Tombstone Ain’t Dead Yet

By Nick Dranias

Last week, the U.S. Forest Service got the drop on Tombstone when the City’s request for an emergency injunction was denied by Senior Judge Frank Zapata of the United States District Court. But Tombstone’s legal posse has a more than a few rounds left in the chamber.

The Goldwater Institute has already appealed the decision as a violation of the Tenth Amendment and, on May 21st, we filed an emergency motion for an injunction with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the City of Tombstone. The motion urges the Court to allow Tombstone to repair its Huachuca Mountain water system because the loss of water to the City is especially dangerous now that wildfire season has arrived. It is entirely possible that the motion will be granted in just a few days. But even if it is denied, the City won’t be firing blanks just yet. The next move is an emergency request before Justice Anthony Kennedy, who “rides” the Ninth Circuit.

Meanwhile the cavalry is on the horizon. County and rancher organizations from around the Western States are gearing up to file “Friend of the Court” briefs in support of Tombstone’s appeal. And three days after the denial of Tombstone’s request for emergency relief from Judge Zapata, U.S. Representative Jeff Flake introduced a bill entitled the “Emergency Water Supply Restoration Act.” The bill would allow state and local governments to freely and fully restore water supplies in Wilderness Areas without interference from federal agencies during a declared State of Emergency. No doubt the bill will catch the U.S. Forest Service’s attention.

Congressman Flake’s bill may have an uphill battle in the Senate, but combined with the cutting edge legal theories being used by the Goldwater Institute’s posse of public interest attorneys, no one should count out the “Town Too Tough to Die.”

Nick Dranias is the Director of Policy Development and Constitutional Government for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Emergency Motion Pending Appeal (PDF)

Goldwater Institute: Tombstone v. United States

U.S. Congress: Emergency Water Supply Restoration Act (PDF)

The Supreme Court Could End Goverment-Sponsored Cartels

By Clint Bolick

Among the New Deal relics that persist today are federal dairy laws that restrict competition over milk prices. The Hettinga family, which owns two Arizona dairies, managed to lower prices through an exemption in the law, which ultimately led to the repeal of the exemption, and forced the Hettingas into the government-created dairy cartel.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, applying long-standing precedent, unanimously upheld the law. But Judge Janice Brown, who previously penned passionate pro-freedom opinions as a justice of the California Supreme Court, wrote a concurring opinion joined by Judge David Sentelle condemning the state of economic liberty jurisprudence.

The law, Judge Brown wrote, illustrates the “gap between the rhetoric of free markets and the reality of ubiquitous regulation.” The “ugly truth” is that “America’s cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers.” The courts, Brown lamented, “have been negotiating the terms of the surrender since the 1930s,” removing “any check on the group interests that all too often control the democratic process.”

She’s right: if the courts fail to protect freedom of enterprise, then constitutional protections are not worth the paper on which they’re written. And by applying the so-called “rational basis” test—which requires neither a basis nor one that is rational—federal courts have upheld all manner of economic regulations. Bravo, Judge Janice Brown.

Here’s hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case and heed her wisdom.

Clint Bolick is Vice President of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

U. S. District Court: Hettinga v. United States (PDF)

Wikipedia: Janice Brown

Amazon.com: Death Grip

The Feds Are Coming for Our Water

By Nick Dranias

The City of Tombstone, Arizona is no longer the only one fighting the federal government for water rights. The latest move by the Federal Bureau of Land Management appears to herald a bigger and much more comprehensive effort to seize water and access rights on federal lands throughout the western states.

Just last week, the Bureau of Land Management declared to the Arizona Department of Water Resources that the federal government holds senior water rights across much of Arizona’s San Pedro River riparian watershed. The BLM’s objection to the “Designation of Adequate Water Supply” issued by ADWR to Sierra Vista’s Pueblo del Sol Water Company stakes the claim that water sources in the area cannot be used without the federal government’s permission. This new federal policy not only defies decades of deference to and accommodation of state sovereignty over water law, but it throws a noose around Arizona’s neck, for which water is life.

The growing federal stranglehold over water rights in Arizona is a direct assault on state autonomy. There is perhaps no better way for the federal government to quell restive western states, like Arizona, that dare to resist federal immigration, healthcare, and unionization policies.

More than ever before, the BLM’s actions show that it is essential for the Goldwater Institute to prevail in our efforts to vindicate Tombstone, Arizona’s 130-year-old water rights, which the federal government is challenging. If Tombstone fails in its effort to preserve its municipal water supply, which is essential to its existence, the floodgates of federal overreach will wash away what little sovereignty the western states still enjoy.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Sierra Vista Herald: Warning on water issued by Babbitt in ’94

Arizona Department of Water Resources: Bureau of Land Management letter (PDF)

Goldwater Institute: Tombstone v. United States

Saucedo-Mercer: Court hearing on Arizona’s law opportunity to fuel reform not rhetoric

Congressman Raul Grijalva writes that Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070 will put our country into chaos, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the law. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the matter of Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070, today. A recent poll shows that a majority of Americans favor the law. Eight states have adopted similar laws.

Grijalva’s Republican challenger in the Congressional District 3 race, Gabby Saucedo Mercer, says “Grijalva’s failure, in his ten years in Congress, to sponsor meaningful legislation that would serve the country’s economic and national security while addressing the very difficult questions and issues pertaining to immigration, has created a chaotic atmosphere, in which communication has broken down, and real solutions are not being discussed.”

In his opinion piece, written for U.S. News and reports, Raúl M. Grijalva, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, wrote, “Arizona’s SB 1070 should be struck down by the Supreme Court.” Grijalva, the radical congressman from Arizona, argues that the Constitution clearly gives exclusive authority to the federal government over immigration and naturalization issues.”

Gabby Saucedo Mercer is challenging the congressman’s claim that SB1070 grants states “the authority to create immigration policy.” She says, “This sort of mischaracterization and hyperbole does not help the people of this country or Arizona. SB1070 is simply recognition of federal law, it does not in any way, grant state and local law enforcement any extraordinary authority.”

The Governor of Arizona released a statement addressing the lies and distortions offered by the law’s foes like Grijalva, “Despite all of the misrepresentations, misleading rhetoric and outright lies told about SB 1070, public support for this law is as strong as ever. I’ve seen it in the donations from citizens of all 50 states who have dug into their own pocketbooks in order to help defray Arizona’s legal costs.

Saucedo Mercer argues that the law’s popularity has increased as the public has grown more aware of the failure of the federal government to protect our county’s border. “The people of Arizona felt that the federal government had failed to protect the country’s economic health and the people’s welfare. Grijalva has been in office for ten years and has failed to take the lead, as a resident of a large border state, to initiate real changes in immigration. He instead prefers open borders.”

Saucedo Mercer, who has lived in the border area communities of Rio Rico, Sierra Vista and Tucson, knows firsthand the concerns that lead the people of Arizona to pass SB1070. Saucedo Mercer supports the ROB Plan for border security. Saucedo Mercer is a conservative advocate for meaningful immigration reform, who knows firsthand the issues facing hopeful immigrants. She does not support blanket amnesty, but does support immigration reform that offers a rigorous but compassionate path to citizenship.

Gabby Saucedo Mercer, a legal immigrant from Mexico who took an oath to defend the Constitution when she became an American citizen, joins many Arizona law makers in the belief that the Supreme Court will find for the state of Arizona.

The Arizona Latino Republican Association has endorsed the law.

Just last week, Saucedo Mercer spent two days in Nogales, Arizona, listening to business leaders’ and government officials’ concerns about our national and economic security. No one expressed opposition to SB1070, but without exception, they advised Saucedo Mercer that political hyperbole does not help their situation.

###

Congressman Flake Urges SCOTUS to Uphold SB 1070

Obama Administration Ought to Focus on Securing Border Instead of Suing Arizona

Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today urged the Supreme Court to uphold SB 1070, Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.

Congressman Flake has consistently opposed the Obama Administration’s decision to sue Arizona over the law.

“It should be expected that states like Arizona will take action to enforce immigration laws when the federal government continues its long history of failing to do so,” said Flake.

“The Obama Administration ought to focus on securing the border instead of suing Arizona for trying to help.”

Congressman Flake has introduced H.R. 1507, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl have introduced the legislation in the Senate. Among the 10 key provisions of the bill is the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops and 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents to the United States-Mexico border by 2016. It would create additional Border Patrol stations along the southwest border and create six additional permanent Border Patrol Forward Operating Bases and upgrade existing bases.

###

Tombstone, Arizona is Ground Zero for State Sovereignty

By Nick Dranias

In a showdown between the Obama Administration and the “Town Too Tough to Die,” the U.S. Forest Service is refusing to allow the City of Tombstone to repair its mountain spring water infrastructure after the 2011 Monument Fire destroyed pipelines and catchments.

Despite Gov. Jan Brewer’s declared state of emergency to empower Tombstone to restore its municipal water supply, the feds continue to block Tombstone, citing the Wilderness Act, which was passed decades after Tombstone secured the water rights. The Forest Service’s decision risks the lives and properties of Tombstone residents and tourists due to the loss of adequate fire suppression capabilities and safe drinking water.

This is a case of egregious federal overreach. If the Forest Service can effectively seize Tombstone’s 130-year-old water rights during a state of emergency — rights that the Service recognized as valid in 1916 — no state or local government will be safe from the feds. That’s why the Goldwater Institute recently filed for a preliminary injunction to restore Tombstone’s sovereign power to restore its municipal water supply.

There is plenty of reason to believe that Tombstone will ultimately prevail. The Supreme Court is already familiar with federal overreach in Graham County, Arizona. In Printz v. United States, the Court rejected efforts by the federal government to commandeer the Graham County Sheriff into implementing a federal gun control law, writing, “the Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” The Forest Service is openly flouting this principle of law.

By denying Tombstone access to its water, the Forest Service is threatening to directly regulate Tombstone to death. Printz makes it clear that the Forest Service has no such constitutional power — not if the guarantee of state sovereignty means anything under the Tenth Amendment.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Tombstone v. United States

Justia.com: Printz v. United States

CD-8 Frank Antenori Slams Obama for Violating Oath of Office and Disrespecting the Constitution

Frank Antenori

Republican Congressional candidate Senator Frank Antenori said today that “President Obama is violating his Oath of Office and disrespecting our constitution by attacking the Supreme Court for its review of the constitutionality of Obamacare.”

“Our entire system of governmental checks and balances is designed to safeguard the rights of the American people from being trampled upon by an out of control government. The Supreme Court was deliberately designed to be above electoral politics and have the final say as to whether a law is consistent with the constitution,” Antenori said.

“Obama knows this and has chosen to attack a cornerstone institution of our government as created by the constitution he took an oath to protect,” Senator Antenori said.

“The people have the ultimate right to amend the constitution, but Presidents and Congresses do not have the right to trample it. The President’s comments yesterday hit a new low and underscore an apparent disrespect for our form of government,” he said.

As a State Senator, Antenori was instrumental in advancing Arizona’s formal constitutional challenge to Obamacare.

“Regardless of the outcome of the pending case before the Court, I will respect the Court’s decision even if it proves to be one that I disagree with. If the Court upholds Obamacare than it is my intention to repeal the law in its present form and to move forward with ensuring that affordable health care is available through competitive markets, more doctors, and greater individual choice,” Antenori said.

-30-

Landmark Lawsuit Into Second Day of Oral Arguments

Arizona state director of named plaintiff says he’s confident Supreme Court will rule in NFIB’s favor.

PHOENIX, Ariz., March 27, 2012 — Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, the named plaintiff in the landmark lawsuit, NFIB v. Sebelius, said today he’s confident the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with and rule in favor of NFIB, Arizona and 25 other states challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

“When we filed this lawsuit two years ago, some people called it frivolous, and there are plenty of people today who claim it’s doomed to fail, but we’re convinced the Supreme Court will agree, just as lower courts have, that the individual mandate requiring everyone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional,” Quinlan said.

“The issue here is whether Congress can force individuals to buy health insurance,” he said. “Under the health-care law, most people will be required to buy health insurance starting in 2014. If they don’t, they’ll have to pay a penalty.”

In what some media are calling the most significant court case since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the U.S. Supreme court yesterday heard the first of three days of oral arguments in NFIB v. Sebelius. Ordinarily, the court allots only one hour for oral arguments, but it’s set aside six hours over the three days to hear the case brought by NFIB, Arizona and 25 other states.

“Congress has no authority to make people buy anything,” Quinlan said. “They can’t force people to buy health insurance the same as they can’t force people to floss their teeth or eat their peas. Despite heroic efforts to obscure this fact, Congress clearly overreached by imposing this health-care law. It’s difficult to think of another case where the federal government’s intrusion into people’s lives has been so blatant and egregious.”

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Sunshine Is the Best Disinfectant – Even on Campus

By Carrie Ann Sitren

As national Sunshine Week comes to a close, some legislators are trying to close out the sunshine. A new proposal would expand a current exemption to Arizona’s Public Records Laws and limit public information at universities.

Private research groups and ASU are spearheading the effort to keep more of their research private. Current law already protects some intellectual property and trade secrets from being released to the public so that competitors cannot copy university research before it is copyrighted. But the groups are trying to expand the protections to protect information in all university contracts that merely contain a statement of confidentiality.

This means that a contract between the university and any employee, consultant, or any other private group or individual can be kept out of public view. However, courts have already determined that a public body cannot contract out of its duty to disclose public records. Instead, the public has a right to monitor the government’s activities, including university contracts and research. That right is guaranteed by Arizona’s Public Records Laws.

The new proposal further proclaims an emergency, stating that it must be passed immediately in order to preserve the public peace, health or safety. It is difficult to imagine such an urgent need to limit public access to university records, or why the normal procedure for passing new legislation isn’t perfectly adequate.

Whatever the research groups and universities are trying to accomplish, the proposed legislation stretches too broadly and attempts to rush through a significant limitation on the public’s right to access information of public importance. If the current protections should be expanded at all, they should be tailored to address specific problems that are not met by existing law and thoughtfully considered with an eye towards letting in the sunshine.

Carrie Ann Sitren is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Arizona State Legislature: HB 2272 (PDF)

Arizona Daily Sun: Use Sunshine Week to Insist on Open Government Records

Local Control – Sometimes

By Clint Bolick

Whenever local bureaucrats or special-interest groups want to neutralize conservative legislators, one of their most-potent weapons is two words: “local control.”

If the Legislature wants to curb excessive taxes, demand transparency, end union give-aways, align election dates, or anything that trenches on the power of local government, “local control” is the argument of choice to stymie reform — and it often succeeds.

The notion that the best government is the government closest to home is embedded in the American tradition. It conjures nostalgic images of town-hall meetings and other forms of civic engagement.

But the reality is that many local governments have grown large and distant from their citizens. Few voters are engaged in local elections — in part because they often occur on random dates. And newer types of local governments, such as special districts and regional authorities, are experiencing explosive growth yet are almost completely immune to democratic constraints.

What’s worse, local governments often are manipulated by special interests, especially unions. Our Constitution’s framers predicted this. “The smaller the society, the smaller probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it,” warned James Madison in The Federalist No. 10, making it easier for special interests to “concert and execute their plans of oppression.”

Our national government derives its powers from the states. So too do local governments, which possess only those powers expressly conferred by the state. Local and state government powers are intended to balance and constrain each other, so as to protect freedom.

Local governments affect our daily lives more than any other — from police and fire to schools, property and business regulations, and the most basic public services. Protections at the state level against local overreach are both essential and appropriate.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: It’s Time to Burst the Special-Interest Election Bubble

Who’s Afraid of an Article V Amendments Convention?

by Rachel Alexander

Every so often talk arises about holding an Article V Amendments convention amongst the states to amend the Constitution, since Congress has become increasingly unaccountable. In reaction, dire warnings spring up declaring that a “constitutional convention,” or “con con,” could result in a runaway convention where radical changes are made that fundamentally rewrite our Constitution. Are the doomsday warnings legitimate, or simply scare tactics to block desperately needed reforms?

Legislation is currently being considered in most state legislatures that would begin the process of adopting a National Debt Relief Amendment. Once ratified, it would prohibit Congress from increasing the federal debt unless a simple majority of the states approve. So far, North Dakota and Louisiana have passed the initial legislation with bipartisan support in both chambers of their state legislatures. Ultimately, 38 states will need to ratify the amendment. The language of the proposed amendment is very simple, “An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states.”

Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out the process by which amendments are added to the Constitution. Amendments may be proposed by either the states or Congress. Throughout America’s history, amendments have only been proposed by Congress. If proposed by the states, an amendment must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states or by conventions within the states. It is the initial convention called for by the states to propose amendments that naysayers, including some on the right oddly enough, claim may cause dangerous changes to the Constitution, even though it has never happened before.

The Founding Fathers rejected initial drafts of Article V that would have permitted open-ended conventions, and instead adopted very narrow, precise requirements. They rejected language four times that would have provided the mechanism for a full constitutional convention. In Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton explained that states did not need to call for a full constitutional convention since Article V provides full power to amend the Constitution. James Madison specifically supported the use of Article V in Federalist No. 43. Accusations that an Article V Amendments convention will result in a full-blown “constitutional convention” or “con-con” are not correct. There is no such thing as a constitutional convention – it can be found nowhere in the Constitution.

The Goldwater Institute, considered the premiere state-based right-leaning think tank in the country, has published numerous papers explaining why an Article V Amendments convention to consider the National Debt Relief Amendment should not be feared. Nick Dranias, Director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, wrote an essay entitled “Runaway Convention Myth Debunked,” in which he relayed the history of Article V, declaring, “Despite claims made to the contrary, the truth is that Article V does not provide authority for a foundational constitutional convention. The Founders specifically and repeatedly rejected efforts to substitute the current Article V language to allow for a foundational constitutional convention to be called.”

The National Debt Relief Amendment proposes only one amendment, specifically limiting the convention to consideration of that amendment only. Throughout each step of the way the process is set up to focus on one specific amendment; it is not like a flurry of amendments can be introduced at the last minute and shoved through. First, 34 states must pass resolutions proposing the exact same amendment. Next, delegates to the convention are selected by the state legislatures. Delegates that disregard their mission can be recalled and replaced. If there are attempts to consider things outside the scope of the proposed amendment at the convention, lawsuits can be filed to halt this activity, or Congress can refuse to send the results to the states for ratification. Finally, 38 states are required to ratify the results. 38 states are very unlikely to ratify something nutty – not even 10 states would ratify something nutty.

I received a shadowy email from an unidentified organization on Tuesday urging readers to oppose the bill in Arizona’s legislature. Why was the email anonymous? The opposition did not bother to speak up at the Arizona legislature’s committee hearing earlier this session against the bill. Nor did they at the Idaho legislature. Why are they afraid to debate their position publicly?

State Senator Curtis Olafson (R-Edinburg, N.D.) is leading the effort to pass a National Debt Relief Amendment through RestoringFreedom.org. He participated in Harvard’s Conference on the Constitutional Convention last fall, which included viewpoints from all across the political spectrum addressing the feasibility of an Article V Amendments convention. As part of the conference, the audience was permitted to suggest amendments. When some extreme sounding amendments were proposed, the speakers and the rest of the audience ignored the proposals. Olafson believes this is representative of how delegates chosen by state legislatures to conduct an Article V Amendments convention would treat radical amendment proposals. “Well-respected people would not suddenly develop collective insanity and go against instructions from state legislatures,” Olafson said. “Fearmongers like to speculate crazy scenarios.”

Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ) introduced legislation in January at the Congressional level to start the amendment proposal. State Senator Art Wittich (R-MT), who is leading the effort to get the legislation passed in Montana, applauds concurrent federal legislation, but says that getting the amendment through Congress will be tougher. “It is politically easier for Congress to cut taxes than the budget, an inherent imbalance, and there is no incentive to exercise fiscal responsibility,” Wittich says. “Getting new members elected to Congress who would support this amendment is difficult since incumbents have vast advantages in elections due to redistricting, franking, etc. Since many states already prohibit deficit spending, they are already inclined to support this.”

It is disappointing that opponents are using fear to scare people – opponents who do not even have the guts to identify themselves. Article V is possibly the only tool we have left to fight the unaffordable expansion of federal government. Most of the 50 states are now considering National Debt Relief Amendment legislation. Tea Party groups and anyone concerned with the government’s runaway spending should lobby their legislatures to pass this legislation. Some of the states are also considering a balanced budget amendment. This is another amendment that will help rein in spending and would be easier to push through state legislatures than through Congress.

Senators Olafson and Wittich believe that detractors have it backwards. “People should fear the status quo of out of control spending more than they should fear an Article V Amendments convention,” Wittich said. Senator Olafson expanded, “For those who preach fear about a runaway convention, we have a runaway convention right here in front of our eyes, it is a runaway Congress with out of control spending, czars, and Obamacare. It was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers that we, as state legislators, would understand that not only do we have a right to use Article V, but moreover, that we have a duty to use Article V when we see a serious challenge facing our nation that is not being solved by Congress.”

Olafson leaves detractors with this challenge:
For those of you who preach that we should fear an Article V amendments convention, I have two questions for which I would challenge you to provide logic-based answers.
1. The Founders included a process in Article V for the states to propose and ratify amendments that does not require any approval by Congress. Why would they provide the states that power and that process if they did not intend that the states should use it?
2. Can you provide for our enlightenment your official list of the 38 states that all of us should fear would ratify a dangerous, extremist or radical amendment?

 Reprinted from Townhall

A Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths

As Conservatives, we all know and revere the preamble to the Founders’ Declaration of Independence, perhaps the greatest political statement in the history of mankind, attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed –

These self-evident truths lie at the core of our Constitution and Conservatism.  They are what mathematicians and philosophers call axiomatic.  In other words, they are acknowledged to be unprovable, but they are presumed and accepted as true (hence “self-evident”), and they are the starting point for whatever follows — in this case, the remainder of the Declaration and later the Constitution itself.

So …

If these are the self-evident truths of Conservatism, what are the self-evident truths of Progressivism?  I’ve never seen them offered up or written down in concise Jeffersonian style.  Perhaps there are bits and pieces available in the writings of Karl Marx.  Perhaps from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is an example of a Progressive* self-evident truth.  Perhaps some of our Progressive readers can enlighten us(?).

In the absence of guidance from Progressives themselves, we are left to infer the self-evident truths of Progressivism by working backwards from observations of their statements and behaviors.  That’s what I try to do in this article.

Of course, we’re not entirely without clues. For example, Progressives like Barack Obama have told us that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it focuses too much on what the government cannot do to us and not enough about what the government must do for us.  As Obama has put it:

… the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

This is a helpful clarification.  For over 100 years, Progressives in America have been marching to the same drummer’s beat that Obama hears.  From Obama’s statement and my amateur observations of Progressive behaviors for several decades, I offer up the following to Progressives and Conservatives alike for their comment:

Progressive Declaration
of Self-Evident Truths

We hold these Truths to be self-evident:

  1. That all people are created equal,
  2. That they are endowed by The State with certain inalienable rights,
  3. That among these are Liberty, Equality, and Social Justice,
  4. That Equality includes life-long human rights to food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care,
  5. That to pursue Equality, The State may confiscate wealth from those who have it and redistribute it among those who don’t,
  6. That to pursue Social Justice, The State may constrain Liberty and Equality for some groups as reparations for past injustices suffered by other groups.

 

What follows are my notes on how I chose these six explicit clauses to represent the self-evident truths of Progressivism:

Clause 1:
In this clause, “all people are created equal” is used to avoid the allegedly sexist “all men are created equal” in the Founders’ Declaration.  A lesser point perhaps, but I’m trying to think as a Progressive would, right from the get-go, and then stay “in character” for the discussion of the remaining five clauses.

Clause 2:
In this clause, the phrase The Statetakes the place of the wordCreatorin the Founders’ Declaration.  All mention of God or a Creator is expunged in the Progressive Declaration, thereby avoiding any dual loyalties or competition with The State.  Religion is not explicitly forbidden, but neither is it mentioned or encouraged.  It may be tolerated so long as The State feels unthreatened by it, but The State is always the final arbiter in these matters.

In a Progressive’s world, Clause 2 has significant advantages.  For example, the current conflict over Government-mandated contraceptive coverage in employer-provided health care would be instantly resolved in favor of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the aggrieved party named Sandra Fluke.  Similarly, all the long-running controversies over religious displays on government-owned property would be resolved quite simply — The State’s word would be final.

Most importantly, since all fundamental rights are endowed by The State, they can be limited or withdrawn by The State.  This becomes important in Clause 6.

Clause 3:
The Founders’ Declaration lists Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as inalienable rights.  In the Progressive Declaration, “Life” does not appear at all.  This is another convenience for The State since abortion rights would be much easier to declare and maintain if Life were not an unalienable right.  Thus, it would no longer matter whether a fetus does or does not constitute “life”.  The State decides. Simple, no? In fact, if The State were to allow it, abortion rights might even extend to infanticide in the first 30 days of baby’s life, as proposed by some, or up to 2 years as proposed by another.  End-of-life decisions or euthanasia for the elderly or handicapped would also be much easier for The State to control.  Do you see the pattern?

Similarly, “pursuit of Happiness” in the Founders’ Declaration is replaced by “Social Justice”.  By including this phrase in the Progressive Declaration, the grand utopian Social Justice vision of Progressive luminaries like the self-avowed communist Van Jones is explicitly elevated to an unalienable right.  And what could be “happier” than that?

Clause 4:
When I wrote this clause, I was motivated in part by an email I received a few months ago from a self-declared Democrat/Socialist.  In it, he asked: “What is the purpose of government if not to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living?” I’ve seldom heard the Progressive cause put so plainly and clearly.

Of course the constitutions of the European Union and South Africa already explicitly list “human rights” similar to those in Clause 4.  So by including that clause in the Progressive Declaration, the path is paved for modernization or outright replacement of our own Constitution, as implied by Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her recent interview in Egypt.

Of course, there is one big problem with Clause 4 — how do we achieve it?   Enter Clause 5.

Clause 5:
Clause 5 explicitly lists a principle that Progressives have implicitly followed since the beginning of the movement — that is, to achieve Clause 4, confiscate wealth from the makers and give it to the takers.

By following this principle, ostensibly out of “compassion” and “fairness”, Progressives can win the support of the takers until there are so many of them that they can out-vote, out-shout, or out-threaten the makers.  As the takers demand more and more, the makers produce less and less as they lose incentive to create new wealth only to see it confiscated.  Eventually some of them go on a de facto “strike” as the industrialists did in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.  Soon thereafter, Progressives run out of other people’s money and resources.

There follows some combination of civil unrest, rationing, martial law, starvation, tyranny, and virtual slavery to The State. It has happened many times in many places.  WesternFreePress.com recently interviewed three direct eye witnesses (here, here, and here). Yet Progressives keep trying despite all evidence that their beloved principles simply don’t work.

In particular, in our own time, no doubt borne of compassion and fairness, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on US debt now consume all of our federal tax revenue, and our government is frantically borrowing over $4.7 billion per day to make up the shortfall for those expenses plus everything else.

Our plight is getting worse faster and faster as over 10,000 baby boomers retire every day.  And there is no way to tax or confiscate enough wealth to resolve the situation for long. This brutal truth  is shown clearly by Bill Whittle, with his usual wry humor, at this link.  Nonetheless, Progressives keep plodding along, demonizing “the rich” as the source of, as well as the solution to, our gargantuan economic woes.

Clause 5 appeals so much to base human emotions that Progressive politicians like Barack Obama exploit it to their political advantage through class-envy initiatives like the “Buffett Rule“, and “Fair Share“.  Unlike a precious few stalwarts in Congress, Obama simply refuses to confront the accounting arithmetic that is staring him in the face. He and his party perpetuate the myth that taxing the rich “just a little more” will solve the problem.  And the media never call him on it.  And the beat goes on.

Clause 6:
Clause 6 explicitly permits violation of Clauses 1 and 3 in some politically motivated circumstances in order to achieve a State-controlled version of EqualitySome current examples of Clause 6 in operation are Democrat tolerance for voter fraud, government-mandated purchase of health insurance, and Eric Holder’s infamous race-based pursuit of justice.

So …

There it is then, a Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths.  But this is just a first draft.  What do you think?  Have I got it wrong?  Have I left something out?  You can enter your comments below.

Even though Progressivism has failed dismally from its very earliest days in America, it is now making a comeback thanks to the Democrat Party, hijacked by the Left after John F. Kennedy died.  It will soon swamp all of us — unless, that is, we can stop them on November 6 and begin a restoration and renewal of the principles in our original Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

In the words of Shane F. Krauser, JD,

The Constitution is the not the problem.
It is emphatically the answer.

———————————————————————————————————————-

* Footnote: I use the term “Progressive” in this article to represent the broad mass of political thought that has variously been called Progressive / Liberal / Leftist / Socialist / Collectivist / Statist / Redistributionist / Communist or some other name.  These are not all synonymous I know, and as usual, some readers will prefer to pick at the definitions of these terms rather than address the main point of this article. Suffice it to say I use “Progressive” because “Liberal” has fallen out of favor with the Left, and “Progressive” now seems to be the most broadly accepted term for those on the Left side of the political spectrum.

Forewarned: Europe is Living in Our Future

A prior Sonoran Alliance post covered Associate Justice Gingsberg’s appalling remarks about the US Constitution and her praise for the South African Constitution with its guarantees of food, water, shelter, healthcare, and social security listed as basic “human rights”.

What are the consequences of actually trying to make good on guarantees like that?   One need look no further than Europe.   Riots over entitlement cutbacks are now a common occurrence, and they are only the beginning.

How did Europe get itself into this mess?

If you’re an American older than 30, you may remember:

  • the hoopla over the formation of the European Union (EU), with some gleefully calling it “The United States of Europe“,
  • the predictions that America would soon have  to “move over” as the EU became the dominant economic power in the world, and
  • the herd of financial advisers recommending that American investors purchase EU stocks and funds or get left behind.

So where does the vaunted EU stand today?

The EU is tottering on the brink of financial collapse.  It has fallen victim to (1) the statist / collectivist / socialist infection that has sickened Europe for well over 100 years, and (2) the rampant entitlement mentality that European politicians have cultivated for over 60 years as they sought votes and power.

Regarding that entitlement mentality, you may have heard of:

In fact, entitlements have become so thoroughly embedded in EU cultures that they are now enshrined in the EU Constitution as human rights (something the Great American Left is working to emulate in our own country).

Predictably, over-taxed and over-regulated, the EU economies could not long generate the surplus wealth needed to pay for all their promised amenities.  With two full generations of citizens trained from birth to expect their state-granted “human rights”, it’s small wonder that any attempted cut-backs have been met with strikes, demonstrations, boycotts, and protests, including violent ones.

Now the jig is up.  It’s time to face the music.  Herman Van Rompuy himself, the President of the European Council, has put it crisply and clearly:

We cannot finance our social model.

Well,  if it’s any comfort, Mr. Rompuy, we in America can’t finance ours either.   Just our entitlement programs and debt service already consume all our tax revenue, and we’re desperately borrowing and printing over $4.7 billion per day to pay for the overrun as well as everything else.  And this is no temporary bump in the road.  With over 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, the deterioration is accelerating, seemingly without limit.

Why do so few Americans understand the true depth of this predicament?

Is it because the President and his spokespeople deliberately obscure the problem in a fog of class-envy-based lies that they think will serve them well in the upcoming election?  How many times have we heard that “if the wealthy would just pay their fair share”, we could get past our budget crisis?  It’s a self-serving canard, but millions of Americans still walk around believing it and repeating it.

Even if we were to cancel the demonized Bush-Obama tax cuts for all Americans (not just the wealthy), we’d only pay for about 28 minutesworth of our current level of borrowing per day.  What do we do about the other 23 hours and 32 minutes?  (For a fact-based presentation, see the Rep. David Schweikert video at this link, especially at time marker 07:36).

As Bill Whittle has shown, with his own unique sense of humor, even if we were to “eat the rich“, confiscating all their wealth, we could only cover our deficits for about one year.   And then what?

A few brave souls in Congress have come to understand our economic crisis in real terms with real numbers.  They’ve been trying to reach and teach the rest of Congress and all of America.  We need to help them by repeating their message to our fellow Americans just as loudly and as often as we can.  

But there’s more than that to do … much more.

It is the incumbent members of Congress who got our country into this mess.  It happened on their watch when they were supposed to be looking out for us and our children.  And the longer a Representative or Senator has been in office, the more culpable he (or she) is.

Therefore …

Whether Democrat or Republican, every incumbent should be held accountable and compelled by his constituents to answer these questions:

Where were you when these impossibly expensive programs were designed and approved?
Did you warn us?  Did you tell us what the debt would be to our children and grandchildren
Did you vote against the programs?  Have you worked to expose them?  What are you doing now to reform them?

If an incumbent cannot answer acceptably to his constituents, it is sufficient cause for him to announce he will not run again for office, go home at the end of his term, and not come back.  His district or state can then deal with finding a replacement candidate who will take his responsibility to his constituents seriously.  We especially need full replacement of the elitist lifetime legislative class representatives and senators who have betrayed us through negligence, lethargy, incompetence, or malfeasance.  We do not work for them.  They work for us.  Our message to them should be simple:  You’re fired!

What will happen if these politicians, especially Washington’s lifetime legislators, are not replaced? 

Take a good long look at Europe today.  As Member-of-European-Parliament Daniel Hannan has put it in his book The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America,

Europe is living in our future

We do not want to go there, and it’s up to us, We the People, to stop it from happening.

 

Justice Ginsberg Tells Egypt: Don’t Look to US for Your New Constitution

In my high school US History class (circa 1964) I recall implicit reverence expressed for the United States Supreme Court. Now, unfortunately, after seeing Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s appearance on Egyptian TV (video below), I can’t help feeling a bit like Dorothy when the curtain was pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. What a letdown. Sigh. On the other hand, Ginsberg did give us another powerful demonstration of how thoroughly Leftism has infected the highest levels of our government.

Why did Justice Ginsberg do this interview in the first place?

First, did she really think Egyptians would honor the opinion of a woman, an American, and a Jew? Isn’t that a hatred trifecta for Egypt’s vaunted Muslim Brotherhood as well as the “Arab Street”? Remember what happened to Lara Logan during the “Arab Spring” demonstrations? Why consent to an interview at all? Did she really think she’d reflect well on herself, the Supreme Court, or our country with this interview? It ended up being rather the opposite, I’d say.

Second, if Justice Ginsberg really must draw back that Wizard-of-Oz-like SCOTUS curtain, could she at least have shown a bit more respect and praise for the Constitution that she swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Evidently not.

Said Ginsberg to the Egyptians:

I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary … it really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.

Much more recent than the US Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.

Well, thank you, Madame Justice. I had no idea how inferior our Constitution was to Europe’s, Canada’s, and South Africa’s. And how noble and courageous you have been to suffer our dusty old Constitution so stoically for nearly 20 years.

But perhaps I do the Justice an injustice. What is it that Ginsberg finds so attractive in those other constitutions? Given her comments, I infer it must have something to do with what she means by “human rights”. So I looked first to the South Africa Constitution since Ginsberg singled it out as a “great piece of work.” It’s available online.

The first thing I noticed about the SA Constitution (1996) is its sheer size. The US Constitution is only 4400 words long, but the SA Constitution is over 43,700 words long. Much more stuff. And more means better? Anyway, it’s so big that I could never have read it all, so I focused mainly on Chapter 2, the SA Bill of Rights.

Our American Bill of Rights is rather short — just those first ten tersely worded amendments. The SA Bill of Rights is over 4600 words long and contains 33 major headings. Among these are many noble and proper declarations somewhat like our own, but there are others — namely, the ones that I presume Justice Ginsberg admires. Three in particular declare the following (with my emphasis added) as the supreme law of the land in South Africa:

24. Environment — Everyone has the right:

(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that

(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

…..

26. Housing:

(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

(3) No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.

27. Health care, food, water and social security:

(1) Everyone has the right to have access to:

(a) health care services, including reproductive health care;
(b) sufficient food and water; and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

(3) No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.

Isn’t this nice? What’s not to like? It sounds like an Occupy-Wall-Streeter’s paradise. It sounds like the promises made whenever socialism has been sold to a hopeful and unsuspecting populace. It reads as does the European Union Constitution, where attempts to deliver on promises like these threaten to collapse whole economies and lead to massive civil unrest.

Note that nowhere in the SA Constitution does it say that SA “rights” are to be conferred by any means other than those of “The State”. At virtually every turn, The State is the implied guarantor, provider, and benefactor.

However …

Note also the remarkable Item (2) in italics under Headings 26 and 27 above. The phrase “within its available resources” is a convenient way for The State to renege on the associated promised right. I interpret that clause in italics to mean: If we cannot squeeze enough money from selfish South African ‘makers’ to cover our promises to South African ‘takers, then this ‘human right’ may not be fulfilled after all. The State has few resources of its own, you see. So if these promises don’t come true, please remember to blame the selfish ‘makers’, not The State.

Note also the use of the interesting phrase “progressive realization”. What do they mean by “progressive”? It could mean gradual, which gives the state a way to put off demands for all these guaranteed freebies. Or it could mean Progressive in the political sense, which implies heavy taxation on those wealthy makers and little or no taxation on the takers. Either or both can help prolong The State’s hold on power.

So I’m left wondering whether Justice Ginsberg admires those SA Constitution human rights promises or those weasel-worded escape phrases. Perhaps it’s both(?).

Of course our own Bill of Rights is fundamentally different. Ours is about what the Federal Government cannot do to us rather than what it must do for us. To a Leftist like President Obama, we know that sounds like a defect — he’s told us so. But Conservatives know that the American approach has led to the most prosperous populace, at all economic levels, in the history of the world. And similar approaches have worked well in other places (albeit to varying degrees) such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Chile.

On the other hand, where the Left has had free reign and made the grandest of promises, like those in the South African Constitution, the results have been horrific beyond belief. Just listen to people who have lived through it in the 20th century (here, here, and here).

Scanning through the South African Constitution I found several other areas that may have attracted Justice Ginsberg’s admiring eye. To limit the length of this article, I’ll include just one more … namely, an amazing provision in “Chapter 1, Founding Provisions” that reads:

6. Languages

(1) The official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.

(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.

(3) (a) The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages.
(b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and preferences of their residents.

(4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.

(5) A Pan South African Language Board established by national legislation must
(a) promote, and create conditions for, the development and use of (i) all official languages; (ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and (iii) sign language ; and
(b) promote and ensure respect for (i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.

In short, South Africa has 11 “official” languages and a Language Board that “promotes” 15 more. To a poor, benighted soul like me, this sounds like a politically correct polyglot run amok, but perhaps this too won Justice Ginsberg’s approval?

Well …

The Left, including Barack Obama, still loves to portray its socialist leanings as some sort of new, forward-looking, if-only-we’d-try-it philosophy of government that will finally bring us all social justice and fairness. But given its cataclysmic failures and atrocities in the 20th century, I’d say that Leftism and Socialism are both long past their sell-by date.

—————————————————————————–

The road to serfdom begins with the belief you can overcome natural differences to create a tie at the finish line of life.
Herbert London

States Can’t Have It Both Ways on Exchanges

By Diane Cohen

Some state lawmakers committed to striking down the federal takeover of health care – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) – have moved forward with establishing PPACA insurance exchanges at the same time the United States Supreme Court will be deciding the law’s fate.

Why? The answer we have heard over and over again is that they are establishing PPACA exchanges in their states in order to preserve state control and flexibility over the exchange. However, this answer is refuted by a review of the law.

The President’s health care law says it all: “An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this subtitle.” The very language of PPACA makes clear that any so-called state control or flexibility the states think they have is at the mercy of the federal government.

It’s sort of like a retractable leash. You can walk your dog on such a leash and give them some slack to run around, but ultimately, you can pull your dog in at any moment.

Likewise, with PPACA exchanges, as long as the president and his officials are holding the exchange leash, Arizona and other states establishing state exchanges will leave their sovereignty and the liberty of their citizens at the mercy of the federal government.

It makes no sense for a state that is part of the multi-state lawsuit challenging PPACA that is currently before the Supreme Court to both oppose the statute and enforce it at the same time. But beyond being contradictory, PPACA exchanges are detrimental to the fight against the law enabling them. Over the last several weeks court briefs supporting PPACA specifically cite the fact that states are moving forward with exchanges as evidence that exchanges can survive with or without the law’s mandate that all Americans buy insurance.

With oral arguments scheduled in the Supreme Court in late March and a decision expected in June, it is not too late for states like Arizona to reverse course, as Wisconsin did last month, by sending back the federal exchange grant money they have received and stop exchange implementation activities.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: States must protect the health care freedom of their citizens by saying no to federal health insurance exchanges

Goldwater Institute: States damaging their own case with insurance exchange moves

A One-Two Punch to Union Release Time

By Taylor Earl

In December, the Goldwater Institute filed a constitutional challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of “release time” within the police union. This practice takes six city police officers off the streets and puts them behind desks to work as full-time union managers, 35 to work as part-time union representatives, and one to work full time as a union lobbyist — all while collecting city salaries and benefits.

As surprising as it may be, the practice is widespread among local-government unions around the country. A win in court will lead to the elimination or severe curtailment of the practice across Arizona. Unions would be forced to pay for the practice through their own union dues or, at the very least, compensate taxpayers for their use of public employees.

But the legislature has a chance to go one step further to guarantee the practice is banned in its entirety. Arizona Senate Bill 1486 would prohibit municipalities from signing contracts that fund union release time in any manner. The bill, sponsored by Arizona Senator Rick Murphy, was introduced yesterday to the Arizona Senate. It requires city governments to respect the Arizona Constitution and rescues taxpayers from unknowingly funding union activity.

No doubt unions will object, likely predicting all sorts of negative consequences for government workers. But teachers’ unions were barred from using full-time release positions in 2010 with no disasters to speak of, and city employees in Scottsdale seem to function just fine without any type of union release time.

The lawsuit and legislation come at a good time. In Phoenix and other cities, unions have issued new demands to be considered in upcoming negotiations— demands that include even more release-time hours and even more public employees transferred from government jobs to union work.

Release time is a unsavory, unconstitutional give away to unions that must be stopped, whether it happens in the courts or with legislative action and a signature from the Governor.

Taylor Earl is an attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Money for Nothing: Phoenix Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Union Work

Goldwater Institute: Do Police Officers Pay for Release Time?

Arizona State Legislature: SB1486

Explosive new evidence AZ judge ruling is illegal

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Anthony Martin

Conservative Examiner

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, “Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

“Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.”

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case. The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border. This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense. This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance. Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.

 

Join Our Mailing List