Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

IN GOD WE TRUST

Most on the left will never give up in their attempt to remove religion from the court house square. They base their entire argument on the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The founders were only seeking to prevent the establishment of an official state religion that they had endured in England where the Church of England was the official state church. They never intended to separate the government from religion in general. Those who differ with this are denying what is clearly stated by the founders and are in fact trying to rewrite history which is full of examples of how the early leaders of this country felt. The founders never envisioned a day when large groups would seek to undermine the Christian values this country was founded upon. This never crossed their minds---this would have been unthinkable and totally alien in their day. Therefore, they made no attempt to incorporate this into the Constitution. It was clear to these early patriots that we were a Christian nation.

Authority and Patriotism
TOTUS Home Page

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 3, 2010

CONGRESSMAN PHIL HARE: "I DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION"

Recently a Illinois congressman showed the true colors of the American left when confronted by a Tea Party member when he said, "I don't worry about the Constitution". Without realizing it he spoke for the entire left wing in America. With them anything goes and the "ends justifies the means". This is right out of the socialist and communist handbook and stands as a stark reminder of their true position. The progressives will toss aside the Constitution in a minute if it helps them achieve their goals. They have indicated this many time in somewhat meandering statements, but now finally we have a true progressive stepping forward, in effect coming out of the closet, and telling us what we on the right have long known, "they don't worry about the Constitution." Representative Phil Hare, I want to personally thank you for setting the record straight once and for all. I may not agree with your words but applaud your honesty.


Congressman: 'I Don’t Worry About the Constitution' on Health Care Overhaul

Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.

Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.

In a video posted on YouTube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

"Jackpot, brother," Sharp said.

Hare cringed in disgust and said, "Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don't have health care."

"You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold?" Sharp shouted back.

"I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Hare countered.

When an observer pointed out that those words come from the Declaration of Independence, Hare said, "Doesn't matter to me. Either one."

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

"But at the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country," Hare said.

Sharp said the law won't do that.

The confrontation was the latest example of Democrats going off message in their sales pitch to Americans of the virtues of the controversial health care law.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the health care law would address the "maldistribution of income in America."

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," Baucus said after the Senate passed a "fix it" bill to make changes to the health care law.
"Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America," he said. "This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America." Full story at FOX News

Saturday, July 11, 2009

The Constitution and SCOTUS




There are many today that would change the Constitution to conform to contemporary values and standards, values and standards that they believe in but that are alien to most in this nation. This is where the fight is and it is continuing struggle one that is part of the protracted conflict within the systemic revolution. In this struggle the old existing order is always replaced by an emerging new order, it is our job to define the new order and not let those on the left do this for us. The principles set forth in the Constitution are fixed and must not be redefined. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been used to bring about many undesirable changes and is continually being used by those on the left such as the ACLU to advance their agenda's. The interpretation of the Constitution is the important thing and we must always fight for those among us who will continue to stand by the values of the founders. It is never easy defending the status quo because in the end change will come. We must shape and control that change and use the Constitution as a beacon, as a guide, as a blueprint for a just America as those who have gone before us have done.




At this time in our nations history the Senate is again preparing to hold hearings on the confirmation of the latest justice nominated to SCOTUS, Sonja Sotomayor. The outlook for her confirmation seems almost certain at this time despite many disturbing comments and rulings in her past. The bright spot in this otherwise dim picture is that the balance on the court will not be serious effected at this time, since she will be replacing a retiring liberal member, David Souter. She will be questioned vigorously by Republican members on the Senate Judiciary committee regarding past statements and on past rulings, particularly those on "Ricci vs. Destefano" an affirmative action case involving the New Haven Fire Department. A ruling recently over-turned by the Supreme Court. And also her views on guns rights as set forth in the Second Amendment.




The Supreme Court has the final say on many laws passed not only by the federal government, but also laws passed by the states and local governments. In most cases, however it takes years for these cases to work themselves up through the system and reach the court. At that time the court rulings often change all our lives, one only needs to look at "Brown vs. Board of Education" and "Roe vs. Wade" to name but two. And many times the Court will actually reverse itself as it did in "Brown vs. Board of Education" when in that particular case it overturned "Plessy vs. Ferguson" , a case decided some 60 years earlier.


The Supreme Court is a vital component of the national government, but the founding fathers made have made a mistake in the way it was set up. Giving the President the power to appoint the judges and the Senate the power to confirm those appointments does not provide for a true separation of power. And the appointments being for life is something else that is troubling. But this is the system we have with all of its flaws and short comings.
by Ron Russell