Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against Self-Executing Rule In 2005

This is basically an extension of my post from yesterday:

Democrats Change The Rules, Set To Trash The Constitution
84rules
March 15, 2010

Not only is Pelosi & Company set to usurp the Constitution in order to ram a Socialized Health Care bill that a majority of Americans do not want down our collective throats, but they were also "friends of the court" in a case back in 2005 when they challenged a piece of GOP legislation that focused on raising the debt limit.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution. Guess who went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.

And their argument went thus:

"Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become[] a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). "Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate. "Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses."

Note the words in italics. That is the issue here. According to the above argument, it is not constitutional for the House and Senate to pass two different versions of the same legislation and then just arbitrarily choose which version shall become law.

Oh, and who also filed amicus briefs on this case? Read on:

• Nancy Pelosi
  
• Henry Waxman
  
• Louise Slaughter
  

Also note that the Dems were against raising the debt limit 5 years ago while today they are spending our great-grand-children's future.

Democrat, thy name is Chutzpuh!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against GOP's Self-Executing Rule In 2005
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
March 16, 2010

Chuck Norris: Barack Obama And The "J" Word

When I was growing up in the 1970's and going to elementary school in Prince George's County, Maryland, I very much enjoyed studying the history of the American Revolution. It was always a very big deal for us and we used to have "festivals" celebrating the founding of the United States and celebrating the ideas that the Founders wrote about.

That doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Somewhere along the line, our educational system began to "forget" about where we came from. And, if you don't know where you came from, you cannot get to where you're going.

How many of us still believe as the Founders did? I mean, really believe. How many of us even know what the Founders believed?

That number is getting smaller and smaller even thought our population is getting bigger and bigger.

John Adams once said, "Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind."

Perhaps that quote merely sounded like Christian bravado over the years, but today, we may be witnessing the true meaning of those words.

The Constitution was originally written so that people of all faiths could come to the New World and worship according their own conscious. But the deeper meaning is that they were free from having any particular religion forced upon them by the state. John Adams envisioned such a nation growing in North America.

What neither he nor any other Founder envisioned was that atheistic movements would spring up and threaten to drown out the faithful from the public scene. The reason that Adams said that our Constitution was "wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind" was because the Constitution contained no controls over those who would reject morality and decency in favor of hedonism and self-indulgence.

For example, the Consitution contains no reference to the crime of murder. Why? Because the Founders knew that the good and moral people of the several states would enforce a "murder is a crime" civic code. That one is simple to explain.

But, the Constitution also contains language that guarantees certain liberties like free speech. Does that mean that you are free to go over to your neighbor's house and begin yelling obscenities at your neighbor's children because they are praying where you can see them? Again, the Founders would never have considered this to be a problem and were certain that local communities were filled with people who would find such a prospect horrifying. But, now you can see the grey area where, over the past hundred years or so, the non-faithful have been working in and exploiting legal loopholes.

This is, I believe, precisely why John Adams said what he said. It wasn't meant as a compliment to the faithful, it was meant as a warning of what could happen if the faithful ever lost their public voice.

Chuck Norris, writing for Town Hall notes a few things:

Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

It was everywhere in public life back in the late 1700's. Even Benjamin Rush advocated diversity long before it became a left-wing political buzzword:

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament."

Well, maybe not so much Mohammed, but clearly, Rush saw the dangers of allowing atheism to overshadow faith.

More:

[S]igners of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. ... Like George Washington, I don't believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

One of the problems we are facing here in modern times is that groups like the ACLU have twisted the First Amendment around so that "Freedom of religion" now means to them "Freedom from religion." They like to point to the part of the First Amendment that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but seem to conveniently forget the rest of that line which statess, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Founders envisioned people having the right to worship in public, something that atheists claim is "offensive." In other words, the ACLU and their anti-religious allies are seeking to force us all to act like atheists.

So, why hasn't our new president shown any regard for any religion except Islam? Chuck Norris isn't afraid to ask the following question:

Is Obama afraid of the word "Jesus"?

The Founders weren't. And we shouldn't be either. Feel free to express your religious convictions anywhere you please. If the ACLU tries to stop you, remind them of the part of the First Amendment that states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Obama Afraid Of The J-Word?
Chuck Norris
TownHall.com
April 7, 2009

Response From Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District)

A couple of weeks ago, I called on Frank Wolf (R-VA) to resign his seat for violating the Constitution by voting "Yea" on HR 1586. For a refresher on that story, visit the following link:

Time For Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District) To Resign
84rules
March 20, 2009

My argument is that by voting for legislation that essentially amounts to both a Bill of Attainder and an Ex Post Facto law, Rep. Wolf violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and must be held accountable for it. I sent Mr. Wolf a letter voicing my concerns and asking that he step down. I further made it known that my concerns were over the Constitutional issues, not the bonuses.

I got a response through the mail yesterday. A hard copy letter signed by Mr. Wolf. Here are two excerpts from that letter:

By a vote of 328-93 on March 19, the House passed the bill (H.R. 1586) to impose a new 90 percent tax on the bonuses paid after December 31, 2008, to employees of companies that recieved over $5 billion in taxpayer money.

Here, Mr. Wolf freely admits that HR 1586 qualifies as a Bill of Attainder, which is defined as any legislation that will pose negative effects on a narrowly defined group of people. Mr. Wolf himself defines that group. Further, Mr. Wolf noted that the date of the legislation in question was March 19, 2009 and that it would be retroactively enforced back to December 31, 2008. That qualifies this bill as an Ex Post Facto law.

So, why did he do it? Here is what he wrote:

While I had concerns about the rushed nature of the legislation and some of the legal and constitutional issues raised, I voted for the bill. I reached that decision because of the message that AIG's payment of bonuses was sending hard-working Americans whose tax money was being used to bail out the company.

That's it. Frank Wolf voted to trample on Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States in order to "send a message." He had no concern whatsoever that what he was doing violated the Constitution.

What's next? Will Mr. Wolf vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to "send a message" to violent criminals? Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to allow duties or taxes on exports from a certain state in order to "send a message" to the people of that state. Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to impose taxes on a specific religious denomination in order to "send a message" to the members of that religion.

Mr. Wolf's actions regarding HR 1586 are inexcusable. His excuse for taking those actions is intolerable.

Anyone who would violate a certain part of our Constitution will be capable of violating other parts of the Constiotution. Such a person is not to be trusted.

I repeat my earlier call for Mr. Wolf's removal. I would rather deal with an honest Democrat than a disgraceful Republican. I have already decided that I will not support Frank Wolf for re-election in 2010.

Video: Rep. Michelle Bachmann Questions Tim Geithner's Knowledge Of The Constitution

This is something that all legislators, Democrat and Republican, should be doing. They should always question whether or not a policy or proposed bill has a basis somewhere in the Constitution.

I don't mean from court rulings or extensions of court rulings. I mean in the document itself. For any particular bill in front of Congress, can the sponsors cite Article and Section of the Constitution that gives the government the power to enact such legislation? If they cannot, then the proposed bill should be immediately thrown out.

For example, not one member of Congress can quote any part of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to retroactively impose taxes on a narrowly defined group of people. But I can certainly point to a section of the Constitution that unambiguously prohibits it.

That is why Michelle Bachmann is such a rising start in the GOP and among Conservatives in general. She is asking such questions. Here is a transcript of the exchange between Rep. Bachmann and Seccretary of the Treasury Geithner:

BACHMANN: What provision in the Constitution could you point to ... to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of '08? GEITHNER: Oh, well, the -- the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities. BACHMANN: Sir, in the Constitution. What -- what in the Constitution could you point to to -- to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken? GEITHNER: Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is -- is -- has been using authority granted by this body -- by this body, the Congress. BACHMANN: And by -- in the Constitution, what could you point to? GEITHNER: Under the laws of the land, of course.

You'll notice that Geithner never answered her question despite the fact that it is a very legitimate question. In fact, Rep. Bachmann had to ask it three times. He punted and simply said "the laws of the land." Unfortunately for Geithner, the phrase "law of the land" appears in the Constitution only in Article VI and establishes the Constitution as the final authority over the several states. Article VI does not give the government the powers the Obama administration is taking for itself.

As for Old Media reporters, they should be asking the same questions. After all, they do style themselves as "watchdogs of government."

There are many unhinged libs at websites like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post who are stamping their feet like little children right now over the way Michelle Bachmann exposed Geithner's ignorance of the Constitution, but none of them are able to answer Rep. Bachmann's question either.

The truth is, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government any power whatsoever to go in and take over the businesses and firms in the private sector. None. If you believe there is, please respond to this post by citing Section and Article of the Constitution.

If you are able to do so, then you will have done something that the current Secretary of the Treasury was embarrassingly unable to do.

You can access the video on-line here:

Congresswoman Bachmann Questions Geithner & Bernanke About A Global Currency
YouTube
March 24, 2009

House Of Representatives Votes Congress A Power It Never Had And Should Not Ever Have

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees.

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed." You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional.

If this bill becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, then it sets a precedent that Congress can legislate retroactive laws and put through Bills of Attainder. For example, if Congress decided that they wanted to raise the income tax rate for 2007 to 50% and collect back taxes from everyone, they can point to this piece of legislation and say that they now have the power to do so and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.

I recommend that you send emails or make phone calls to your Senators and ask them to vote "nay" on this bill and to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Wall Street Journal agrees with me:

A Smoot-Hawley Moment?
Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
March 23, 2009

Tax The AIG Bonuses? Only If You Want To Violate The Constitution.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed."

I'm sure we all remember this from our 4th grade history lessons. That's where I learned that "Ex Post Facto" means "After the Fact."

But, apparently, the Democrats and other members of Congress are not as well versed as I am about what is written in the Constitution.

First, we know that the Democrats in Congress voted to approve of a stimulus package that contained the Dodd Amendment which explicitly exempted the bonuses that AIG would pay out to its employees. Then, President Obama signed that legislation into law. This means that those bonuses were made perfectly legal according to the current Congress and the current President.

Now, they want to pass legislation that retroactively repeals that amendment.

According to the Fox News:

Senate and House lawmakers have returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money. Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money. "Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses. He said the legislation would be proposed by Wednesday and subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent. He also said lawmakers would soon work with the administration to complete a Wall Street accountability bill.

This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned as an "Ex Post Facto" law.

This legislation must not even be considered. Those who will be considering it or supporting it will be in violation of their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So, what would you choose? Irrational emotionalism over something that the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Democrat President approved of, or would you choose to support the explicit admonitions of the U.S. Constitution?

I choose the latter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble To Undo Protections They Approved
FoxNews.com
March 17, 2009

Can You Pass The American Civics Quiz?

I scored a 93.94%. I missed two questions, one about Roe v. Wade and one about policy to stimulate a sagging economy. But, that means I got thirty-one questions right, which is apparently better than most Americans who took this test and scored and average of 49% and most college educators who scored 55%.

Here are some other results from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Seventy-one percent of Americans fail the test, with an overall average score of 49%. Liberals score 49%; conservatives score 48%. Republicans score 52%; Democrats score 45%. Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America’s constitutional system. ... ISI examined whether other factors add to or subtract from civic literacy and how they compare with the impact of college. The survey revealed that in today’s technological age, all else remaining equal, a person’s test score drops in proportion to the time he or she spends using certain types of passive electronic media. Talking on the phone, watching owned or rented movies, and monitoring TV news broadcasts and documentaries diminish a respondent’s civic literacy. In contrast to these negative influences, the civic knowledge gained from the inexpensive combination of engaging in frequent conversations about public affairs, reading about current events and history, and participating in more involved civic activities is greater than the gain from an expensive bachelor’s degree alone.

One of the ways to remain engaged in a frequent conversations about public affairs, current events and history is to maintain a blog. It helped me a great deal in passing this quiz.

You can take the quiz on-line at the following website. There is no need to register or give any personal information. Just answer the 33 questions as best you can and see where you stand.

Civics Quiz
Intercollegiate Studies Institute American Civil Literacy Program

And here are my final thoughts on this:

Reform needs to start in elementary school and middle school. I and my classmates knew what the Bill Of Rights was back in the fourth grade. We also knew that our government was tri-lateral and our legislature was bi-cameral. By the eighth grade, we could recite the Preamble (Thank you School House Rock!) and we knew how many Senators came from each state and how the proportion of Representatives was determined. We learned all of this before we took a complete Civics class in the 9th grade.

Why the schools stopped teaching these things is beyond comprehension.

But what we need more than anything else is parents who care about what their children are being taught. That means parents who will take an active role in their children's education and be willing to stand up to the teachers and administrators in their public schools. Anything else will be doomed to failure.

If you think you need to be better informed about our Government and how it is supposed to work, a good place to start is to read the Constitution of the United States of America. You can access it on-line here:

The United States Constitution
Founding Fathers of the United States of America
September 17, 1787

• George Washington - President and deputy from Virginia
  
• New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman
  
• Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King
  
• Connecticut - William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman
  
• New York - Alexander Hamilton
  
• New Jersey - William Livingston, David Brearley, Williamm Paterson, Jonathan Dayton
  
• Pensylvania - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris
  
• Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom
  
• Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll
  
• Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.
  
• North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson
  
• South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler
  
• Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin
  
• Attest: William Jackson, Secretary