The Repeal Amendment Would Make a Real Difference

Here is the language of a new Constitutional Amendment that would make a real difference in controlling the out-of-control federal government:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

This is the Repeal Amendment (www.repealamendment.org). According to the group’s site, “Our Founding Fathers gave enumerated powers to the federal government and reserved most of the power to the states and the people. Today, the federal government has usurped the power that the Founders originally intended for the States and the people. The Repeal Amendment is dedicated to restoring our nation’s liberty by advocating for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that restores the balance of power between the states and federal government.” I like it.

Some have suggested that the passage of the 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct popular election of Senators, was a huge breach in the wall that limited the federal government’s power. The proposed Repeal Amendment would have the effect of giving the State legislatures the ability to limit the power of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the federal government, by allowing 2/3 of the state legislatures to repeal any law or regulation by a resolution passed in the state legislatures. This could be considered a back-door way of undoing the 17th Amendment, and I really like it.

This proposal comes from Randy Barnett, who is a noted expert on the 9th Amendment. He is the author of a book titled “Restoring the Lost Constitution, the Presumption of Liberty”, which in part suggests that we should be looking at the original meaning of the Constitutional provisions, rather than the original intent of the Founding Fathers. It is not an easy read (I am only half way through it after over a year of reading it), even for a lawyer. But, from what I have read so far, it is worth reading and should be added to your library on liberty and Constitutional construction.

Marianne Moran, from south Florida, is the Executive Director of the organization promoting the amendment. Her e-mail is: marianne@repealamendment.org; her phone number is: 561-247-0502. I am getting involved. I invite those of you who are truly concerned about preserving our constitutional liberties and restoring our constitutional republic to get involved, also.

God Bless You.
God Bless America.
Remember to Keep Christ in Christmas.

Patriot Mark

Amendments 5 & 6 Would Change the Way Re-districting Would be done

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 5 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 5 would require that legislative districts not be drawn to favor one political party over another or deny minorities equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce minority representation. Abiding by the amendment would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 6 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 6 would require that congressional districts not be drawn to favor one political party over another or deny minorities equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce minority representation. Abiding by the amendment would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.

I am voting NO on both of these. Remember, we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The leftists, liberals and progressives want a democracy, because it works on mob rule. Our Founding Fathers specifically set up the government to prevent mob rule. From past experience, because this is supported by leftist, liberal and progressive groups, the law of unintended consequences will prevail. Thus, the arguments against will most assuredly come to fruition. I also know that when the liberal trial lawyers support it, it will become nothing more than a lawyer employment protection act. The courts should not be involved in what is a legislative process. The courts are not empowered or qualified to decide the issues of redistricting. The courts are not and never were intended to be the branch of last resort in these matters. Because the guidelines are so strict and so detailed, any minority (except white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males) will be able to scream foul, file a law suit, and tie up the process. This is a horrible idea.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities. Vote in favor of those individuals and items that are in line with our Founding Principles.

Amendment 4 Would Change Way in Which Landuse Planning would be done

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 4 would give local voters a veto over any changes in comprehensive plans.

Arguments for: Local governments have proven themselves incapable of placing the public interest before the interests of real estate developers. The people should have the final say.


Arguments against: The amendment would require votes on every change, no matter how minor. Ballots would be long and involved. Voters would be overwhelmed. Growth would grind to a halt, and the state's economy would remain mired in recession.

I will vote NO on this initiative. This is more of the progressive agenda. The progressive agenda pushes democracy. However, this country was not established as a democracy. It was set up as a republic. Pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Our republic is a representative government using democratic principles. We elect officials to represent the interests of the constituents. Mobs can be easily swayed by emotions, intimidation, and coercion from loud minorities. Our Founding Fathers sought to diminish the effect of the mob mentality by setting up the government's structure as a republic.

Making the voters cast ballots on any and all changes would overwhelm them and would slow growth. I find the arguments against, listed above, to be most persuasive. If you do not like the decisions that your representatives are making, then you have the opportunity to change those representatives during the next election. We must trust the decisions our representatives make. If you do not, then you need to elect honorable, trustworthy people to office.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities.

BP Shakedown Cop-Out

Friends:

The is adapted from an e-mail message I sent to Todd Schnitt, after hearing his idiocy regarding the Shakedown of BP by the Tyrant-and-Liar-in-Chief (a/k/a T&LIC, i.e., Obama):

Schnitt:

I am not happy to hear that you espouse and agree with Rahm Emanuel’s philosophy that “we should never let a good emergency go to waste.” Unfortunately, that is the attitude of tyrants and despots—the tyrants and despots that now occupy the White House and control our government. I have known for a while that you have a bit of a lefty bent to you and your rant about the shakedown during the 4:00 p.m. hour on your June 17, 2010 show confirmed it.

I agree that the oil spill is a disaster. I agree that BP has a huge share of the responsibility for the spill and the damage it has and will continue to cause. However, they should not be held responsible for ALL the damages caused to everyone along the Gulf Coast. Legally, they would not be responsible for the damages caused by the moratorium on drilling, etc., put in place by the Tyrant-and-Liar-in-Chief (a/k/a T&LIC, i.e., Obama). In legal parlance, the moratorium is an unforeseeable, superseding, intervening cause of the damages to all those who have been put out of work by the moratorium. There was no need for that action . . . unless you are trying to destroy the industry, or take it over. When the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred, the shipping of oil in tankers was not shut down. When a plane crashes, killing hundreds of people, the government does not ground all flights. When a car crashes and kills people, the government does not stop people from driving. The moratorium was an extreme overreaction by the T&LIC. He had no clue, and still does not have any clue, about how to manage this disaster. So, to look like he is doing something, the T&LIC resorts to bullying. Those tactics work just fine in Chicago, especially since corruption is normal in Chicago. They are morally and legally reprehensible when done by a president.

There is a more important principle here that you are completely ignoring. This is a nation of laws and not of men or of emotions. Your reaction in this situation is purely emotional. BP has admitted that they were responsible and would pay all “legitimate” claims. They have been paying legitimate claims. They have been paying for clean-up. Because we are a nation of laws, laws should be used to solve this problem, not bullying tactics. The T&LIC and his regime have done more to prevent the resolution of this problem, than they have done to provide solutions or assistance. But, this is typical of what happens when government and bureaucracies get involved.

Once you get your emotions out of the way and analyze the situation logically and objectively, you cannot conclude anything but that the $20 Billion Escrow Fund set up by BP was a shakedown by the regime. If it was “voluntary” as you claim, they would have set it up sooner. There is no doubt that the regime threatened BP with all kinds of prosecutions and legal action, including taking them over, if they did not pony up. But, to you and the regime, it appears that the rule of law does not matter in this case. This is exactly the kind of thing the FDR regime pulled during the depression. It outrages me that the rule of law and the Constitution are discarded, just because there is a disaster like this.

I fully support Barton’s initial apology. Just because Boehner, Miller and other repukegans don’t like what Barton said, doesn’t mean they are right or that you are right. You are bootstrapping your argument that Barton’s comment was wrong by using other repukegans who disagree with his assessment of the situation. You claim to be an independent thinker who calls it like it is. So, what happened to calling it like it is? I guess, you call it like it is only so long as your desire to dive in the Gulf and spend time on the beaches is not threatened. This action by the T&LIC and his regime is morally reprehensible, legally unsupportable, and totally unconstitutional. But, I guess, for you, those wimpy repukegans, the regime of the T&LIC, and the despotcRATs, the Constitutional limitations on government aren’t valid or important when there is an emergency and a disaster. Besides, we should "[n]ever let a serious crisis go to waste. . . . [because] it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." It gives the T&LIC the "opportunity" to do things like forcing a private company to divest itself of all of its profits for a year by intimidating and threatening its officers. Wait, . . . isn't that what happened to the financial institutions who were forced to accept TARP money. Oh, wait, . . . isn't that what happened to Chrysler and GM when they were taken over by the regime. The government is the root cause of this whole disaster because of it regulations and its cow-towing to the extremist environmentalists. You are wrong, Schnitt! Where and when will the rule of bullying end? Will radio stations be next to be strong-armed by the regime? You need to put your emotions aside and base your assessment on the facts and the rule of law. If this action by the regime continues and no one steps up to stop it, our Nation is doomed to become a dictatorship under the T&LIC and his regime.

When we are afraid of our government, instead of our government being afraid of us, we are in serious trouble as a republic. (By the way, the USA was set up as a REPUBLIC, and not a democracy. The Founding Fathers abhorred a democratic government, because they knew it was nothing more than mob rule.) I would suggest that you seriously consider the long-term consequences of the position you are taking in this matter. It is unfortunate, because a lot of people are being hurt. But, we have laws and courts to deal with it. It is not within the authority of the president to take these kinds of actions. It is the president’s responsibility to enforce the existing laws; it is not his prerogative to make it up as he goes. He does not have the constitutional right or authority to usurp the power and authority of the legislature or the courts. You either support the Constitution and the rule of law or you don’t. We either abide by the rule of law and the Constitution all of the time and in all circumstances, or we allow tyranny to exist. In this case, you are not supporting the rule of law or the Constitution. You cannot have it both ways. I am disappointed in your misguided, emotionally-driven position in this matter.

God Bless you.
God Bless the BSA.
God Bless our Troops.
God Bless America (the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of man).

Patriot Mark