Here we are, July 4, 2013, two hundred and thirty-seven years from the day the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. On the first anniversary, July 4, 1777, in the nation’s capital of Philadelphia, prayers, parades, speeches, fireworks, and thirteen gun salutes were executed in celebration.
Harvard Law School Professor Einer Elhauge published an article in The New Republic titled, “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” The foundation of his argument is the belief that the Militia Act of 1792 was a mandate to purchase a firearm, and the 1790 and 1798 acts by Congress requiring that ship owners purchase medical insurance for seamen, was a mandate forcing the citizens of the states to make a commercial purchase under the Commerce Clause.
No provision of our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprise of the civil authority. –Thomas Jefferson
A United States citizen’s exclusive rights guaranteed by the Constitution end at the U.S. border. Each state within the United States has a state line, and rights exclusive to a state end at the state line; each state consists of counties, and rights exclusive to a county end at a county line; each county has cities or towns, and rights exclusive to a city or town end at the city or town limits; and within each city or town exists private property, and the owner’s rights exclusive to that property end at the property line. The United States Constitution guarantees and protects individual and collective rights, but each right ends where another right begins.
The rule of law is the mechanism that renders the government subordinate to the law. The rule of law is superior to the day to day, month to month, or year to year capricious dispositions of the elected and their ideologies. The rule of law requires the government to operate within the bounds of law, and in American government, requires the government to enforce the laws. Under the rule of law, no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3, compels the President to “…take care that the laws be faithfully executed….”
Texas Treats Illegal Alien, Humberto Leal, as a Genuine Citizen of the United States and Executes Him for Murder
The state of Texas executed Humberto Leal for the 1994 brutal rape and murder of a 16-year-old Texas girl. The fact that Leal was living in this country illegally since 1975 was irrelevant. Dismissing pressure from the United Nations, foreign and American diplomats, former President George W. Bush, Barack Obama, the Department of State, Mexico, and the International Court of Justice, Texas executed its laws and Leal. The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, refused to exercise his discretion to grant Humberto Leal a 30-day delay of execution, which was congruent with the rejection by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles of Leal’s request for a reprieve. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons stood on solid legal ground, the Supreme Court agreed with the State of Texas, and Humberto Leal left Texas for good on July 7, 2011, at precisely 6:21 pm.
Before last week, I knew three things about Herman Cain: he is black, is the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, and is considering running for president of the United States as a Republican. Before then, nothing; since then, assuming he doesn’t walk-back his statement regarding the 2nd Amendment, a paladin of the fundamental principles upon which this Republican form of government was founded.
Three Highly Esteemed Constitutional Experts Declare Obama’s Military Attack on Libya Unconstitutional
Oh, the times they are a-changin’.
Seems like just yesterday that when one nation aggressively amasses eleven U.S. naval ships, which include three submarines, two destroyers, and various sundries of amphibious and supply ships, in another nation’s sea, starts launching missiles, rockets, and whatnot at said country, dispatches fighter jets on bombing missions around said country–especially the leader of said country’s personal compound–receives return fire that downs a dispatched fighter jet, this was called a war.
Ever since Julian Assange consummated his pathological compulsion for recognition and notoriety by releasing stolen classified documents via WikiLeaks, and his subsequent arrest, journalists have mobilized en masse to defend Assange and his conduit to pandemonium and criminality, WikiLeaks. Statistically speaking, the modes, or the four most prevalent of the various defenses used to defend Assange and WikiLeaks, are as follows:
Julian Assange is the proprietor, creator, and engineer of WikiLeaks, the incorporeal mechanism for disseminating stolen classified cables, documents, and videos owned by the United States government. Assange is not a journalist, he does not have a story, he does not write commentary, he does not supplement his pilfered images and videos with context; Assange is a computer hacker, thief, nomad, blackmailer, and a world-class nihilist devoid of allegiance to a country. He is an anthropological malignancy.