CP COMMENTARY: So It Begins . . .

by Ricardo Davis, State Chairman
Constitution Party of Georgia
 Ricardo  This has been a tumultuous month for Republican Party politics. Daniel Horowitz commented, “the GOP-led House passed a budget bill and debt ceiling increase that countermands every principle they campaigned on when pursuing majority control of that chamber in 2010. The policy and political outcomes of this vote will be far reaching and gravely consequential.” The subsequent vote by the Senate and election of Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House are the latest victories of the ruling American duopoly. And with this action the hemorrhaging of the GOP, which has been growing in the grassroots since G.W. Bush’s administration, has now publicly moved into the national leadership of the GOP itself.

Tom Tancredo, former Congressman from Colorado, publicly announced the end of his affiliation with the Republican Party after the budget deal. “This decision has been incubating over the past 17 years, years of watching the downward spiral of the Party… The Boehner budget deal is the last straw, and enough is enough. I cannot any longer defend this transparently dishonest charade called the Republican Party. What I will do instead is join the largest political group in the nation, unaffiliated Independents. In Colorado, they outnumber both ‘major’ political parties.” So it begins – the conservative leaders who have fought for decades to bring their values and principles into actual governance are beginning to cast their vote of no confidence in the GOP with their feet.

Tancredo’s assessment of the GOP as a national political party is worth reading and sharing. Many who have joined the Constitution Party (CP) over the years have been on the receiving end of the treachery of the ruling duopoly. Howard Phillips, the CP’s founder and former official in the Nixon Administration, emphasized the necessity of building a political infrastructure to elect candidates who will defend the principles and values that we hold in common with Tancredo. He noted:

“I had to define and articulate a vision of victory. So I had to spend a lot of time thinking about what victory in political terms meant. And in a nutshell, I concluded that it meant Biblical justice, biblical jurisprudence — a return to the working understanding that we live under God’s law, that He is sovereign, that He is our Creator, and that we are one nation under God, a nation which must live by the rules that He makes.”

Second, that the federal government had to be tied down to the Constitution. It had to be limited to its delegated, enumerated functions. I concluded further, that in order to do that, we needed to have a political home of our own. The Republican Party was a house divided against itself, and could only offer the lowest common denominator in politics. Our hope for victory was through the strategy of a united plurality, rather than one of a divided majority. And that in order to do that, we had to start somewhere, building a party committed to those biblical, constitutional principles which by God’s grace could at some point bring a government to office.

The purpose of the Constitution Party of Georgia is to recruit, train, and support individuals who share the CP’s vision of victory, beginning in our local communities. I welcome the opportunity to work with activists and leaders throughout the state regardless of political party who share Phillip’s vision. Together as a united plurality we can build a new second major political party unified in its efforts to honor God, defend the family, and restore the Republic.

Ricardo Davis
State Chairman

Click here to find your state party.

Click here to subscribe to our email list

Click here to donate.

CP COMMENTARY: Christian Americans and the ‘Free Exercise’ of their Faith Now Equals Establishment of a ‘Theocracy?’

by Andrew Zuelke, Constitution Party of Wisconsin state chairman

Andrew Zuelke

After reading about Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, invoking her First Amendment rights, I read the usual absurd Internet postings “Separation of church and state” and “There go the Christians imposing their faith again.” But it was the online posting replies to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee speaking at a rally at her release from prison that I read this leftist rant: “Just more proof Huckabee and his ilk want to create a Christian theocracy.”

It reminded me of my 2014 campaign for Wisconsin state treasurer for the Constitution Party of Wisconsin (CPoW) and my participation in a candidate forum at Oshkosh’s City Cable 10 offices with another candidate. One of the moderators was Tony Palmeri, writer to a regional free paper. During the live forum, Palmeri told me he visited our party’s web site (www.constitutionpartyofwisconsin.com or cpowmilwaukeecounty.wordpress.com) and he asked me to explain our header: “We are a recognized political party in the state of Wisconsin, who proudly proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”

He said between that and what he read in our “Who We Are” section that it sounded to him as though our party wanted a theocracy.

No matter what explanations I gave to prove that we Constitutionalists oppose theocratic rule, he continued challenging me, acting as though he “caught me” somehow. Remember, according to the left, when Christians express their faith in the public arena, we are “imposing our faith” and attempting to “establish a religion” in America. What this man saw as something horrible, openly proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior, CPoW members and candidates wear as a badge of honor. We don’t get embarrassed and try and silence our members when they talk about Jesus Christ like other parties do.

At the debate forum, there wasn’t enough time to fully expand on my and the Constitution Party’s opposition to theocracy, but now I can.

1) CPoW and the national Constitution Party supported a republican form of government from our very beginning as the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party. Our party literature, chairman’s letters, public speeches and our candidates support the original intent of the Founding Fathers including Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution which states, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.” Not a theocratic form of government, not a democracy but a republican government!

Part of being a Christian is having free will. Forcing people to convert to someone else’s faith under pain of death proves nothing. Give that person a choice and see if he comes to that faith willingly. God gives each of us the choice to worship Him and repent. I have always said faith is not real if it’s forced and that’s what a theocracy does, forces faith and worship.

Jesus said in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me.” Jesus didn’t say, “If you don’t open your door, I will enter in anyway and force My will on you.”

If we were trying to impose a theocracy, no references to God or Jesus would be anywhere on our web site or literature. We would hide our true intentions until we seized power. CPoW opposes religious tests for office. Theocrats support religious tests, don’t they?

2) Whose religion will be chosen as the official one? Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist? The Christian faith has many different religious denominations and divisions within those (Lutherans have the Missouri, Wisconsin, ELCA Synods to name a few). How far could a theocracy get in America? No matter which denomination was declared the official Christian one, all the other denominations would oppose that denomination in favor of theirs.

To all the secular humanists who are screaming, “Separation of church and state!” anytime practicing Christians, especially ones in public life, invoke the name of Jesus Christ in public or dare to stand as lesser magistrates against ungodly, unconstitutional impositions on religious liberty, they have no clue how religious liberty has protected them. Yes, protected them! Are Muslims being forced to join a church? Are atheists being detained? Are Buddhists silenced? If we were a theocracy like under Henry the VIII and his Church of England or nations under Sharia Law today, these secular humanists would know it.

This brings me to the final insurmountable obstacle against a theocracy succeeding in America…

3) The American people will never stand for it! It’s easy to impose oppression and tyranny on a people who have never known anything else. Good luck trying to force theocratic rule on a people who grew up with a Bill of Rights, rule of law, and churches of numerous denominations peppered throughout the countryside.

First you would have to suppress all churches, mosques and synagogues and install government-sanctioned churches in their place. The real threat to American religious liberty is government intrusion into the churches, not the churches being anywhere near taking over the levers of government.

Let’s say the God-deniers and secularists are right and the Constitution Party is trying to impose a theocracy. Let’s say a future Constitution Party majority in the House and Senate and our party’s president declared a Christian theocracy and banned all expressions of faith outside of Christianity. Now no one can criticize the teachings of Christianity, using the name of God or Jesus Christ in vain would mean instant death and everyone is now required to attend church every Sunday. The American citizenry would righteously rise up with arms and cast our party’s elected leaders and officers in prison for treason as they should. Our party would be dismantled.

The secularist leftists will never stop trying to convince ignorant Americans that those whose faith in Jesus Christ extends from the churches and homes into their businesses and political life are the single greatest threat America faces and they must be driven from the public square. We Constitutionalists aren’t guaranteed victory if we stand against these ungodly forces. Our only guarantee in the fight for the Moral Order is defeat if we don’t fight back at all.


Andrew Zuelke is the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin and the Dodge/Fond du Lac CPoW Counties Chairman. The Constitution Party of Wisconsin is a totally pro-life, liberty and traditional marriage/values party whose goal is to get Godly constitutionally-minded people into office at the local, state and federal levels. CPoW officers and candidates will never compromise on either God’s word or the Constitution.

Constitution Party of Wisconsin
PO Box 070344
Milwaukee WI, 53207
www.constitutionpartyofwisconsin.com
www.facebook.com/constitutionpartyofwisconsin
constitutionpartyofwisconsin [at] gmail [dot] com
608-561-7996

Fight for a Fair and Free Election Process

by Richard Winger, Ballot Access News

richard winger

In many states around the country, there are attempts to change the election law and impose a “top-two primary”.   Louisiana used this system from 1975 until 1998, and even today uses a variant of it.   Washington State started using it in 2008, and California started using it in 2011.

A top-two system means that all candidates for Congress and state office run on the same ballot in the primary.  Then, only the two candidates who came in first or second can run in November.

There have been 119 instances when a member of a party other than the Republican and Democratic Parties ran for federal or state office in a top-two system, and in which there were at least two major party members running.  In all 119 instances, the minor party candidate did not place first or second and thus could not run in the general election.

The Louisiana variant isn’t bad, because Louisiana abolished the primary and just has a general election in November.  But the California and Washington systems result in general election ballots with just Republicans and Democrats on the ballot, except in the rare cases when only one major party members filed, so the minor party candidate can’t fail to place second.

Experience teaches that voters won’t pay attention to candidates from parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties until after the voters know who the two big parties nominated.  And in a top-two system, by then, it is too late for the Constitution Party member to get on the ballot.

Big business interests like top-two and have funded it lavishly in initiative campaigns, especially in Oregon last year.  Michael Bloomberg contributed $2,000,000 to the top-two initiative, as did John Arnold, a Houston billionaire.  But top-two still lost in Oregon 2-1.  It also lost in Oregon in 2008, also by 2-1.  It lost in Arizona in 2012 by 2-1.  But it won in California in June 2010, and in Washington in November 2004.  The reason it passed in California was that for years, the legislature had taken months past the deadline to pass a state budget.  That was because the budget had to pass by two-thirds in each house of the legislature, and Republicans, although in the minority, always blocked the budget.  The voters were sick of gridlock and thought top-two would fix the problem.

More on this important issue can be found at www.ballotaccessnews.com.


Richard Winger is founder of Ballot Access News, the authoritative resource for independent and third party candidates, and those concerned with a free and fair elections.

Jack McLain, RIP: Florida Patriot Had Long Role

by Karen Murray, National Communications Director

jack mclain

It is with regret that we announce the passing of long-time Constitution Party member from Florida, Jack McLain. Jack, and his wife Lois, were an inseparable duo, and faithfully worked to build the Constitution Party both in their state and at the national level, having served as National Committee members for many years.   Jack was also the author of a book, “Which Way America?” and a newsletter entitled “Viewpoint”, in which he examined the issues facing American from a biblical and constitutional point-of-view.

John “Jack” McLain, 88, of Jupiter, Florida, passed away Saturday, July 25, 2015. Jack was born in Stratford, New Jersey on August 21, 1926 to James and Dorothy McLain. He graduated from Haddon Heights High School, Rutgers College and Tennessee Temple Seminary. Jack loved his Lord and his Country. Jack served in the U.S. Army and ran for the U.S. Congress in 2002 and 2004. He is survived by his wife, Lois; daughters, Gail Johnson of Rochester, New York and Joanne Costello of Orlando, Florida; step-children, Karen Shade of Chesapeake, Virginia and John Pangaro of Prattville, Alabama; and seven grandchildren. He is predeceased by his parents; brothers, James McLain and David McLain; and a grandson, Benjamin Johnson. Jack is interred in South Florida National Cemetery.

Constitution Party of Georgia State Chairman Ricardo Davis, in his role as Southern States Area Chairman for the national Constitution Party, was well-acquainted with Jack and wrote this wonderful tribute to a great Christian Patriot:

“Our fellow patriot Jack McLain, Florida State Party Vice-Chairman, stepped off the field of this life and stepped into eternity in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ on Saturday morning, July 25th. Jack’s online obituary can be found at the Taylor & Modeen Funeral Home site. I would encourage all who have been touched by his life and work to sign the online memory book. Please pray that the Holy Spirit would comfort his wife Lois and their family and fill their hearts with rejoicing that Jack is now with his Savior.

Jack’s life had been changed by the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it was evident. He had a great heart for people, and he understood that this short life is preparation for eternity. I have been blessed to work with Jack in building the Constitution Party for almost 20 years, and “steadfast” would be the word to describe his life’s efforts. Jack was faithful in the work of ministry at Beacon Baptist Church, and he was a stalwart activist whose faith compelled him to never give up.

Jack’s “Viewpoint” newsletter for Thanksgiving 2013 is illustrative of his steadfast spirit. He noted, “Occupy till I come’ does not mean just to occupy a pew in church once a week, or more. It means ‘to do business’ for the Lord while awaiting His return. Jude wrote, ‘[To] exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints’ (Jude 3). Christians should expect contention and be ready always to defend their faith and freedoms.” Men like Jack have inspired generations to faithful Christian service whether at home, church, or the public forum. A number of Jack’s articles are available at the National Constitution Party’s website in the Our Principles > CP Commentary section.

In the January 2014 “Viewpoint” newsletter Jack wrote:

We believe that America is worth saving! We hope and pray that Christians and patriots will agree and that a great number will become active participants in the cause for survival of our national heritage… We must realize that our voice does count. Our actions count. Our pen is mighty. Our talents and treasures are accountable to God. They are needed to be available by those in the front lines of the battle. There is a battle for the souls of men and there is a battle for the future of our country.

May his legacy inspire us to pray and work to restore the American Republic!

OP-ED: Illegal Aliens May Be Worse Than You Think

by National Executive Committee member Peter Gemma

caution_sign_w_exclamation Protecting the 1,954-mile Mexico-U.S. line is not just to stave off the dangerous drug cartels and the flood of savage criminal gangs.  Congressman Ryan Zinkle asserts: “It’s not about immigration alone. It’s about national security … if children can walk across our border without consequences, what makes this administration think that ISIS can’t?”

Former Chief of Operations for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, Michael Braun, testified before Congress about Iran’s growing influence along the Mexican border.  Braun said that the terrorist group Hezbollah has developed sophisticated relationships with Mexican drug cartels. “And by developing those relations it provides them with the ability to operate far from home in our neighborhood and – on our doorstep.”

U.S. Border patrol released its apprehension statistics for 2014, showing that 257,473 arrests of illegal aliens were from countries “other than Mexico,” including 1,191 suspects from Iran, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, nations with powerful terrorist cells.

Most illegal aliens crawl under fences to get here – then meld into a subterranean culture within American cities. From the Middle East, the route is different. NBC has reported that some illegal aliens pay $8-10,000 to get over the border safely; several investigative news reports uncovered price tags as high as $50,000. As part of the bigger picture, according to the German newspaper Zeit, ISIS nets as much as $3 million a day.

In addition to keeping terrorists out, there is a new problem: finding homegrown terrorists who are inspired, instructed, and recruited through the Internet. Congressman Michael McCaul, the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, states, “Terrorism has gone viral.”

So far this year, ISIS has published 1,700 pieces of “terrorist messaging,” including videos, pictorial reports and online magazines, according to deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center John Mulligan. A Brookings Institution report estimates 200,000 people receive an ISIS message each day around the world. It starts with about 2,000 “core” propagandists posting on Twitter and elsewhere, and then another 50,000 people “re-Tweet” and further distribute that messaging.

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, summed-up the terrorism threats this way: “ISIS doesn’t have a navy, they don’t have an air force. The only way that ISIS is going to harm Americans is by coming through the southern border – which they already have. They aren’t flying B-1 bombers, bombing American cities, but they are going to be bombing American cities coming across from Mexico … All you have to do is ask the border patrol.”

Sealing off the border is the promise of many politicians, but their delivery has gone from bad to worse. The Department of Homeland Security spends $4 billion annually deploying over 58,000 personnel with 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, and 300 camera towers. It even uses aerial drones to enhance the scrutiny. From 2000 through 2012, the Border Patrol apprehends dropped by 78 percent. A February, 2013 Government Accountability Office report found that just 44 percent of the border was under “operational control,” 37 percent was “monitored,” and the rest “low-level monitored.” Despite more funding, the 2014 results were dismal: the department had built just 36 miles of two-tier fencing, 316 miles of single-tier fence, and another 299 miles of vehicle barriers that still allow pedestrians to cross.

The Constitution Party must be on the front lines of this fight.   According to our platform, “We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders.”

Obergefell V. Hodges: Illegitimate, Unlawful, and a Fraud on the American People

by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson;  June 26, 2015

SSM-Article-XIV There is simply no other way to say it.
 
The Supreme Court’s decision today redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex is wholly illegitimate and unlawful.  A nullity.  Worthy only to be disobeyed.

Anyone who says otherwise — that the rule of law requires recognition of same-sex marriage — is committing a fraud.  And any State official — like Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama — who says that his oath of office requires unconditional obedience to the Supreme Court’s mandate to issue same-sex couples licenses to marry is mistaking his oath to the Constitution as if it were an oath of absolute obedience to five justices who happen to be sitting on the nation’s highest court.

As Chief Justice Roberts in dissent has described the action taken today:

“Five lawyers have closed debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.  Stealing this issue from the people ….”

And just who are these lawyers?  Justice Scalia reminds us that they are all educated at either Harvard or Yale, from the east- and west- coasts, not from the vast middle of the country, and not a single one an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, and then observes:

“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage.”

Indeed, from the outset of his bare majority decision, Justice Kennedy did not even act like a judge.  Rather, he wrote as if he were an existentialist philosopher seeking the meaning of life, as if the “liberty” protected in the Constitution was a personal quest “to define and express [one’s personal] identity.”

But the Constitution is not some philosophical work written by Jean Paul Sartre.  Rather, it is a political and legal document designed by America’s founders to secure the unchanging God-given rights to life, liberty, and property which are deeply rooted in the 18th century soil of the nation.  Justice Kennedy showed no regard for these fixed principles, opting for an evolutionary approach to law — asserting that the existential definition of marriage changes with changing times.

However, the very purpose of our Constitution is, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, to make “permanent” those principles that the people desired.  And, so that those principles would not be “mistaken or forgotten,” the people committed them to writing.  Thus, Marshall wrote “it is the province and duty for the courts to say what the law is,” not to make it up as we go along.

As today’s dissenting Chief Justice observed, “[t]hose who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role”:

“They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves.  They would have never imagined yielding that right on a social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.  And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system of empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after ‘a quite extensive discussion.’”

And, as the capstone of his dissent, the Chief Justice concluded:  “the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it.”  In those nine simple words, Chief Justice Roberts explained why this decision of the Court is not law.  If the Constitution had nothing to do with it, the Court had no jurisdiction to issue it.  It is, therefore, a nullity.

In the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter, a brilliant jurist who understood the dangers of hubris on the highest court in the land — may Obergefell v. Hodges prove to be a “derelict on the waters of the law.”  And it will be — but only if the American people rise up and resist this gross perversion of the rule of law.

Approximately one month ago, the U.S. Justice Foundation began to organize the writing and publication of a series of articles in a series entitled “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.”  This project was undertaken in the hope that the Supreme Court would not recklessly decide the same-sex marriage case, but nonetheless, we prepared for the worst, and sadly, the Supreme Court has disappointed us again.  Hopefully over the coming weeks and months, state and local government officials and the people at large will be able to draw from these articles justification and techniques to resist the Supreme Court’s lawless decision.

In Article II, we established that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way addressed the issue of same-sex marriage.  In Article III, Robert Reilly explained how poorly these cases have been litigated by government lawyers supposedly defending same-sex marriage.  In Article IV, Pastor James Taylor explained the biblical and moral basis for traditional marriage.  In Article V, Houston attorney J. Mark Brewer anticipated how courts will manipulate today’s rulings to penalize those in business and the professions who embrace biblical marriage.  In Article VI, former Congressman John Hostettler explained that if a soldier has the duty to disobey an unlawful order, how could a state official not have that same duty?  In Article VII, former federal magistrate Joe Miller discussed why it would be a violation of federal law and judicial ethics for Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to participate in the decision, yet both did so today.

In Article VIII, Pastor Matthew Trewhella provided a historical context for Christian resistance by lower government officials to illegal actions by higher government officials, known as “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate.”  In Article IX, we discussed the apparent efforts of the Supreme Court to bury the motion for recusal filed by the Foundation for Moral Law so that Justices Ginsburg and Kagan could more easily disregard their duty.  In Article X, constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira explained how decisions like today’s decision violate the Constitution’s “good behavior” standard, leaving them susceptible to removal.  In Article XI, former U.S. attorney Tom Ashcraft laid out the process by which Congress can limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, using the power Congress was expressly given in the U.S. Constitution.  In Article XII, Senior Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall discussed how Congress could immediately use the Appropriations Power to prevent implementation of an unlawful decision such as that issued today.  And lastly, in Article XIII, former Oklahoma Representative Charles Key described the responsibility and duty of every citizen, when serving on a jury, to decide both the facts and the law in every case, known as jury nullification.

This series of articles has demonstrated that a Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage would be illegitimate.  As Blackstone said, it would not just be bad law; it would be no law at all.  That decision has now transpired.  These articles also demonstrate that the American people and our elected officials have many ways to resist the unconstitutional decision of the Court.  The question now is, will our political leaders abandon the true Constitution to embrace the decision of the Court?

In the coming days we will continue to be releasing articles further discussing the justification for and techniques that can be used by Congress, state officials, and the American people to resist today’s unlawful decision.  We urge supporters of traditional marriage to view today’s loss as a setback, but by no means a final decision of anything.  The battle continues.


Herbert W. Titus taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School.  William J. Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration.  Together they have filed over 80 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, and dozens more in lower courts, addressing important public policy issues.  They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C.  They can be reached at traditionalmarriage [at] lawandfreedom [dot] com or twitter.com/Olsonlaw.

 

The Peace of Westphalia and the New World Order

by Darrell Castle

Peace of Westphalia We hear the term “New World Order” all the time. We are afraid of that term.  But if there is a New World Order, then what of the Old World Order, the political order which has existed for hundreds of years? If we are suspicious of, and resistant to the New World Order, what order are we trying to conserve?

To find out the history and character of the Old World Order, we need to travel back in time to the 17th Century to the time of the Thirty Years War. The Thirty Years War was fought in Europe from 1618 to 1648. It began when the Austrian-Hapsburg Empire tried to impose Roman Catholicism on their Protestant subjects in Bohemia.

It grew into a religious war of Protestant against Catholic, the Holy Roman Empire against France, the German princes and Princelings against the emperor and against each other, the nation of France against the Habsburgs of Spain.  At one point Swedes, Danes, Poles, Russians, and the Dutch all got into the act.  Until World War I, it was the bloodiest and costliest war in European history. Read More

American Coup

The Constitution Party’s Response to the President’s speech on Immigration
– Darrell L. Castle – 
24 November 2014 –

American-CoupWhat does the President’s speech on immigration and amnesty, delivered Thursday, November 20, 2014, mean for America and for Americans?

The American system under the Constitution is divided into three separate branches, each having distinct sets of powers and responsibilities. Overriding it all is the knowledge that rights come from God, not from government. This is the American system of law and government that generations of Americans have fought to preserve. It has never been intended for power to be embodied in a single person but rather in a system governed by the Constitution.

The framers listed the powers of Congress as Article 1 for a reason. Congress is the preeminent body – the representatives of the People. Article 1, section 1 is the most important section of the entire Constitution. It states, “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The President then has no legislative authority, none! Congress, under Article 1, section 8, paragraph 4, has the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization and it has done so. The point is that Congress has enacted immigration laws (contrary to what the President asserts) through which naturalization is a path to citizenship for those legally in this country. It is against this system that a coup has been accomplished.

President Obama has now gone forward with his lawless, unconstitutional act of defiance against the American people. He was right when he said that his policies were on the ballot in the mid terms and the American people voted their strong rebuke. He apparently thinks he is a monarch – a monarch does not have to compromise, he gets everything he wants. But our Constitution requires compromise to get new laws through the House, the Senate, and the President. When the President purports to take on the characteristics of a monarch, it is incumbent on Congress to act and prevent subversion of the Rule of Law. The President has usurped the legislative power of Congress, and Congress should act immediately to take it back.

So, what does the Constitution Party platform have to say about the President’s view? “The Constitution Party demands that the Federal Government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States. We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other tax payer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal parents while in this country. We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens and call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.”

I submit to you, however, that the issue of concern in the President’s speech is not illegal immigration or amnesty. It is instead, the authority or lack of authority of a man who has assumed the role of monarch. The President laid out his justification for his action in the fashion of a true monarch. “Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.”

The President knows he has no such authority. From an Obama speech three years ago, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, not just on immigration reform. But, that’s not how – that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

He also knows that his order is different from those of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush as neither man issued an amnesty order with no Congressional legislation. The President has no precedent to hide behind.

The President then seems to take the position that if Congress agrees with him that’s great, but if not, he is converted to absolute ruler. The President delivered his speech without any indication that he was ashamed of its obvious falsehood. Even much of the press, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post were at least mildly critical. All three papers expressed their strong support for the President’s position on amnesty but they all disapproved of a unilateral Presidential order.

Peggy Noonan in her opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition said it best. “The President’s executive action on immigration is an act of willful nihilism that he himself had argued against in the past. It is a sharp stick in the eye of the new Congressional majority. It is at odds with – it defies – the meaning and message of the last election, and therefore is destructive to the Reputation of Democracy itself. It is huge in its impact but has only a sole cause, the President’s lone will.”

The President’s actions will also encourage and invite more illegal immigration and shows clearly the President’s complete disregard for the working people of America. The reaction to the order is that Congress is considering several options. They wring their hands and worry that some members may overreact. Some states are preparing law suits based on an “unfair taking” argument. Congress is preparing lawsuits and budget attacks on the order.

For the American People, this means that if Congress fails to act in a meaningful way to take back its legislative authority, then the people have been disenfranchised and there is no longer a reason to vote if that vote is restricted to Democrats and Republicans. I predict that Congress will not act in a meaningful way because the Republican Leadership, judging from past statements, wants amnesty at least as much as the President. They are secretly glad he did it and they don’t have to take the blame. If that is true, consider voting for the Constitution Party in the next election. Let’s restore the Constitution – together!

National Service Is Anti-Liberty and Un-American

THE UNZ REVIEW
– Ron Paul – 
19 October 2014 – 

Former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently called on the government to force young people to spend two years either “serving” in the military or performing some other type of government-directed “community service.” Neoconservative Senator John McCain has introduced legislation creating a mandatory national service program very similar to Reich’s proposal. It is not surprising that both a prominent progressive and a leading neocon would support mandatory national service, as this is an issue that has long united authoritarians on the left and right.

Proponents of national service claim that young people have a moral obligation to give something back to society. But giving the government power to decide our moral obligations is an invitation to totalitarianism.

Read the full article here.


Conscription
 
The Constitution Party opposes all forms of National Service – military or civilian.  Read the Constitution Party Platform plank on Conscription.