James Madison

“2A Today for The USA”- New Video on the 2nd Amendment

See Video

I can’t imagine the framers of the Constitution thought the simple wording of the 2nd Amendment would ever be brought into question.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Barack Obama is throwing a temper tantrum with serious constitutional implications

Barack Obama

Organizing for Action, the grassroots group formed out of President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, is flaunting the complete disregard the White House and administration have for the Constitution.

The organization, which was caught selling access to administration officials in exchange for donations, tweeted this out yesterday from @BarackObama, President Obama’s official Twitter account:

Talk about an Orwellian message.

The link in the tweet sends you to a page that mentions the lawsuit Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) plans to file against the White House and features video of President Obama telling ABC News that he’s “not going to apologize for trying to do something while they’re doing nothing.” OFA calls it a “mic drop” and asks visitors to the page to “make a donation of $5 or more.”

Hahahahaha: Chuck Schumer doesn’t know who authored the Bill of Rights

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) may want to crack open a history book. During yesterday’s hearing on proposed constitutional amendment that would repeal political speech protections of the First Amendment, the New York Democrat said that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights:

“I think if Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Bill of Rights, were looking down on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute,” Mr. Schumer said.

Wait, what?

Yeah, Jefferson didn’t write the Bill of Rights — James Madison did. In fact, Jefferson as the minister to France when the when Madison crafted and submitted the proposed amendments. Jefferson didn’t leave France until September 26, 1789, a day after Congress approved the amendments, of which 10 would eventually be ratified by the states and become known as the Bill of Rights.

Another point that Schumer gets incredibly wrong his suggestion that Jefferson would support restrictions on political speech. This statement is completely ignorant of history.

Jefferson, then-vice president, vigorously opposed the Sedition Act, under which several political opponents of the Adams administration were prosecuted, and, along with Madison, authored the Kentucky and Virgina nullification resolutions in the late-1790s.

Obama is so out of touch with reality he’s blaming the Framers of the Constitution for the rejection of his unpopular agenda

President Barack Obama is now blaming the framers of the Constitution for his political problems. At a recent fundraiser, he lamented the Constitution’s design and structure of the Senate, calling it a “disadvantage” for his agenda and the Democratic Party:

At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population.

“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said.
The president also blamed “demographics” for the inability of the Democratic Party to gain more power in Congress, saying Democrats “tend to congregate a little more densely” in cities such as New York and Chicago. He said it gives Republicans disproportional clout in Congress.

“So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through,” Mr. Obama said.

The structure of the Legislative Branch was forged out of the Connecticut Compromise — “compromise,” there’s a word about which President Obama knows nothing — that was essential to breaking gridlock at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. States got proportional representation based on population in the House and, to settle concerns of smaller states, the Senate was compromised of two members from each state.

Arizona legislator to NSA: Get out of my state

The fight against the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance programs has moved to some state legislatures, in addition to the ongoing debate in Washington, thanks to a push by the Tenth Amendment Center, an organization that advocates for federalism.

An Arizona legislator, state Sen. Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City), has become the first legislator in the country to introduce the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, which purports to prohibit state and local agencies, including utility providers, from providing the NSA with any material support.

“While media attention is focused on a possible effort to shut off water to the NSA data center in Utah, I’m introducing the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act to back our neighbors up,” Ward said in a statement from the Tenth Amendment Center. “Just in case the NSA gets any ideas about moving south, I want them to know the NSA isn’t welcome in Arizona unless it follows the Constitution.”

The legislation would make information provided by the NSA inadmissible in state courts and blocks state universities from serving as research facilities for the controversial intelligence agency. It would also sanction companies if they cooperate with the NSA.

“I believe the number one priority for national security is defending and protecting the Constitution. Without that, the rest becomes irrelevant. There is no question that the NSA program, as it is now being run, violates the Fourth Amendment. This is a way to stop it,” Ward added.

The Tenth Amendment Center is encouraging other states to follow suit.

Coalition calls on states to stop supporting NSA spying programs

Organizations from varied political backgrounds have come together to launch a campaign that would tackle the NSA spying problem locally. The coalition led by the Tenth Amendment Center believes that the plan they have outlined and hope to get state legislators to support would ensure that the federal government’s efforts to collect phone, e-mail and other private digital data would be undermined.

The website OffNow.org was launched to give the public easy access to what the Tenth Amendment Center wishes to accomplish and how activists believe they can make it work.

According to the coalition, the piece of legislation they have written to be used as a model, the 4th Amendment Protection Act, would keep state and local governments from being required to help the National Security Agency to implement spying programs within their districts.

Local agencies would not be required to assist the NSA with the delivery of natural resources the facilities that run these programs require to function properly.

The idea came about when reports concerning Utah’s NSA data collection center using up to 1.7 million gallons of water per day made the news. While the state of Utah is the second driest state in the United States, it still provides a great amount of water to a facility run by the federal government to collect phone and Internet data, but does it have to?

The Good Guys are Not Coming to Save Us

A lot of Americans know that the US government is out of control. Anyone who has cared enough to study the US Constitution even a little knows this. Still, very few of these people are taking any significant action, and largely because of one error: They are waiting for “the good guys” to show up and fix things.

Some think that certain groups of politicians will pull it together and fix things, or that one magnificent politician will ride in to fix things. Others think that certain members of the military will step in and slap the politicians back into line. And, I’m sure there are other variations.

There are several problems with this. I’ll start with the small issues:

Michael Munger on majority rule and individual liberty

During an election year, voters frequently hear politicians point to public to prove support for their agenda. In trying to push through his tax hike prospoal, President Barack Obama has noted on several occasions that most polls show that Americans believe higher-income earners should pay more in taxes. Another example would be polls that show opposition from Americans to the Citizens United ruling, which protected political speech for domestic corporations.

But should the majority rule? During the debate over ratification in New York, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explained the problem of majorities, or, as he called it, “faction.” Madison wrote, “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

This is why Madison and other Founding Fathers concluded that a democracy was not consistant the idea of free society that they sought for a new nation. Instead, as Madison wrote, “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Madison went into great detail about the problem of faction in Federalist 10, which is worth a read, if you have a few moments. But one can read Madison’s missive and see clearly that the vision the he had for the United States is one that has been largely lost, especially in the last 80 years or so.

Salem Redux: NYT Christian Witch Hunt

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” ~ The Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 3

It is unequivocal fact that the Founding Fathers of our nation were deeply religious men. So important was religion in their view that the protection thereof was codified in the first line of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, even before freedom of speech and of the press. From Washington to Adams to Madison and on, Christianity and the Judeo-Christian belief system was at the heart of the government which they formed. Even Jefferson, known as a Deist who shunned the organized religions of his day, wrote in an April 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush, “I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”

Strange indeed then that modern liberals live in abject terror of the possibility that any religious influence might accidentally (or more likely, through the nefarious workings of those dreaded, meddling Christians) seep into the philosophy or policies of our secular government.

Club for Growth on Ron Paul

Just like in 2008, the Club for Growth is putting together a series of white papers on candidates running for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. We’ve already covered their reports on the records of Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. We missed the report on Michele Bachmann, but you can read that here.

Last week, the Club for Growth released the white paper on Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX),who fares well against President Barack Obama in a hypothetical matchup and is making Iowa and the Ames Straw poll priorities for his campaign.

The Club notes that Paul has received better than average ratings on their own scorecard, and they’ve gradually increased over the last five years. And while his record on spending is “impressive,” including votes against Medicare Part D, raising his own pay, TARP, the stimulus and other wasteful spending.

They also point out that Paul was once a stalwart in voting for amendments to strip wasteful earmarks out of spending bills; however, he has changed his tune recently:

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.