Posted by Matt Holdridge on 06/02/11

According to opencongress.org:

The House Republican leadership is worried that Congress might stand up to the Obama Administration and assert its constitutional prerogative as the only brach on government that can declare war. The House was scheduled to vote this afternoon on a a privileged resolution from Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]directing the President, pursuant to the War Powers Act, to remove U.S. armed forces from Libya. But the House leadership has pulled it from the floor because, according to Republican aides who spoke with Fox News, “it became clear that it might succeed.”

...House Republicans have been actively working to expand presidential war powers. They recently added language to the annual Defense authorization bill that expands presidential authority to use military force without consent from Congress against virtually anybody suspected of being a terrorist, anywhere in the world (including domestically), indefinitely.

George Will also commented on Congress' lack of will to enforce the law as written in the War Powers Act of 1973.

Liberals are situational ethicists regarding presidential warmaking: Imagine their comportment if Obama’s predecessor — who got congressional authorization for his uses of force — had behaved as Obama is doing regarding Libya. Most conservatives, who preen about their commitment to keeping government on a short leash, seem anesthetized by the administration’s sophistries.

“No president,” says Sen. John McCain, “has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any deadline.” Oh? No law is actually a law if presidents and senators do not “recognize” it? Now, there is an interesting alternative to judicial review, and an indicator of how executive aggrandizement and legislative dereliction of duty degrade the rule of law.

Posted 06/02/11 JohnF Lake Mary, FL

John McCain will do or say anything to get his hands on African and Asian oil for his CFR buddies.

Posted 06/02/11 redshirt Philadelphia, PA

McCain is wildly dangerous. It may be why we have Obama as President. I literally pray that McCain doesn't try to run again.

Posted 06/07/11 JPChance Boston, MA

Article 7. 7.1 - Eligible voting Citizens in all general elections of the United States shall be individual human persons, age sixteen or more, capable of writing or speaking in the English language, and familiar with this Constitution. 7.2 - Each and every eligible voter shall have been a resident Citizen of one or more of the Counties and States comprising this Republic since such Citizen’s natural birth, or for a minimum duration of ten consecutive years. Treasurynet.US

Posted by Matt Holdridge on 05/18/11
Last updated 05/18/11

Only in Washington can "budget cuts" end up being budget increases. 

According to Talking Points Memo:"

It turns out the six-month spending bill Congress passed in April increased discretionary outlays through the remainder of the fiscal year by a bit over $3 billion. In other words, total direct spending will be higher by the end of September than if Congress had just set spending on autopilot for the remainder of the fiscal year back in April.

"Total discretionary outlays in 2011 will be $3.2 billion higher as a result of the legislation, CBO estimates--an increase of $7.5 billion for defense programs, partially offset by a net reduction of $4.4 billion in other spending," reads a just-released reportfrom the Congressional Budget Office -- Congress' non-partisan scorekeeper. Analysts there conclude that increase is due in large part to the fact that the six month spending bill shifted defense spending to more immediate activities, which means the bills will come due sooner than later.

The article does point out that there are some savings, although in the long-term.

Republicans have pointed out fairly that reducing budget authority will reduce spending in the coming fiscal year. And overall, CBO finds that the bill Congress passed in April will result in about $122 billion in aggregate spending cuts over 10 years -- and $183 billion in reduced budget authority.

However, how reliable are any cuts projected farther than year? After all, in 10 years there will be many new issues, dozens of new spending proposals, several new congress', and a new executive.

Any "cut" that isn't immediate should be looked at with a suspicious eye and seen mostly as nothing more than a dream. 

Posted 05/18/11 justinb Oklahoma City, OK

Way to go GOP. I've had about enough of the Republicrats. Why can't we get incorruptible principled purists. Could you imagine a House and Senate filled with an even split of Kucinich and Feingolds on the left, the Pauls Coburns and DeMints on the right. Oh how sweet that would be.

Posted 05/18/11 IlDente San Diego, CA

justinb: Because the State itself is the corrupting body. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I still give my $ to C4L and liberty minded politicians, but i'm afraid not much will help until someone (or event) hits the reset button.

Posted by Matt Holdridge on 05/12/11

According to Talking Points Memo:

A group of Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing a new constitutional amendment allowing a vote of two thirds of the states' legislatures to veto federal legislation.

As Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) explains,

[I]f two-thirds of the states collectively find a federal law or regulation abhorrent or misguided, they should have the power to repeal said law or regulation. The law would then be sent back to Washington for further consideration, at which time Congress may choose not to act again on the matter, or they may vote to override the states' repeal and pass it in finality.

What are your thoughts?  Is this a good or bad idea?

Posted 05/13/11 Michael Mallon Houston, TX

I fear a Constitutional amendment allowing a supermajority of states to overturn federal laws will be the deathknell of state sovereignty, because people will say, "Well, you couldn't muster a two-thirds majority among the states to reject the law, so that must mean we're stuck with it." But states can already nullify laws on an individual basis, despite the convoluted legal arguments and philosophies to the contrary touted by statists since the end of the Civil War. We must use the weapons already in our arsenal, not ask for permission for bigger, better ones from the enemy.

Posted 05/13/11 Battleforce Attica, IN

This is a bad idea, and it goes against the Constitution in the first place, as our "Representatives" are to look out for it's States citizens, and if the 17th amendment wasn't in place, the Senators would be doing that job. So in order for this to be viable, they would have to Repeal the 17th Amendment and return the choosing of them back to the States Legislators as it was originally stated in the Constitution. Second, the 14th Amendment needs to be repealed, as it transferred Sovereign Citizens of the states to become Citizens of the Federal Government. Emancipation's true meaning/definition means "To Transfer from One to Another" and the 14th Amendment doesn't state that it was to "Protect" blacks from bad state laws.

Posted 05/13/11 Paul S. Brighton, MI

Repeal the 17th Amendment to Restore the Republic. That way the States are involved with creating the law in the first place. The loss in interest in the the States felt for the Senate was the result of A. Lincoln's treasonous assault on state's Rights and his planned extradition of negroid slaves.

Posted 05/13/11 IMLOL State College, PA

Well Put Paul S. Repeal the 17th Amendment!!!!

Posted 05/13/11 matthaws Spring, TX

Michael's comment above is spot on. We already have the 9th and 10th Amendments. We don't need another one, we need state officers who have the guts to use nullification backed up with the principle found in the 10th Amendment. I sure wish Debra Medina had been elected Governor in Texas. Then you would have seen that principle in action. I also agree with Paul's sentiment on the 17th Amendment. It needs to be repealed so that each state government has true representation in Congress.

Posted 05/13/11 spongessuck Glen Mills, PA

What's the point if Congress can override the veto? The states don't need permission from the other states to nullify Federal law.

Posted 05/13/11 jdeming Galesville, WI

This is crazy. The States do not need to ask the federal government to reconsider unconstitutional legislation. The state must nullify that legislation immediately. The two-thirds majority override allows majority states to direct policy. For example, a small number of states have wild wolf populations. These states are beginning to allow citizens to kill these wolves because their numbers are so large that they are threatening livestock and safety, as well as the wild deer and elk populations in those states. Under this law, those states would NEVER be able to muster two-thirds majority, since most people from other states like the idea of wild wolf populations (just not in their state). States like Montana and Idaho have the right to determine when a federal law, like listing the wolf as an endangered species, is unconstitutional. We need to call our Republican legislators at both the state and federal level and tell them that this law will transfer even more power from the states to the federal government.

Posted 05/13/11 Alan Burton Ormond Beach, FL

The 10th Amendment is already in place. The book by Tom Woods explains this concept extremely well. Concentrate on existing strengths, the the Constitution.

Posted 05/13/11 Davidphaup north las vegas, NV

Michael, I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm so pleased the Campaign for liberty folks are on top of this.

Posted 05/13/11 Tim Shoemaker Mechanicsburg, PA

This is a terrible idea. I'll delve into why later.

Posted by Matt Holdridge on 05/10/11

From Politico:

A little over a week after the United States finally succeeded in its long-sought goal of killing Osama bin Laden, Congress is set to engage in a debate over whether to extend the war on terror indefinitely or leave in place legislation that could eventually wind it down.

Experts say leaving the current AUMF in place could at some point end the war on terrorism as it is currently defined since the connection of terror suspects and their organizations to the September 11, 2001 attacks is likely to become more and more remote. Without a congressional authorization, a president might opt for different approach to counter-terrorism, or be obliged to follow less aggressive tactics against individuals or groups that were not affiliated with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks.

The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power

How do you think the AUMF should be amended?

Posted 05/10/11 chasingdownliberty Theodore, AL

It should be amended: this authorization was unconstitutional in the first place, so we're bringing the troops home immediately from all undeclared wars. As far as the terrorists go, we're putting bounties out on them. Best man wins!

Posted 05/12/11 huntingtonsteam Huntington Beach, CA

The United States CIA covertly supports Al Qaeda and its allied organizations in Libya and has done so since before the current uprising undertaken by Libyan rebels. The core of the Libyan rebels is comprised of experienced Al Qaeda fighters from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They can be credited with sending some US troops and NATO troops home in pine boxes and only they know the real number. For a detailed breakdown on the documented identity of the Libyan rebels visit TARPLEY.net. The US voting public is being hoodwinked. We fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq but the CIA with Obama's expicit executive order covertly supports Al Qaeda and its allied organizations in places like Libya, Yemen and elsewhere in North Africa. So the legislation should be thrown into the trash can if the true nature of who the US truly supports is considered. If the US truly sought out Al Qaeda to destroy it then the support the CIA extends to Al Qaeda in Libya would have to be withdrawn and we would have to fight against the Libyan rebels who are composed of many jihadists and Al Qaeda. Why should the voting public support Al Qaeda in Libya but fight against it in Afghanistan and Iraq? TARPLEY.net has compiled lots of facts concerning this issue.

Posted 05/13/11 darrel Brazoria, TX

Anybody who truly believes that Osama was killed last week is living in a fog. He either died years ago or he is still alive. I believe the former. The poor slob who happened to be the recipient of the latest Seal raid was not Osama. If it had been him, why would there have been such a hurry to toss him in the drink for the sharks to dispose of?

Posted by Matt Holdridge on 05/10/11
Last updated 05/10/11

We all knew it was only a matter of time before "Do Not Fly" lists turn into "Do Not Ride" lists. 

The time has come according to CBS New York:

Sen. Charles Schumer is calling for better rail security now that the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound has turned upplans to attack trains in the U.S.

...Schumer said Sunday that he will push for the creation of a “do not ride” list for Amtrak. The list would be similar to the no-fly list that keeps those suspected of terrorism from flying into or out of the United States.

...Schumer is calling for increased funding for rail security in light of the new intelligence.

Don't worry too much though. A recent study of Amtrak performance by Pew shows that the vast majority of people have put themselves on the voluntary Amtrak "Do Not Ride" list. 

Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger depending upon the line, according to analysis by Pew’s Subsidyscope.

In August 2009, the Congressional Budget Office considered the option of reducing Amtrak’s federal subsidy by about $200 million a year for five years. Amtrak officials and passenger rail advocates say this is impractical, noting that no passenger rail service in the world is profitable and arguing that Amtrak would cease to exist without the federal money.

I hate to say it, but with enough time, maybe we'll have the "Do Not Travel" or "Do Not Move" list.

Posted 05/09/11 huntingtonsteam Huntington Beach, CA

They really hate this country and its founding principles, guys like Schumer.

Posted 05/10/11 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

I want to know this; when are we going to form the NO POLITICIAN list. If you support tyranny, war, corporitism, world banking practices and Government expansion you may not go to Washington DC. Simple enough and we will all be far safer and prosperous.

Posted 05/10/11 mit26chell Atlanta, GA

TSA is already rolling out random, warrantless checkpoints on major highways across the country. They've been doing it for a while now! They have mobile XRay vans that radiate you while you're driving (without even informing you you're being baked) and they have large mobile XRay units that they setup at sporting events, concerts, etc - like mini airport setups, only inside a mobile trailer.

Posted 05/10/11 rkuberski Camanche , IA

When will they set up TSA checkpoints on the Mexican border to screen for drug dealers and gun runners?

Posted 05/10/11 chasingdownliberty Theodore, AL

Anybody know if they've actually passed law enacting these new checkpoints, or is it all just blanketed under the act that created TSA? If there is not a law that set these up, and they are just doing it on their own, then what happens if you refuse to comply? Can they arrest you? If there's not a law that you are breaking, then they can't.

Posted 05/12/11 freedommarcher palm beach, FL

China plans to invest 2.8 trillion yuan (431.7 billion U.S. dollars) to build about 30,000 kilometers of new rail lines over the next five years.The total length of China's railways is set to exceed 120,000 kilometers by the end of 2015, railway minister Sheng Guangzu said last month. And we are encouraging people not to use AMTRAK ! Shame indeed ! At $120 billion a year let's stay in Afghanistan for 10 more years, which would be ~ $1.2 trilion. If no-one wants to spend money here at home why not spend in Afghanistan !