Source: https://southbaytaxdayteaparty.typepad.com/south-bay-tax-day-tea-party/constitution/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:45:03+00:00

Document:
By lying and withholding information about the agreement, he gives aid and comfort to America’s enemy.
One can imagine hearing such counsel from a contemporary United States senator on the receiving end of President Obama’s “full disclosure” of the nuclear deal with Iran. But the admonition actually came from James Iredell, a champion of the Constitution’s ratification, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington.
Is the Iran Deal the Worst Political Blunder of All Time?
Interestingly, the perfidy in Madison’s hypothetical involved summoning into session only senators favorably disposed toward a formal treaty that the president wanted approved. That was more plausible in the late 18th century: Under the Constitution, a treaty may be approved by “two thirds of the senators present” for the vote; and back then, senators coming from far and wide could not fly to the nation’s capital at the drop of a hat.
Madison could not fathom a president who undermines the Constitution’s treaty requirements by the ruse of labeling a treaty an “agreement” or a “joint plan of action.” Still less could he imagine a president who resorts to chicanery in communicating the terms of an international agreement to the Congress. Such duplicity must have seemed inconceivable.
How should we treat Homosexuals? We should treat them with love and respect and equal pay, and be willing to tell them the truth no matter what the cost because that is what love does.
Today's ruling (5 to 4) on Gay marriage defies logic and the Constitution. The danger today is that the ruling was made with NO defense of the rule of law and no valid justification from the Constitution for what was ruled. Why did the court do this? Because of the Worldviews of the Justices. (Please read "Who we Are" on the menu for a discussion on Worldview.) The ruling makes a mockery of the Constitution, the rule of law, common sense, and destroys States rights. "Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law." Justice Clarence Thomas pilloried the majority opinion as "at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our nation were built." Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it." See article on the dissent here.
Worldviews develop with a major first step, which is deciding if there is a God or if there is not a God. And second if there is a God, is Jesus God? And third is deciding if the following quote from Jesus is true where He said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" in Jn 14:6. And last deciding if people have a free will to choose or if their actions are determined by outside forces. Your answer, "Yes" or "No" on each of these points take you in radically different direction on how you think and what laws you implement. I believe that 5 of the Justices by their actions and rulings would have answered No to each of these questions.
So I would propose based on the actions of the Justices over their lifetime that maybe 4 have some belief or respect of God and 5 have little to no belief or respect of God. Yes I know they are all culturally Catholic and Jewish by heritage on the court but that does not mean they actually believe in God, that is a personal decision and we can not know their hearts only their actions. And their actions do not line up with the Judeo/Christian God of the Bible. There are also NO Protestants or Evangelicals on the bench which means over 70% of our country's worldview is not represented by the Supreme Court.
This is a talk that I give to college students.
First! America is not a place, America is not a race, America is an idea. And it is a revolutionary idea that had never been seen before in the entire history of the world. America's prosperity and unlimited opportunity is available to anyone, and I mean anyone no matter what your background, who learns the American idea. Check out this short Bono video on the "American Idea", it is mind boggling. And to quote Bono, "It is not a Left Right issue but a Right Wrong issue." We also add that America is not a race because today there are many voices that say, "People of color can not succeed in America because of their race." Throughout the history of America people of all kinds of races have succeeded because they learned the American idea. To do this they also had to ignore the "race baiters" who are trying to promote themselves, get political power, and make money by making themselves the power brokers for some "race of people". The KKK were Democrats, I know big surprise, who tried to do this for white people. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (Democrats) do this today for African-American people. The Democrat group La Raza does this today for Hispanic people. All the race baiters of today and yesterday are all Democrats. By the way Martin Luther King was a Republican, I know hard to believe, but look here. There are many voices today that want to tell you that you can not achieve the American dream, because of your race, or because you are poor, or because society is against you. Well I am here today to tell you that is BU**Sh**. Anyone can achieve the American dream if you learn and believe in the American idea. And our overall goal today is to make you, "Curious Seekers of the Truth", who ask questions, do independent research, and arrive at your own opinions based on sincere effort.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws and Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind required that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. ... We…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. ... And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
WOW!!! Who would have thought that 4 mentions of God would be allowed in our public schools today and right there in our Declaration of Independence. How about the all of the State Constitutions also mention God, read about it here and here. But of course few if any of you have ever read these words. Because the 95% Democrat controlled school system is just not "No God" but "Anti-God" today. Yes they have a bias and I have a bias but you must determine for yourselves what is the truth. So God is an important foundation to the American Idea. Note I am not saying what religion or denomination you should belong to only that the entire American idea is founded on this the most important founding document of the United States of America which is founded on the concept of God giving us our rights, judging our intentions, and protecting us by His Divine Providence. Why all this talk about God. Well the Democrats who as a whole do not believe in God (read on below) try and make Government their God which is big enough to control everything so that they can bring about their vision of utopia. If you have only heard for all of your schooling the NO GOD or ANTI_GOD point of view then you have only received HALF an education AND YOU WILL NEVER LEARN THE AMERICAN IDEA. And see below what happens to a country that has a low view of the value of life, and a very exalted view on the power of Government.
So to level the playing field you all should know something about libertarian (little "l") conservatives or as one Democrat said to a few of us, "I like you guys you are Progressive Republicans." So as a whole we dislike Elite Republicans and we dislike Elite Democrats. We dislike Country Club Republicans, and we dislike Country Club Democrats. What do I mean by elite? Those politicians who are no longer statesmen, and stateswomen, but are acting in the best interests of themselves to keep their power, and support the lobbyists and corporations that gave them money to get them in power and not "we the people". They practice crony capitalism, which instead of an even playing field for all companies favors companies that gave them money. They also do not uphold the founding principles of our Constitution and defend the Bill of Rights. Recently 167 Republicans voted against the policies of the Speaker of the House John Bonner. Many called this block of voters tea party Republicans. Unfortunately we use to have a block of Democrats called Blue Dog Democrats and they were certainly closer to Tea Party people then any Democrat today, but alas there are few Blue Dog Democrats today.
Yes, we come to you with a bias and our own Worldview, but we would challenge you, that you have only heard the other sides bias and Worldview pounded into your heads for most of your life from school, television and the media. 80% of the news media vote Democrat, 95% of California Professors donate to the Democrat Party, they have a worldview and spin the news and information to fit it. We want you to make informed decisions for yourself and to learn the American idea so you can be wildly successful. We want you to understand that California's, loosing jobs, loosing businesses, not having enough dams for water in the dry times, high housing prices (government restricts building), high gas prices ($2.77 is the price in other states), bad roads, bad anything else is the fault of Democrats because except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election, and the Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970. (ref) I mean really how can it be the rich white country club Republicans fault when in California there are almost no rich white country club Republicans and Democrats have run the State for 45 years. YES 45 years. Most of your parents have only experienced Democrat rule. Why is California the 2nd WORST state in the nation for doing business, I would suggest that 45 years of one party rule might be a plausible explanation. (Ref) Yet many of you until today blamed the evil Republicans.
Rick Green of Wallbuilders shows us the intent of the Founders and shows us the key elements in creating our Constitution. By returning to the original intent of the Constitution, we can revive the engine of free enterprise, and rekindle the knowledge of our liberty. We can, not only save our country, but return it to prosperity. It starts with each one of us.
"May I see your papers please?"
But, increasingly, the free and the brave became dependent and cowardly. They begged to wear chains.
Many fought the trend, but even they were undone, because some in their ranks harbored fears greater than their love of freedom.
Remember where you heard this . . .
If American freedom dies, the widespread desire to control immigration will have been a major factor.
And remember where you heard this . . .
If the fight to defeat the creation of a national ID card FAILS, it will be because of the widespread desire to control immigration. Let us not forget, we have drawn the line on Real ID. Five years have gone by, and we've stalled implementation. But now, other Real ID Jr. proposals are building a head of steam.
So remember where you heard this . . .
Americans will have to carry internal passports, and show them to State officials constantly, and have every aspect of their lives controlled by far off know-it-alls in the federal bureaucracy. Your federal overlords will gain increased control over . . .
This total control will be made possible by a national identification system that was put in place in order to control immigration. But it will really control YOU!
In this way, immigration control and registration is just like gun control and registration -- it most deeply affects law-abiding citizens.
The immigration debate is NOT about what Mexicans will be allowed to do, IT'S about what YOU will be allowed to do. It's about YOUR freedom . . .
The immigration debate is a scam. It's fear-mongering, foisted by busy-bodies of all varieties. The result will be Bigger Government in Washington, DC. It will control YOU. And now, it's up to YOU to decide . . .
Are you afraid of terrorists and Mexicans? ...or whatever hobgoblin the Big Government Fearmongers will conjure next?
Will you be free and brave, or dependent and cowardly? Will you trade YOUR FREEDOM for a false promise of protection?
This is how we see the issue. And if you end up in chains, remember who warned you. We did.
Meanwhile, for the brave who want to remain free, let the spirit of resistance continue . . .
Please send a letter to Congress opposing all national identification schemes, including the new attempt by Senators Schumer and Graham, to MAKE ALL OF US CARRY Social Security cards with biometric identifiers.
In addition to this campaign's hardwired letter to Congress, which reads as follows -- "Please don't try to fix the REAL ID Act. Please, just repeal it." -- we suggest you add the following in your personal comments . . .
"Please oppose any legislation that contains any support for any kind of national identification system. I specifically oppose plans for a Social Security card containing biometric identifiers. I do not want ANY national identification scheme, and I reject your claim that I need such a system in order to be protected from terrorists and Mexican immigrants. I am not afraid! And I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf."
Our thanks go to those who prefer bravery and freedom.
understand what a manufactured crisis really amounts to.
the strategy of creating crises as a means of transforming society.
"How Evil Works": "This is a powerful book ... I couldn't put it down."
Order your autographed copy today from WND's Superstore!
"solutions" we normally would reject.
further leftward in response to the next "crisis."
common tactic in cities and towns up and down the turnpike.
to bottom is the creation of crises where none exist. The "spotted owl"
research showed logging in old-growth forests wasn't the problem at all.
battering rams of the left for advancing the same socialist agenda.
that utterly dominate the rest of the information media.
hate crimes in the U.S. decreased by 68 percent!
telling us, in effect, "your house is on fire, so come with me."
citizens' wealth, behavior, their very lives.
in the Pacific Northwest with his wife and children.
RE: The mandate under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid healthcare legislation requiring American citizens to purchase health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution.
ACTION: We urge you to make this point to members of the U.S. Senate—and if a bill passes the Senate to impress upon members of both chambers of Congress—that the key provision in the healthcare legislation violates the U.S. Constitution.
ISSUE: Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any penalty—civil or criminal—on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution. As such, it is unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge on that issue. Supporters of the legislation have incorrectly contended that the legal justification for the mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause. Given that this mandate provision is essential to Obamacare; its unconstitutionality renders the entire program untenable.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional unless there is a specific constitutional provision that authorizes it. The federal government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It has only enumerated powers. Therefore unless a specific provision of the Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law is unconstitutional. There is no such authorization for the mandate.
The individual mandate is not authorized by the Commerce Clause. Most of those advocating the Democrats’ bill say that Congress can pass this legislation pursuant to its power to regulate interstate commerce. That argument is incorrect, because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance.
The Commerce Clause only covers matters where citizens engage in economic activity. The last time the Supreme Court struck down a law for violating the Commerce Clause, in United States v. Morrison (2000), the Court did so on the grounds that the activity in question was not an economic activity.
The Commerce Clause only extends to persons or organizations voluntarily engaging in commercial activity. Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce. In the most expansive case for Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court upheld the agricultural regulation in question against a wheat farmer who earned his entire living from growing and selling wheat, making him a willing participant in interstate commerce.
The Commerce Clause requires an actual economic effect, not merely a congressional finding of an economic effect. When the Court struck down the Violence Against Women Act in United States v. Morrison (2000), the Court noted that although the statute made numerous findings regarding the link between such violence and interstate commerce, it held that those findings did not actually establish an economic effect. Therefore the various interstate-commerce findings in the Senate version of the “Obamacare” legislation do not make the bill constitutional.
The individual mandate is not authorized under the General Welfare Clause. The Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Butler (1936) and Helvering v. Davis (1937) that the General Welfare Clause only applies to congressional spending. It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause.
The individual mandate is not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause or Income Tax. The Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government.
The Article I Taxing and Spending Clause permits duties, imposts, excises and capitation taxes — duties, imposts and excises are taxes on purchases. A capitation tax is a tax that every person must pay, and the Constitution’s apportionment rule requires that every person in each state must pay exactly the same amount. The Obamacare mandate is imposed on people who are making no purchase, and is a tax that some people in a state would pay, but others do not.
The Sixteenth Amendment allows an income tax. An income tax is imposed only on earnings, but people would have to pay this tax even if they had no income.
Therefore it cannot be any of these constitutionally-permitted taxes.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional regardless of whether there are criminal penalties involved. There is no distinction between criminal and civil penalties for determining the constitutionality of legislation, and the penalty imposed in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) was not a criminal penalty. Therefore even if the criminal sanctions were removed from the legislation, the imposition of any penalty or consequence for not purchasing insurance renders the mandate unconstitutional.
The individual mandate cannot be properly compared to requiring auto insurance. President Obama said in a Nov. 9 interview on ABC television that requiring people to buy health insurance and penalizing those that do not buy is acceptable because people are required to buy car insurance. That statement is untrue.
Only state governments can require people to get car insurance. While the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the states have a general police power. The police power enables state governments to pass laws for public safety and public health. The federal government has no general police power, and therefore could not require car insurance.
States do not require people to purchase car insurance. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. States require people to get insurance only as a condition for those people who voluntarily choose to drive on the public roads. If a person chooses to use public transportation, or use a bicycle instead of a car, or operate a car only on their own property, they are not required to have car insurance, and cannot be penalized for lacking insurance.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.