Alan Keyes: Horrible Constitutional Scholar

Alan Keye claims that the Declaration of Independence means that President Barack Obama cannot make executive orders. According to Keyes, only God has that power.

By acknowledging the Creator as the arbiter of justice in human affairs, the Declaration set aside the then still prevalent claim that the de facto superiority of the powerful gave them the natural and unchallenged right to rule over all the rest. It made clear that, in God’s will, power alone is not the standard of right. It articulated, for purposes of human government, the understanding that allowed each and every human being to claim the sanction of God’s authority for those actions, necessary for their good and that of all humanity, which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitled them to undertake.

With this understanding, the Declaration emboldens the relatively weak to stand firm against abuses perpetrated by those who are relatively stronger. When the latter disparage, thwart, usurp or despoil activities entailed by God’s endowment of justice, the Declaration reminds us of the rights to which all who bear the title of humanity have equal claim. Thus emboldened by their consciousness of right, the weak may be moved to stand together, and by their common stand of righteous conscience transform their relative weakness into superior strength, sufficient to repel the abuses perpetrated against them.

There is more.

But in the absence of a due regard for good conscience (i.e., the will to follow the God-endowed inclinations the voice of conscience articulates), the community of strength that constitutes the just powers derived from the consent of the people falls prey to the manipulation of material passion and fear. The powerful obviously have greater resources with which to undertake such manipulation. A de facto government of powers without regard to justice replaces the government of just powers derived from the consent of the governed. This fulfills the expectation expressed in William Penn’s famous dictum: “Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”

The Declaration of Independence has no bearing on our laws. The Declaration was written by the Founding Fathers to declare independence from the reign of King George III. This is from the Declaration of Independence.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Keyes would have no luck going to the Supreme Court to use the Declaration as basis for impeaching Obama. The Supreme Court has never used the Declaration of Independence as basis for deciding law. The crazy thing is Keyes is actually advocating revolution against the President of the United States. The Declaration was written during the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers made it clear that they would continue to engage in warfare if the English didn't honor their wishes.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

The fact that Keyes would cite a declaration of war as grounds to impeach Obama shows just how insane he is.

Dubious Rubio's Health Care Policy is Scary

Sen. Marco Rubio wants to delay the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This is no surprise. Rubio's latest reasoning is the Hispanic Obamacare language website isn't up and running yet. The press release from Rubio's Senate office.

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement today regarding the Obama Administration’s indefinite postponement of cuidadodesalud.gov, its Spanish-language enrollment website for ObamaCare: “Hispanics have among the highest uninsured rates in the nation. Yet despite hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to a Spanish-language propaganda campaign, the Spanish-language ObamaCare website hasn’t even been launched.

“It’s not fair to punish anyone for not buying ObamaCare when the website they are supposed to buy it on doesn’t work. That is why I intend to introduce legislation to delay the individual mandate until the GAO certifies that the ObamaCare exchange website has been fixed and fully functional for at least six months.

“I still believe that Obamacare will eventually be repealed and replaced. But at the very least, all should be spared from its tax penalties and having the IRS come after them until all of ObamaCare’s enrollment options are fully functional for at least six months.”

Rubio’s legislation, which will be introduced when the U.S. Senate reconvenes next week, delays the individual mandate until six months after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies the websites and all other sign-up options (phone, mail, fax) are fully functional. Thereafter, it exempts people from paying the mandate fines if they can prove that they tried to sign up but could not because of technical or customer service issues.

Rubio has been shouting from the rooftops about repealing Obamacare. Rubio has been vague about what he would replace Obamacare with. Rubio hasn't actually filed health care reform legislation and I doubt he ever will. Rubio's entire white paper on health care reform is 3 paragraphs on his Senate website. Read the magic from the mind of this policy wonk.

Floridians everywhere have expressed their concern about health care costs spiraling out-of-control. The President’s new health care law will drive costs up, bankrupt the country and create bureaucratic red tape when it comes to everyday health care decisions. Lowering health care costs is essential to growing our economy and creating jobs in our country.

We should propose common sense, free-market ideas to make health care more accessible and affordable. Senator Rubio will focus on three goals: repealing and replacing Obamacare; allowing individuals to control their own health care choices; and returning control of health policy to the states. In January 2011, Senator Rubio signed on as an original co-sponsor—his first bill as a co-sponsor—of legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to fully repeal the health care bill that President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010. The legislation is identical to the repeal bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Rubio is one of 34 Republicans co-sponsoring the bill.

To start lowering health care costs and begin to reclaim our country, Senator Rubio believes we need to take simple, common sense actions, including allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, encouraging small businesses to band together to form Association Health Plans, giving individuals the same tax breaks given to businesses, incentivizing the use of electronic medical records; giving people tools to make cost-conscious decisions, increasing the number of community health centers, incentivizing state medical malpractice reform, enhancing Health Savings Accounts, pursuing medical malpractice reform and adopting a sensible program to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

The Department of Health and Human Services released a report on the Congressional Budget Office finding health insurance costs going down in 11 states that have started early implementation of the exchanges.

In the eleven states for which data are available, the lowest cost silver plan in the individual market in 2014 is, on average, 18% less expensive than ASPE’s estimate of 2014 individual market premiums derived from CBO publications.

Rubio touts tort reform. A 2009 CBO study found that tort reform would save a total of only $11 billion from national health care cost. The total savings would be $54 billion during a ten year period. That adds up to around 0.5 percent of national health care costs. I doubt Rubio has done the math. What it would do is take money from trial lawyers (big Democratic donors) and give less protection to patients from malpractice.

Rubio fails to explain how buying health insurance over state lines would work. That is interstate commerce and falls under the federal government jurisdiction. It appears Rubio wants the federal government to have no role in interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is why the executive branch has a Department of Commerce. The Supreme Court has already ruled interstate commerce falls under the federal government with Wickard v. Filburn. There is also the matter of Commerce clause of the Constitution that givers the federal government the power to regulate business across state lines.

Rubio's replacement for Obamacare is unregulated insurance policies and people not having the power to file lawsuits against malpractice. Who the hell would want to sign up for that?

Rick Santorum Wrong on Recess Appointments

Let's ignore the lady telling Sen. Rick Santorum that President Barack Obama is a Muslim and not a citizen. If tea partiers want to keep ranting birther conspiracy theories they will just repulse ordinary Americans. What I do want to touch upon is Rick Santorum's claims that the recess appointments made by Obama were unconstitutional.

“He uniformly ignores the Constitution,” Santorum said, not correcting the woman on Obama’s religion. “He did this with these appointments over the, quote, recess that was not a recess, and if I was in the United States Senate, I would be drawing the line.”

The Senate took a 20 day recess. Pete Yost of the Huffington Post points that out that "five presidents have made recess appointments during recesses of 14 days or less." President Obama also has legal precedent on his side. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decision on Evans v. Stephens

The court next found that the Senate break during which the President appointed Judge Pryor constituted a “recess” within the Recess Appointments Clause. The court stated the arguments that Judge Pryor was not appointed during a constitutional recess “are not so strong as to persuade us that the President’s interpretation is incorrect. . . . given the words of the Constitution and the history, we are unpersuaded by the argument that the recess appointment power may only be used in an intersession recess, but not an intrasession recess.”

Short answer, if the Senate isn't in session for 14 days then the president has the power to make a recession appointment. Congress cannot say they are not in recess when in actuality they are in recess.


Santorum will say that he is a strict constitutionalist. There is nothing in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that states how long the Senate must be on recess to make a recess appointment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Santorum doesn't know what he is talking about. The sad thing is that he is an attorney.

Side note: Santorum's legal claim to fame was defending the World Wrestling Federation against steroid regulations. Now that is a true less government conservative.

Marco Rubio: Constitutional Scholar

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Supreme Court majority opinion for SNYDER v. PHELPS. The Supreme Court ruled that the mean-spirited protests of the Westboro Baptist Church was protected under the First amendment.

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

Roberts acknowledged that Westboro did the protest of fallen military veterans to gain publicity. Where Roberts drew the line was in restricting free speech. That doesn't stop Marco Rubio from being a co-sponsor of the bill Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans.

Rubio, a first-term Republican from Miami, added his name to the list of senatorial sponsors.

"The men and women of our military who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country deserve to be buried in peace and with honor," Rubio said in a statement issued this week. "I'm proud to support this common sense legislation that honors our nation's heroes."

The proposed bill is backed by a variety of military support groups, including the gold Star Wives of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"Several of our members have been forced to endure these unseemly, irreverent protests at the funerals of their beloved fallen spouse," said a statement released by the Gold Star Wives. "Losing a beloved husband or wife is traumatic enough without also having to endure these protestors and their nasty signs and obnoxious behavior."

Lawmakers making legislation that is suppose to serve a narrow cause is always a bad idea. Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature approved Terri's law. The sole goal of the bill was to keep the brain dead Terri Schiavo from being taken off life support. Conservatives lost every legal battle on the Schiavo case. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Schiavo case.

Terri's law was unconstitutional because it violated to Equal Protection clause. All laws are suppose to apply equally. Laws can not be made to apply to a single person. The Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional because they only applied to blacks. What Rubio is co-sponsoring violates the first and 14 amendments of the constitution.

Fun Fact About Mississippi Constitution

I wonder what tea party members of Congress, whom profess to love the U.S. Constitution, think about Section 265 of the Mississippi constitution.

Text of Section 265:

Denial of Supreme Being Disqualification to Hold Office

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

If you don't believe in God then you either lie or need not run for elected office.

How Rick Scott's Drug Test Policy Will Work

Nothing says less government better than mandotory drug tests that have been ruled unconstitutional. The ACLU will beat Scott's executive order in court. Bank on it.

“I’m not sure why Governor Scott does not know that the policy he recreated by Executive Order today has already been declared unconstitutional.

“The state of Florida cannot force people to surrender their constitutional rights in order to work for the state. Absent any evidence of illegal drug use, or assigned a safety-sensitive job, people have a right to be left alone.

“Coming from a Governor who promised to protect our freedoms by limiting the intrusive reach of government into our personal lives, this massive expansion of government power at the expense of basic rights is stunning and exposes the state to serious future legal liability.

“Since we have already succeeded once in overturning this unconstitutional expansion of government power, the ACLU of Florida is willing to represent any state employee or association of state employees who will have their rights infringed upon if the announced policy takes effect.“

The taxpayers look forward to paying for Scott's pointless legal fight. Scott should brush up on the Fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The courts have ruled there must be probable cause to drug test state workers. Scott can not just assume that all state workers are druggies and demand testing.

More Allen West Xenophobia

Rep. Allen West attacked Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison on the The Shalom Show. West

PERITZ: Since you’re with a new crowd, people you haven’t really met before, and will be very closely associating with in the future, including Keith Ellison, who supports Islam, how will you manage that, if I may ask, because it’s not really easy to be polite with individuals one totally disagrees with, which I believe may be the case.

WEST: Well I think it’s most important that I stand upon the principles that people elected me to go to Washington, DC and represent them on Capitol Hill. So that when you run into someone that is counter, or someone that really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established, you’ve got to be able to defeat them intellectually in debate and discourse, and you to just have to be able to challenge each and every one of their assertions very wisely and very forthright.

Host Richard Peritz makes the insanely stupid attack that Ellison supports Islam. The Islamic faith is Ellison's religion. Boxing great Muhammad Ali is a believer in the Islamic faith. Peritz would be correct to someone anti-semitism if was brought up as a reason he should not hold office. Peritz is practicing a form of bigotry that has been used against Jews and other ethnic groups. Being a Muslim does not make a person a terrorist.

West rants his Tea Party constitutional nonsense.

So that when you run into someone that is counter, or someone that really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established.

West and other African-Americans would still be enslaved if we went back to what the Founding Fathers wanted. The Constitution was ratified with this provision in 1787. Slaves were considered 3/5 of a person.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

West has no idea what the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution. West's constitutional spiels are all sound and fury.

Allen West On Censoring the Media

Allen West and other Tea Party candidates campaigned on restoring the Constitution to government. West's love for the Constitution doesn't extend to the First Amendment. West advocates on censoring the media.

WEST: There are different means by which you can be attacked. I mean it doesnt have to be a bomb or an airplane flying into a building. It doesn’t have to be a shooting. It can be through cyber attacks, it could be through leaking of very sensitive classified information. Regardless of whether you think it causes any harm, the fact that here is an individual that is not an American citizen first and foremost, for whatever reason gotten his hands on classified American material and put it out there in the public domain. And I think that we also should be censoring the American news agencies which enabled him to do this and also supported him and applauding him for the efforts. So that’s kind of aiding and abetting of a serious crime.

This same argument was made by conservatives when the Pentagon Papers were released. The Pentagon Papers revealed the government lying about the Vietnam war. It is interesting that conservative like West don't trust government with their taxes but is willing to belive the government would never lie about its foreign policy. West is willing to let the State Department operate in secret without oversight from the fourth estate. That is counter to how a democracy operates

Christine O'Donnell: Constitutional Scholar

There is this hysterical quote from Christine O'Donnell from a debate with Chris Coons.

O'DONNELL: "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

COONS: "'Government shall make no establishment of religion'"

O'DONNELL: "That's in the First Amendment"

O'Donnell also did not know what was the 14th and 16th amendments. ""I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me," O'Donnell told the crowd.

O'Donnell clearly has no business being in the United States Senate.

Martin Peretz Has A Dumb Idea To Deal With Dove World Outreach Center

Martin Peretz has the horrible idea that President Obama should have the Supreme Court order an injunction against the Dove World Outreach Center's plan to burn the Koran.

In fact, it is uncivilized. I believe that the Obama administration should go to the Supreme Court or maybe tactically to the most sensible and civilized appellate court and seek an injunction against this atrocity that 1. will encourage Muslim madmen to respond in kind and 2. will also encourage primitive Christians to extend and expand the auto da fé.

The Supreme Court will not even hear the case. As stupid as the plans Pastor Terry Jones and his followers are the Supreme Court is not going to rule against the church's freedom of religion and expression. There has to be a serious constitutional question for the Supreme Court to step in. The Koran burning will likely place U.S. soldiers in harm's way Providing security for U.S. military personal is the role for policymakers and the Department of Defense. The Supreme Court is to be used to rule on the law. Not to give the President free reign to silence people he disagrees with.

A legal way to stop the Koran burning is Gainesville fire ordinances. Deputy Chief Tim Hayes has already stated that the planned burning on September 11th is illegal.

Under Section 10-63, "Open burning and outdoor burning are prohibited in the City of Gainesville unless otherwise specifically permitted as provided by this article."

Peretz is the blogging equivalent of Kanye West. A post will appear online and insanity ensues.

Guns at Miller Campaign Rally

Via Paddy: Tea Party supporters of Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller march with automatic weapons at a rally.

Another fun fact about Miller: he declared that extending unemployment benefits is unconstitutional.

“The unemployment compensation benefits have gotten -- first of all, it's not constitutionally authorized,” Miller, R-Alaska, said on ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line.” “I think that’s the first thing that's gotta be looked at, so I do not favor their extension.”

It wasn't declared in the Constitution that Alaska is a state. By your logic Mr. Miller that would mean Alaska isn't a state. If Miller bothered to read the Constitution he would know Congress has the power of the purse. His conservative views may disagree with unemployment benefits. Saying Congress authorizing unemployment benefits is unconstitutional is not founded in fact. If the requirement for any Congressional legislation is it must be inexplicably stated in the Constitution then it would be impossible to pass legislation. Conservatives may think that is grand until airplanes don't fly, highways don't get repaired and things start shutting down. Miller's argument is profoundly stupid and should be treated as such.

Federal Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

Wow! This is big news.

In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

All those conservatives that love citing the Tenth Amendment are going to suddenly be against state rights. The judgment found gay people were deprived of their Fifth Amendment right to life and liberty. That sounds absolutely correct to me.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Expect the Obama White House to push back against the ruling. Don't believe me? Just watch. President Obama has repeatedly stressed he is against gay marriage.

Sharron Angle's Distorted View of the Constitution

Sharron Angle is the gift that keeps on giving. According to Angle, the First Amendment does not have a separation of church and state.

Ralston: The Separation of Church and State arises in the Constitution.

Angle: No, it doesn't...

Ralston: Oh, it doesn't?

Angle: No, it doesn't.

If what Angle says is true then the federal government can make laws mandating school children must read the Qur'ān and practice Buddhism. Thomas Jefferson foresaw this problem and believed there should be a "wall of separation" between organized religion and the government. Below is an excerpt of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Jefferson and Thomas Paine didn't sign the Constitution, but had great influence in drafting what would now be our nation's laws. Angle's ignorance of the Constitution matters. As a Senator, she will have a vote for future Supreme Court Justices and federal judges. Senator Angle will help draft laws that will affect the Constitution. It is painfully obvious Angle doesn't have the intellectual capacity to be a United States Senator.

Civics Lesson For Conservatives

At a California Tea Party rally, Duncan Hunter Jr. was asked would he support stripping U.S. citizenship from children whose parents came into America illegally. Hunter answered with an enthusiastic yes.

HUNTER: I would have to say yes. We simply cannot afford what we are doing right now. California is going under. How much in debt are we? Twenty billion dollars? And we're not being mean, we are saying it takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our soul.

Actually Congressman, you are being mean. There is nothing nice sounding about deporting children. Hunter was someone able to peer into the souls of all these children and say they are not American. The last Republican that peered to a soul was President George W. Bush. The former President said he looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and found him "trustworthy."

BUSH: I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.

Repealing the U.S. citizenship of brown-skinned babies his the latest conservative rallying cry. These conservatives that profess to love the Constitution should take the time to read it. We already know John Boehner and Sarah Palin haven't read the Constitution.

14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge or immunities of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The Founding Fathers made clear any person born in the United States is a citizen. I am tired of conservatives that say they love the Constitution; only to make rediculous statements, such as Alberto Gonzales's misinformation that the Constitution does not guarantee Habeas Corpus. A simple reading of the Constitution will inform the literate that habeas corpus can only be suspended during a time of war or for public safety. The Republican establishment and the conservative movement has created deficits, denied civil rights to gays, and supported stripping protections in the Constitution. This is why the Republican Party and teabaggers should be ridiculed every time they utter the words "less government and more freedom."

Bill Posey's Seat Labeled Vulnerable

The National Republican Congressional Committee has added Rep. Bill Posey to their list of vulnerable incumbents.

A GOP official said simply, "better safe than sorry," mostly because Posey is a freshman.

Posey has received national attention for questioning President Barack Obama's citizenship and introducing a bill requiring "a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate." The bill is redundant. The Constitution makes clear only the Founding Fathers did not have to naturalized citizens, in order to serve as President.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Side note: Posey has not answered Stephen Colbert's challenge and provide proof he is not part gator.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill Posey Alligator Rumors
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

Quote of the Day

"To clarify, Michael Steele just said that the Republican Party, founded in 1854, outlawed slavery by putting the 1954 version of a pledge written in 1892 in the Constitution in 1787, which in turn outlawed slavery in 1865, which was before the British did it in 1833."

Jesse Taylor

I seriously wonder if Michael Steele could pass a community college political science course. Steele was expelled from John Hopkins.

Update: The Young Turks hysterically points out the Republican Party wasn't around when the Bill of Right was created. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The Republican Party was founded in 1854.

Feingold: Constitutional Amendment For Senate Vacancies

Senator Russ Feingold is unhappy with the back door deal-making for how Commerce Sec. nominee Judd Gregg's vacancy is being filled. Feingold wants constitutional amendment allowing voters to decide Senate replacements. It is a good idea. The chances of the amendment getting tho-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of states are slim.

“I congratulate Senator Gregg on his nomination to be the next Secretary of Commerce. I served with Senator Gregg on the Budget Committee for many years and worked together with him to advocate several budget reforms. Moreover, his service for several years as Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State has given him a solid grounding in Commerce Department programs. He is well qualified for this position.

“But the apparent behind-the-scenes deal-making that went on to determine who will fill Senator Gregg's vacancy is alarmingly undemocratic. Once again, Americans will be represented in the Senate for nearly two years by someone they had no hand in electing. As the number of Senators appointed to their seats continues to rise, it’s increasingly clear that we need to fix this constitutional anachronism. It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage.”

The Constitution gives state Governors the power to select Senate replacements. Those replacements either step down or run in the next official election.

In Minnesota, state legislators Rep. Ryan Winkler and Senator Ann Rest introduced legislation to allow voters to decide Senate vacancies. Even if the bill passed, the Supreme Court would rule the bill unconstitutional. The Feingold bill is the most viable option.

:: Oh, save me from the puritanical and provincial mind ::

Okay, I know Valentine’s Day has come and gone, per se. But, I really haven’t had the time to give all you good people the exiting news!!!! (I’ve been wanting to post this for over two weeks!)

No, I’m not getting married. (shudder)

In 2004, the State of Texas, in it’s infinite lack of wisdom, as usual, decided to prosecute a Baptist, mother of 3, former school teacher for selling sex widgets in Texas. That’s right, sexual gratification devices. This North Texas Bible-belt mama, was prosecuted by the State for selling whips, chains, erotic oils and dildo’s to people like me. She had sex parties - to sell sex toys to you and your friends at her customers homes. Just like a Pampered Chef party. (The morons in North Texas later dropped the charges against the Burleson resident.)

Who Knew??? Criminy. I must be a criminal, too. Freaking provincial idiots.

Wait! Actually, a higher court has overturned Texas law regarding the sale of sexual devices!!! WOOHOO!

Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys

Federal appeals court says law violates constitutional right to privacy.

By Steven Kreytak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, February 14, 2008

A federal appeals court has struck down a Texas law that makes it a crime to promote or sell sex toys.

“Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices,” said an opinion written by Justice Thomas M. Reavley of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, “government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution.”

Under Texas law it is illegal to sell, advertise, give or lend obscene devices, defined as a device used primarily for sexual stimulation. Anyone in possession of six or more sexual devices is considered to be promoting them.

The Texas law dates back to the 1970s and is seldom enforced. Travis County prosecutors say that they haven’t charged anyone with a sexual device-related crime in at least the past seven years, and probably much longer.

In 2003, a woman in the Fort Worth suburb of Burleson drew nationwide attention when she was arrested for selling erotic toys at a Tupperware-type party. The charges against Joanne Webb were later dropped.

In addition to Texas, whose law has survived previous state court challenges, three other states have a similar sex toys statute: Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia. Laws in Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado and Georgia have been thrown out by courts in recent years.

The 2-1 opinion by a panel of the 5th Circuit was based heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which struck down a Texas law prohibiting private consensual sex among people of the same sex.

That case established a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy.

On the heels of that landmark ruling, Reliable Consultants Inc. sued Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in 2004 in U.S. District Court in Austin.

They sought a declaratory judgment prohibiting the enforcement of the statute. Reliable Consultants at the time operated adult-oriented stores in Texas including two Dreamers stores and Le Rouge Boutique in Austin. The plaintiffs were later joined by PHE Inc., which operates an online and mail order adult store called Adam and Eve. The plaintiffs were never prosecuted but argued that because of the law their business was hindered and their customers were deprived of buying sex toys.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in Austin dismissed the lawsuit after finding that there is no constitutionally protected right to publicly promote obscene devices.

On appeal, lawyers for the State of Texas, which had replaced Abbott as a defendant, argued that the Lawrence case invalidates laws that target private conduct but not laws prohibiting any commercial conduct. Justice Rhesa H. Barksdale agreed with that logic in his dissent.

The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate “morality based” reasons for the laws, which include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.”

A spokesman for Abbott, who filed the brief for the state and for Earle in court, declined to comment. They can ask for review of the case by the entire court, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or allow the case to return to Austin, where Yeakel would likely enter an order that would end enforcement of the law.

Jennifer Kinsley, a Cincinnati-based lawyer for Reliable Consultants, whose firm represents adult businesses nationwide, applauded the court’s ruling and said it would aid her clients and their customers.

“We believe that the rights of ordinary people are being violated by this law, and we are very happy this no longer is valid,” Kinsley said.

And, this from Mathew Harwood, Deadline USA of the Guardian Unlimited:

Hands off my pocket punanni!

Texans can finally do unto themselves and others what they feel like in their own bedrooms

We Americans are known for our prudence, and by that I mean our puritanism in regards to all matters sex, especially when things get weird. For instance, four states ban sex toys: Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and the state I blog from, Virginia. Notice the geography: all four reside in the apparently not so dirty South. But fear not “sexual deviants” in Texas, sex toys can now be legally purchased, reports Slate.com:

According to the Texas (ahem) penal code, it is forbidden to sell or to advertise an artificial penis or vagina “primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” The statute makes an exception for instances in which the purchase meets a “medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement” need. Even so, in Reliable Consultants v. Ronnie Earle, the normally conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ban on the grounds that it violated the right of ordinary citizens “to engage in private intimate conduct in the home without government intrusion.”

The exceptions to the ban are unintentionally hilarious. I beg someone to give me an example where a dildo could satisfy a legitimate law enforcement need. Although I guess a dildo could double as a night stick and a plastic vagina, handcuffs, if a situation out of the Naked Gun arose.

And for you journalists out there deep in the heart of Texas, want to make Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama squirm? Ask them if they support the circuit court’s ruling and then very coyly with a wink and a nod ask the follow-up question: Is it true that everything is bigger in Texas?

So, does making sex toys legal take the vicarious thrill away? Ummm, no! Someone from Austin was suggesting they could use their ‘fleshlight’ again without fear of imprisonment. Oh, MY! I do believe THAT is for men.

How about that Eliot Spitzer?

On another topic altogether…

Explain to me how Hillary managed to tie delegate votes with Obama in Texas when Hill and the x-Pres have been so heavily hated in the state, especially by men and provincial women. I still find it difficult to believe. I think the Republicans did what many advocated in across the State - Republicans vote in the Democratic Primary for Hillary. That just ain’t right.

I also find it a travesty that Florida and Michigan may be allowed to redo their primaries. If they wanted to be counted the first time, they should have followed the rules to agreed to for the primary.

My family is aghast and perturbed that I’m not a Hillary fanatic. The silly Republican bro’s. The idjuts probably voted for Huckitup. Sheesh. The parents just LOVE the Clintons. Me, I prefer checking what they do and not necessarily believing what they say.

Real Clear Politics is doing a fab job keeping up with the primary results. Previous link is popular vote and this one is Delegates.

Personally speaking:

I am one whipped puppy. Seriously. I finished up a project that started during my vacation in December and concluded last night … very successfully. But, I’m so tired, I could sleep for a month. 12-18 hour days non-stop.

So, hopefully, my work schedule will normalize a bit … except I have to catch up on everything I neglected to do that didn’t get accomplished due to the planning and implementation of the event I just concluded here. Damn.

My niece has a short film she produced last year with Laslo Rain at SXSW in Austin entitled “SHOT.” Damned Cool! It is screening 3 times, so try to catch it if you go to the festival. See link above for more info.

My friend Rob Dowling has some awesome paintings for sale. Must See!!!

Rob: I think you should consider the word “Serendipity.”

tag: sex toys, texas, state law, right to privacy, sex, ban, provinicalism, Baptist, federal appeals court, new orleans, constitution, puritanism, eliot spitzer, prostitute ring, obama, hillary, president, primary, election, voting, primary, democrat, democratic, florida, michigan, popular vote, delegates, SXSW, film, short film, Shot, Laslo Rain, niece, festival, art, surrealism, painting, robert dowling

Bush's Latest Signing Statement Fiasco

Constitution Article I Section 8

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

President Bush either hasn't read the Constitution or doesn't care. Congress has prohibited the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq. Bush issued a signing statement to override the Congress's wishes.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.

Signing statements were intended to be nothing more than proclamations. A President can comment on a law he signed. Signing statements legally can not override a law. If Bush doesn't like a bill, he doesn't have to approve it. Instead, he uses the same legal nonsense that declares the Vice-President isn't part of the executive branch.

Make no mistake: Bush uses signing statements to break the law. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power of the purse and a constitutional role in governing the armed forces.

Fred Thompson on the Power of the Presidency

Fred Thompson surprised me with his stance on end of life issues. Now he says he disagrees with Dick Cheney about the power of the presidency.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it’s divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power."

Thompson described checks and balances as "a constant tug and pull. Controversy and differences of opinion over legitimate national security concerns is not a bad thing. Every branch needs to stand up for itself. And I saw that as, in effect, an attorney for the executive branch, and then as a legislator."

Thompson said he sides with the Bush administration in its struggle with Congress over "issues of surveillance," but he suggested in some of the cases on detainees that have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court he sides with the Congress.

I don't think Thompson would make a good President. I am happy to see a conservative have respect for the checks and balances in the Constitution.