Sham bill: D.C. House Voting Rights Act

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is sponsoring this bill, along with a bunch of other Democratic Senators and a couple of RINOs, to give the people of Washington, D.C. a House representative because their voices need to be heard blah-blah-blah...

Never mind that Article I Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that only states can have members in the House:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

D.C. is not a state. D.C. does not have a state legislature. So why are Congressmen sponsoring such a bill which blatantly violates the Supreme Law of the Land? I mean, how can this even be constitutional if passed?

More about the unconstitutional bailout legislation

There has been a lot of interest in the constitutionality of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and the TARP funds. I see a lot of Internet searches about this. George Will has a very good piece in the Washington Post about this topic:

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile companies -- well, whatever."

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based libertarian advocacy organization, argues that EESA violates "the nondelegation doctrine." Although the text does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure -- particularly the separation of powers -- imply limits on the size and kind of discretion that Congress may confer on the executive branch.

One of the beauties of the U.S. Constitution is separation of the three branches of power: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. With EESA, Congress is giving the president unconstitutional powers by allowing him to write the specifics of the law, i.e. how the money is to be appropriated. That should be Congress' job!

Taxpaying citizens like you and I ought to be enraged by this! It's evident that we have a lazy Congress bowing to the demands of a fear-mongering President. And now the next two or more generations of Americans are to pay for the astronomical debt -- bought up by the billions by Communist China. The consequences of ignoring the Constitution is grave...

Congress passes law to tax TARP company execs

In the latest development stemming from the AIG executive compensation mess, Congress passes a bill to tax at a higher rate of executives and employees of companies receiving TARP funds. The Democrats are eager to clean up this mess, therefore wasting no time to draft this legislation and put it to a vote.

But aside from the glaring tactic of political distraction, this piece of legislation should be a cause of concern for everyday Americans. Congress is essentially wearing the hat of a judge, determining who is guilty, and using confiscatory tax rates as punishment.

Andrew Grossman at The Heritage Foundation has a very good analysis:

Whether the legislation before Congress is a bill of attainder, and therefore unconstitutional, is a difficult question not susceptible to any certain answer under existing judicial precedent. But whatever the answer, the legislation does raise strong constitutional concerns animated by the purposes of the prohibition on bills of attainders. The legislation (H.R. 1586), as introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (D–NY), would apply to income received in 2009 and thereafter by employees of companies receiving more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds, as well as to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill defines a new class of income, "TARP Bonus," that consists of any compensation payments in excess of a periodic wage and any income for such employees in excess of $250,000, or $125,000 for married individuals filing separate returns. Under the legislation, any "TARP Bonus" would be taxed at a 90 percent rate.

Article I, § 9, of the Constitution states: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The prohibition has several purposes. First, it enforces the Constitution's separation of powers, thereby protecting individual rights. The judiciary, not the legislature, is the branch that judges the application of the law to specific individuals and entities, resolving the disputes before it on an individualized basis and ensuring that each case is afforded due process. For Congress to adjudge specific parties guilty and due certain punishment would necessarily intrude on this power. The result, as the Framers well knew from the country's colonial experience, would be legislative tyranny: Britain's parliament regularly enacted laws naming or describing particular individuals and sentencing them to death for some asserted infraction, usually treason.

And that's just the start. Read the whole thing... Congress may be crossing its boundaries here.

Sen. Charles Schumer wants to force federal money into states

Hat tip to RedState for uncovering this.

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) needs to re-read the Constitution and learn about Washington's boundaries. Feel free to contact his office to give him an education about it.

The inauguration speech

Overall, I think President Obama gave a very good speech after taking the oath. He touched on America's proud history and traditional values. He spoke of faith and religion. He warned America's enemies. He extended a hand to other nations. He highlighted the spirit of Americans.

But he also cautioned about the current economic crisis, ongoing wars, rising health care costs, and global warming threat. What worries me a little is this:

...The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

This sounds to me like more Big Government rhetoric, disguised as a plea to believe in a Big Government that "works." In comparison, here's what Ronald Reagan said in his inaugural speech delivered in 1981, as Larry Kudlow reminds us:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.

Obama's promise of government responsibility and accountability definitely deserves applause, especially if he wants to spend our way out of a recession (good luck). When he raised his right hand in front of Chief Justice Roberts and all the world, to take the oath of defending the Constitution, did he realize that the Constitution says nothing about the government's duty to provide jobs at a "decent wage," or affordable health care, or stable income after retirement?

The inauguration was historical and inspiring, and personally, I think that way of all past inauguration ceremonies. The source of this profound awe, however, lies with the U.S. Constitution, and it ought to be the guide to all presidents.

Please don't go there: amending the Constitution to include right to health care

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. wants the Constitution amended so that citizens enjoy the right to health care. What's next? The right to employment?

This notion, however attractive, is absurd. The Constitution grants us freedom and capitalism. Those are really the two crucial ingredients to form a sustainable, prosperous society. We live in it. Millions of others leave behind their homelands to come to America. But America is under threat from Big Government and socialistic policies. And guess what? Universal health care is bigger government and socialization.

Legally, health care as a right would spell disaster. What is health care? Besides being treated for illnesses and injuries, what about preventive measures? Would universal health care pay for gym memberships? Doctors and nurses would become government workers, what about gym operators? What about paying for Alcoholics Anonymous sessions? You can see how crazy things could get...

Even if legislators want a nationalized health care plan, amending the Constitution is the wrong way to go about it anyway.

Counting down...

In less than a week will Americans cast votes for their next leader in the most important job in the world. The race is still close according to polls with better track records. Other media-sponsored polls have Sen. Obama leading many points. The media has already picked its winner.

But most polls have Obama still under 50%, and that means a good 10% or more are still undecided. These are the folks that'll decide the outcome of the Electoral College and determine which candidate reaches the magic 270 electoral votes.

It's been said that America is a center-right country. Obama's surge and consistency in polling numbers certainly question that. Here is a community-organizer-turned-politician from Chicago with an affinity to Marxism and calls left-wing nut Bill Ayers a friend. Without a doubt Sen. Obama is the most left-leaning presidential candidate in U.S. history. But he's probably also the most charismatic and eloquent -- a celebrity in the media's eyes -- and one of the youngest. More importantly, he made history by becoming the first black presidential candidate of a major political party. That's something all Americans should be proud of.

However, Americans should also be proud of their unique heritage in the context of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, two of the most important documents in Western democracy. The Declaration tells the truth of our "unalienable Rights... Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The Consitution starts in its preamble with "We the people..."

Which candidate offers us a closer ideology to what our Founding Fathers had in mind? Right to life -- denied by pro-choice activists. Right to liberty -- limited by leftist lawyers and judges. Pursuit of happiness -- something the government is more than happy (no pun intended) to take its share with taxation.

So ask yourself: Which candidate cannot bring himself to acknowledge that life begins at conception, even though he's a Christian? Which candidate desires a court with activist judges? And which candidate thinks taxes, not opportunities, are a way to achieve fairness in society?

We the people... have we lost sight of the principles this great nation was founded on? Have we been caught up in the celebrity culture of modern day? Have we become so selfish that we no longer care for the devastation we could cause to our children and grandchildren? Yes, we the people...

Rights that are not

Bill Whittle from the National Review says it perfectly:

Simply this: Constitutional rights protect us from things: intimidation, illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and so on. The revolutionary idea of our Founding Fathers was that people had a God-given right to live as they saw fit. Our constitutional rights protect us from the power of government.

But these new so-called “rights” are about the government — who the Founders saw as the enemy — giving us things: food, health care, education... And when we have a right to be given stuff that previously we had to work for, then there is no reason — none — to go and work for them. The goody bag has no bottom, except bankruptcy and ruin.

This is a major difference between conservatism and liberalism. There is always one thing to remember: What the government gives, the government can take it away.