Our Constitution Rejected by Australia?

What is happening to the world? Australia rejects our Constitution? Are entering a dark ages? Without the American Constitution to guide the darker nature in man what else if left? Read this article by Ben Shapiro at Townhall...

According to The New York Times, the American Constitution is losing popularity with people around the world. "The Constitution," writes Adam Liptak, "has seen better days ... its influence is waning." Liptak points out that in 1987, over 160 of the 170 countries on Earth had cribbed from the Constitution -- but today, few countries do. Why? Liptak suggests, quoting Professor David Law of Washington University in St. Louis, that our Constitution is "Windows 3.1." It's difficult to amend, and it doesn't guarantee so-called "positive rights," such as healthcare, housing and education. Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said that he relies more on the legal framework of India, South Africa and New Zealand than on that of the United States.

Intuitively, this sounds wrong. Why would you rely on the legal frameworks of nations that still allow disparate treatment of "untouchables" or countries that until 20 years ago still had different legal standards for blacks and whites? Why not rely on the legal framework that provided for equal rights as early as 1868 and that guaranteed freedom from government overreach almost a century earlier than that?...Read the rest here.

The American Revolution at the Ballot Box

Regarding our Constitution the prohibitions are on the government NOT THE PEOPLE! Let's remember this as we go to the polls tomorrow November 2, 2010 - Americans have their revolution in the ballot box. And this one is going to be big.

The Constitution Is For Everyone's Use Not Just Judges

For those who do not understand ANYTHING about that document called the Constitution here is an excerpt from TIA by Rob Tracinski. Let's remember that the Constitution is a restraint on government NOT the People.

The most revealing phrase here is Adler's description of any attempt at legislative self-restraint as "an extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress." Extraconstitutional? But what does he think the Constitution is for, anyway? The whole purpose of the Constitution is precisely to limit the powers of Congress, and of the government as a whole.

What the left does not want to admit is that the Constitution is a charter for a government of limited powers. It is a constitution for a nation founded on the principles of liberty and individual rights. So the whole purpose of our system is for every branch of government to be limited in as many ways as possible, in order to prevent encroachments on the rights of the people.

The essence of the Constitution is to say, to the people: you may do whatever you want, and government can only interfere with you insofar as it is executing of a small number of specifically defined powers. And to the government, it sends the opposite message: you cannot do whatever you want, but are limited in your powers. And in case you have any doubts about what these limits are, we the people have written down in this document what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do.

The left's view of the Constitution is to turn this on its head. The people are to be extensively regulated in every aspect of their lives—but as to the government, nothing should be interpreted as creating any additional limits on its powers.

Other commentators have already pointed out the concrete meaning of Lithwick's standard of constitutionality: that the legislature should take as much power as it can grab and wait until the Supreme Court slaps its down, on the theory that it's not a crime if you don't get caught. It is a legal theory of lawlessness.

On a deeper level, it is a theory of amorality. The root of limited government is the subordination of might to right, the idea that government coercion may only be used for specifically delimited purposes. This is what I call "the constitutional creed"—the idea that the Constitution serves as a guide to the only appropriate moral justifications for the use of government coercion. Yet the left's view, expressed by Lithwick and her colleagues in the mainstream media, is that government coercion can be used at whim, with the only limitation being what each branch of government thinks it can get away with in a continual power struggle with the other branches.

There is an old saying that "liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs." This is a constitutional theory of liberty for the wolves, a grant of unbridled power to those who want to wield force.

With less than a month before the election, we must remember that this is what is at stake: not just health care or the economy or anything so nebulous as "jobs." What is at stake is whether there are any limits on the power of the state. Lithwick has just given us a reminder of the fact that the left recognizes no such limits in theory, and the past two years have reminded us that the left sees no such limits in practice.—RWT

Kagan Could Endanger Our Beloved Constitution

Another liberal like Kagan on the Supreme Court is a danger to the Founding Principles of America. You should be afraid --very afraid.

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs." READ "Constituion is Endangered if Kagan OK'd" at IBS.

"Health Care Not In Constitution"

A good article at The Wall Street Journal. Our Constitution is what it is and no politicians can make us the people pretend to think that such a travesty as this "healthcare plan" can pass the test of being constitutional. We know it and you Mr. Politician know it as well.

The "living Constitution" that Democrats and their court appointees have given us may be the death of our freedoms. Their constitution adapts to the times and serves the whims of the elitists. The Constitution is supposed to limit government powers. It does not allow government to do anything it feels like doing.

Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is the author of "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever."

He writes glowingly of how President Franklin Roosevelt, unsatisfied with the Constitution the Founding Fathers wrote, proposed a Second Bill of Rights in a speech on Jan. 11, 1944.

One of the new "rights" FDR envisioned was "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." If health care were a right under the U.S. Constitution, FDR would not have had to propose it as one to be added.

Yet liberals believe it should be, and some believe it is. Feinstein, the senior senator from California, was asked Tuesday by CNSNews on what constitutional authority the Senate and House bills are authorized. She responded, as others have, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."

Maybe so, but it's a power that has been grossly abused and distorted beyond all meaning. The Commerce Clause was intended for the regulation of economic activity across state lines that involves the production distribution or consumption of commodities. One does not go to a doctor to engage in commercial activity. (READ at WSJ)

The Father of The US Constitution

"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
- James Madison, the fourth president of the United States and considered to be the "Father of the US Constitution"

I would add that all men in government should be forced to follow our Constitution. There is not one word about the President or congress taxing the people so that they can "create" jobs, hand out welfare checks, be in charge of Health Care or give out so called stimulus checks which is a naked attempt at buying votes. Our Founding Fathers tried to assure that we would have a LIMITED GOVERNMENT but they failed to the disgrace of the American people.

Madam Pelosi: Let's Talk Constitution

As Americans go through our Public School system, we are ever more and more relegating our Constitution to the back burner because our teachers and administrators are derelict in their duty to inform us of our history. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a document that would provide guidance for Americans regarding the protection of individual liberties. Written mostly by James Madison it is well worth our effort to read this document, understand it and then hold our politicians accountable when they try to diminish our liberties.

Listen as Pelosi squirms her way out of answering the all too infrequently asked question to politicians as to "where specifically does the Constitution grant congress the authority to enact an individual Health Insurance Mandate"? Pelosi's NON-answer and clearly she is squirming - is truly disgusting.

We Need a Great Leader to Lead Against the Greatest Assault on our Constitution Ever

With Republicans like McCain, Snow and now Lindsey Graham who needs the Republicans? Mr. Graham is now moving ever more left as he kow tows to "The Anointed" and Pelosi. What we need is a Founding Fathers Party - and we all need to read the Constitution! Un-American activities are happening before our eyes and the only watchdog we have is Glen Beck and the rest of the Fox News folks. But our scrappy revolutionaries of 1776 won against great odds - but then they did that because of their great leader - George Washington. We need a great man now to lead us out of this mistake of gigantic proportions that we've committed this country to with the election of a rabid socialist.

Politics: Move over, John McCain and Olympia Snowe. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is fast becoming the Democrats' favorite Republican as he partners with John Kerry to push cap-and-trade through the Senate.

Earlier this year, eight Republican congressmen made it possible for Waxman-Markey, the 1,400-page job- and economy-killing cap-and-trade legislation, to barely pass the House of Representatives. At the time it seemed dead on arrival in the Senate if it was brought up there this year.

Once again, as with their medical plan, the Democrats seek to better the odds by putting a GOP hood ornament on a Democratic clunker. On cap-and-trade, Olympia Snowe's role will be played by Graham as he partners with Kerry to commit the U.S. to the flawed science and disastrous economics of climate change. READ AT IBD

Are We At The Edge of The Fiscal Cliff?

It seems that the people, not just in America but around the world in places like Japan have had enough of loss of freedom, corruption and this sense of entitlement that politicians feel they have. It is time for the people to throw out the bums and find a better class of politicians that will uphold American values and our CONSTITUTION. This document is NOT just a piece of paper with a bunch of words that have no meaning today. The words have plenty of meaning especially today with the socialists trying to turn this country to the radical left, with race baiters trying to foment hatred among us and scummy crooks in Washington and at the state level living off of our hard work by taxing us to death!

Our Constitution Is The Law of The Land

Because our GOVERNMENT RUN Schools are so abysmal we do not know our Declaration of Independence or understand our Constitution. It's time we get acquainted with these two amazing and historic documents. Things are happening in the USA that leave no doubt now about where we have been headed for the past 80 years - Socialism.

Larry Elder writes: The New Deal, launched almost 80 years ago, represented a giant leap toward collectivism. But only in the last few weeks, as a result of President Barack Obama's New Deal Reloaded, have some 20 states rediscovered the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution sets forth the limited duties and obligations of the federal government.

The Founding Fathers designed a federal government that focuses primarily on national security, the rules of naturalization, and a handful of other matters. And the Ninth and 10th amendments to the Constitution leave all other rights and powers to the people and to the states, respectively.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, standing with members of his state Legislature, said: “The 10th Amendment was enacted by folks who remembered what it was like to have a very oppressive government — to be under the thumb of tyrants in an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, the protections it guarantees have melted away over the course of the years.”

During the early days of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Supreme Court actually ruled that the Constitution meant what it said and said what it meant...(Larry Elder at The Atlasphere).

Walter Williams writes: Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks.

He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war.

Today it’s the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George’s actions look mild in comparison.

Our constitutional ignorance — perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we’ve become a nation of wimps, sissies, and supplicants — has made us easy prey for Washington’s tyrannical forces.

But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans’ characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

There’s speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania...

The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: “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.” (READ)