Posted by Philip on 08/16/09

Remember when our goal was to hit 100,000?  Not only has C4L hit 100k but we just passed 200k! Let's all give ourselves a big round of applause and then get back to work.  Let's make that 200k become 400k... heck, why not aim for a million?

Posted by Philip on 05/25/09

This article is a perfect example of why congressional approval ratings can dip below 20% yet the same people just keep getting elected year after year.

In short, the loss of Ted Stevens as Alaska's senator has cost the state "hundreds of millions of dollars" from the federal government.  The longer you're in Congress, the more money you can steal from the nation to give to your state.  Of course, you will recall that it was not his incompetence as a Senator that cost Stevens his job but rather charges of corruption.  Those charges were later dropped.

Posted by Philip on 05/09/09
Last updated 05/09/09

Last year, DC police set up barricades in certain "high crime" areas in response to supposed spikes in criminal activities.  They stopped every person going into these neighborhoods, asked them their destination, demanded identification, and obtained phone numbers to verify the information.  

So these ordinary citizens were detained and questioned, forced to identify themselves and provide their phone numbers and under what level of suspicion?  Probable cause?  Reasonable suspicion? Nope.  Absolutely nothing!  Universal infringement on our liberties is bad enough but it's certainly no stretch to see how this tactic can be used to target certain groups. Anyone wanna guess how many white people lived in these neighborhoods?  

This all sounds like bad news so far.  The good news is that the barricades have been challenged in court.  The case was before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday and seemed to find a receptive audience.  The Blog of Legal Times reports that Chief Judge Sentelle said "There's no question it's an extraordinary program.  Tell me how [the police] can Constitutionally do this."  The other two judges on the panel are pro-liberty Judge Douglas Ginsburg and African-American Judge Judith Rogers (who I imagine is not pleased with the targeting of certain neighborhoods).  Seems like an unfortunate draw for the city!

At the end of the day, this is about 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 . . . .

Hmmm, is stopping everyone trying to enter a given neighborhood "reasonable"?  Let's hope the D.C. Circuit answers that with an emphatic "No! 

Visit www.landofthelaws.com! 

Posted by Philip on 05/05/09
Last updated 05/05/09

Sadly, some people may be surprised to learn that Congress's power is limited to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. I say "sadly" because I'm afraid far too many people ignorantly believe Congress can just pass whatever laws it desires. This is not the case. To remove any doubt read the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

One power explicitly granted to Congress is the so-called "Interstate Commerce Clause" found in Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Sounds harmless right? Unfortunately, it has been so perverted as to allow Congress to regulate nearly everything. From the New Deal until 1995 not a single law was struck down as violating the Commerce Clause despite the federal government using it as a rationale for everything from FDR's New Deal policies to countless federal agencies. In 1995, U.S. v. Morrison (the case that ended the drought), Justice Souter wrote in dissent that intrastate sexual assault could be regulated as interstate commerce! If that's interstate commerce then what isn't!?

More importantly, what was the Commerce Clause intended to do? Father of the Constitution, James Madison wrote the following:

"Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged." - Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.

Far from granting Congress the power to create the massive regulatory, central economic planning, nearly limitless government in which we live today... the Commerce Clause was intended to be a restriction on States, not a positive grant of power to Congress at all! Why then is it under "Powers of Congress"? Simple, the federal government has the power to resolve trade disputes among the states and essentially provide for free trade among the states. Perhaps no clause in the Constitution has been so perverted as the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Visit www.landofthelaws.com!

Posted by Philip on 05/04/09

Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, an advocate of small government and big liberty, introduced ten proposed amendments to the Constitution. He dubs the new amendments, The Bill of Federalism. He welcomes comments and a healthy discussion is well underway. I must caution, however, that there is a HUGE potential downside to calling a Constitutional Convention to add the new amendments: You cannot limit the scope of the convention. In other words, the Convention could reject the Bill of Federalism and instead ratify the Bill of Communism (or whatever). It's still fun to talk about ways in which we may fix our clearly broken government. The term limits amendment seems like a no-brainer!

Visit www.landofthelaws.com!

Posted 05/04/09 AtlasShrugged Ilwaco, WA

Philip, I highly recommend reading these new amendments! Thanks for Posting this and thanks to Randy Barnett, now if we can move toward making this constitutional convention a reality! Great job guys.

Posted 05/05/09 amyers68 JAMESTOWN, OH

What's wrong with the one we have? This is a horrible idea and will certainly end up doing more harm than good. We battled hard here in Ohio to have our state legislatures rescind their call for a resolution calling for a con-con. After they considered the dangers of this action they "wised" up. Dont be fooled by these folks who are "hi-jacking" the good intentions of the tea parties. I urge you to go here http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820 and read the article along with watching the video.