution, Democrats, Healthcare, Law

The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” or whatever Obamacare’s undercover name was when it was smuggled into the books, was passed using legislative sleight of hand. Alluding to the broad consensus that gives law imprimatur, I quipped in “What If The Media Were Moral?” that Obamacare (unlike the Constitution) was not the law of the land.

More about the concept from Gerard Magliocca (in the WaPo):

The Affordable Care Act is not settled law because the public remains deeply divided over it: More than half of Americans are opposed. But even more critically, congressional Republicans have withheld their stamp of approval. Many Republican lawmakers refuse even to call it a law; they keep referring to it as a “bill.”

Republicans offer several explanations for their rejection of the act’s validity. Most often, they note that the law was passed entirely with Democratic votes. This is in contrast to other major legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support and thus became settled much more quickly.

Republicans also cite the unusual procedures used to pass the health-care act — most notably, the budget reconciliation process that avoided a filibuster while moving the final legislation through the Senate. This tactic left many Senate Republicans feeling cheated.

Felt cheated? They were cheated. Via Michelle Malkin: The “procedural maneuver called ‘reconciliation,’ used to pass Obamacare, allows a bill to pass with 51 votes instead of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. It is not intended for comprehensive and contentious pieces of legislation.

More from Prof. George Reisman on the House:

In 2010, a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, without a single Republican vote, passed “ObamaCare” by a margin of 219 to 212. In a staggering act of misfeasance, hardly a single member had read, let alone studied, the 1,900 page law (2,700 pages according to some authorities), which had been dumped into the House only days earlier. The 219 members of that House who voted for ObamaCare were willing to impose massive, and massively expensive, legislation on the American people without any real idea of what they were doing. Had those members been members of the board of directors of a private corporation, their complete and utter lack of due diligence would almost certainly have exposed them to enormous law suits and, quite possibly, criminal penalties.

UPDATE II: On Syria (And All Else), It’s ‘Us’ Against ‘Them’ (The Sleeping Giant Has Awakened)

Barack Obama, Constitution, Democracy, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Military, War

“On Syria (And All Else), It’s ‘Us’ Against ‘Them'” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

The “Us” of this column’s title needs no explaining. The “Them,” however, does. We the American people are up against an entity far more sinister than the traditional, inchoate enemy—terrorism—around which we are instructed to unite in purpose.

The debate over whether to strafe Syria or to stay out of that country pits us against the military-congressional-industrial complex, whose interests run counter to ours. …

… Prominent among a new breed of military man turned lawmaker to stalk the people’s House is Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger. A “veteran of the military,” who still serves as a military pilot in the National Guard, is how Kinzinger bills himself. War weary though he purports to be Kinzinger is not. The verbally flatulent representative from Illinois loved it when his ilk flew sorties over the Old Stable Iraq, and seeks a repeat performance over Syria. He appears to see no limits to the role the U.S. should play in rolling back evil around the world, out of “the goodness of our heart.” Yes, the constitutional principle Rep. Adam Kinzinger invokes to justify war against the wishes and interests of the American people is “The Goodness of Our Heart” Clause.

But then, a “Global Force for Good” is how the Navy promises to fulfill “The Goodness of Our Heart” Clause of the U.S. Constitution, on its frightful, promotional website. You see, members of the U.S. military do not regard themselves as defenders of the realm—unless by “realm” one means empire. They’ve been brainwashed to be foot soldiers for the federal government, whenever, wherever.

Imagine what America’s Founding Fathers would think of a military that straddles the planet, having assumed the unauthorized role of a “global force for good.” Those sages opposed the idea of a standing army. They understood that “a standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”

The magnificent Robert E. Lee, on the other hand, had it right. To this American hero, local was beautiful. Gen. Lee saw himself as a Virginian first. Rep. Kinzinger is a Syrian first.

Baseless too is the idea that someone who’s seen war will be especially judicious in sending others to war. John McCain had suffered in war and has not stopped advocating for it ever since. John Kerry voted to go into Iraq. Ditto Chuck Hagel. …

Read the complete column. “On Syria (And All Else), It’s ‘Us’ Against ‘Them'” is now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

UPDATE I: “Most lawmakers undecided on Syria.”

“By CNN’s count, 59 senators and more than 280 representatives aren’t sure how they’ll vote on President Obama’s request for a military strike on Syria.” FULL STORY

UPDATE II (9/8): The Sleeping Giant Has Awakened.

… phones are bouncing off the hook, and almost unanimously people are saying do not get involved in a bloody and chaotic civil war in Syria

Ex Post Facto Law’s The Norm … In A Banana Republic

Constitution, Criminal Injustice, Government, Justice, Law, Natural Law, Taxation, The State

The federal and state governments operate increasingly on an unconstitutional, ex post facto basis. What does this mean? It means that despite the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 9, in particular—it states that “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”—actions are often criminalized after they are committed.

In any case, it is unconstitutional to criminalize actions that were legal when committed.

It’s what banana republics do.

But since the US Constitution is a dead-letter law, victims of the state have no way of foreseeing or controlling how vague law will be bent and charges changed in the course of seeking a desired prosecutorial outcome.

What prompts this post today, in particular (you can be sure that every day US prosecutors proceed on dodgy, ex post facto legal grounds)?

The California Franchise Tax Board, the state’s version of the IRS, “[has] determined that a tax break claimed over the past few years by 2,500 entrepreneurs and stockholders of California-based small businesses is no longer valid and sent out notices of payment.”

“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, (and) you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it’s not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest on money you didn’t even know you owed’,” Brian Overstreet told Fox News from his office north of San Francisco.

Read more.