Did the Supreme Court get it wrong..?
Today the U.S. Supreme Court released some more of its rulings. This week it just happened to be Arizona – and the state’s immigration law that states everyone who wants to vote must have some proof of his or her U.S. citizenship before electing to do so.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states could not, on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
Fundamentally with all research still being sourced – we have a rather unique problem with this type ruling. First notice that it was a “voter-approved requirement” which still leaves the IX Amendment something that consequently is basically unknown to most Americans. The Ninth Amendment is referred to as a construction amendment. Basically meaning that Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.
Therefore, without further adieu here is what the 9th (Ninth) Amendment is saying:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.
“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.
This is a clear and unobstructed view of how special interests groups collude with the federal government in matters of their wanting. Notice that it states Nina Perales, “…Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.
We are sure that she is referring to the other forms of identification warranted by the before mentioned “Motor Voter” voter registration law. Therefore, for those interested we now move to the X (Tenth) Amendment which states:
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.
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.
The past decade or so has seen a widespread increase in legislation addressing voting procedures, often taking the form of laws imposing voter identification requirements. Although many states now have their own laws addressing voting procedures and ID requirements, at the federal level the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, was passed in 2002 in response to some of the controversial issues that arose during the 2000 presidential elections.
Under HAVA, individuals who are registering to vote must provide their current valid driver’s license number, if they have one. If they do not have one, then they must provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number (SSN). If they do not have either of these forms of identification, then they will have to provide proof of identity at the polling booth when they go to vote.
Last, but not least, voters should be aware that even if they fail to provide proof of identity at the polling booth, they must still be allowed to vote under HAVA. However, their votes will be considered provisional, and will not be counted in the results unless the voter’s identity is confirmed in a timely manner. Additionally, every voter is entitled to know if his or her vote was counted or not. The law facilitates this by requiring each state to develop a system whereby provisional voters may access, for free, information as to the status of their provisional vote.
“We wonder why institutions in this country – the perceptions of institutions – are failing: because people go on TV and make stuff up. .. There are a number of people that believe the real unemployment report is somewhere in a safe…” between the school transcripts, birth certificate, and Indo-Africa. And if you don’t mind this is a huge problem that we have with the media and press in our country.
No! This is not a freedom of speech argument whatsoever. This is a debate which is really pointing fingers at those with networks, moreover, those in the White House that would arbitrarily take a document and without checking it at all, assumes the data is correct and announces it to everyone imaginable.
So I mean to digress for a moment – the perception of institutions, networks, media outlets in general are not any better than “Norm Peterson or “Sammy Malone with “Woody Boyd” behind the bar at Cheers! espousing rubbish about what is going on. Only I am more inclined to believe Norm, Sam, and Woody.
The world had fallen prey to a cartoonist hoax. This media-crafted Iron Man has proven a mere mortal, a tin man, and an international embarrassment. We on the one part want to say…”Okay the show is over, now run along kids and be careful what you read.”
During the internationally televised debates, Mitt Romney stripped away the costume and exposed, naked beneath, a man more closely resembling Robert Downey Jr.
Recall the image, so often seen, of a young Robert, head downcast in shame, standing before the judge to rationalize why, yet again, he’d screwed up magnificently. Wednesday night was Barack’s turn.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Robert Downey Jr., – I’m glad he turned his life around. But he’s an actor. He reads his lines. He’s not Iron Man. And he’s not qualified to be president. The important issue is that Mr. Downey will readily admit this notion.
Neither is Barack Obama; however, he will not accept he’s not ready for prime time and continually does stuff that only solidifies the point further.
It got worse. (Are you thinking Murphy?)
Just two days prior, the U.S. Supreme Court revived hope – long thought dead – that Obamacare, the president’s signature achievement, might yet be ruled unconstitutional. The High Court shocked the legal community by opening its new term with an order giving the Obama Justice Department just 30 days to respond to Liberty Counsel’s petition for rehearing. Liberty Counsel filed the petition on behalf of Liberty University and two private individuals.
An appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act, or AIA, barred the court from addressing the merits in Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, which challenged the individual mandate (Section 1501) and the employer insurance mandate (Section 1513) of Obamacare.
In addition to the constitutional arguments that Congress lacked authority to pass the law, the suit also raised the Free Exercise of religion claim because of the forced taxpayer funding of abortion.
You may recall that the first day of oral argument was dedicated to the AIA, the issue that Liberty University’s case placed before the High Court. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to Obamacare. Therefore, Liberty Counsel asked the Court to grant the petition (because Liberty University prevailed on the AIA claim), vacate the Court of Appeals ruling and remand (send back) the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the Free Exercise claim and the employer mandate, neither of which were decided by the High Court.
Long story short: If the Supreme Court ultimately hears the case on appeal – which is highly possible as the claims are unique – and rules that the employer mandate and Free Exercise claims are legit, Obamacare dies on the vine. It’s effectively overturned. It’s like a shiny new Chevy Volt without the exploding battery. It goes nowhere fast and is towed to the junkyard of really, really stupid ideas.
It has become overwhelming obvious to us here at The Reflective, Critical, or Contemplative Thinker that there is quite a bit more corruption going on within the hallowed halls of both the House of Representatives building, the Senate building, as well as The White House. Even thinking that these player’s are getting paid is one matter; however, how they continue to play with our money is an altogether different matter completely.
We’ve entered into the worst realm of skullduggery and corruption ever known to us and it doesn’t seem to have any point of cessation. In essence people what I am making reference to is how various factions within our own government will bend, twist, uproot, and destroy legislated laws on a whim and do so under the guise or dimwitted excuse such as a civil rights violation or invasion of privacy.
And at the epitome of their egos they will have the gall to elude to the notion of racial profiling, discrimination against various racial groups, or the classic standard disenfranchisement. Furthermore, it comes as no surprise to us whatsoever that these factions will behave and do what it is that they want regardless of law, treaty, provision, or anything else that would attempt to stop or even delay them from their corruption. And this writer doesn’t care if he goes away on a contempt charge or for saying something bad about an elected official.
We’ve got a president – a self-proclaimed Constitution scholar who will desecrate the very laws he has volunteered and given his oath to uphold. This egomaniac is issuing executive privilege in matters that are well outside the purview of his domain. This egregious person is skirting the laws, Congress, and the Supreme Court whilst misspeaking (telling lies) to you and me with reckless disregard.
As we consider the carnage and corruption that this person has caused, the least possible return on everything that he has enacted or tried to have stopped, it gets to the point of doesn’t anyone see what he’s doing to our nation?
Then again after reviewing the Inter-Scholastic Institutes data on various citizenry checks as well as the Pew Research Center’s “Quizzes” section that features how much or little we actually know about Religion, Media/News, Couples, or Internet savvy, I begin to lose hope; furthermore, when I am watching a television news program and they have a roving reporter out asking questions on the street say about the Founding Fathers, who did America receive her independence from, and the grand kicker of them all, Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb and those asked don’t know, well, it really gets me to thinking.
We are going to write a brief expose on the REAL ID Act that coverage that will take approximately two or three days and therefore articles.
This Act was signed into law in January 2005 and delayed; and since 2009 we wonder if it will ever be enacted or if these rogue factions are going to say, doing such will disenfranchise the people.
We are here to purport that if this law wasn’t completely rigged (FUBAR’ed) the current discussions regarding protecting the one true meaningful act left in America – voting – and thus requiring all those who intend on voting in the general election come November to have a picture identification card wouldn’t even be necessary.
The separation of powers helps to ensure good government at the same time it guards against tyranny. Independent in function but coordinated in the pursuit of justice, the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—must each have enough power to resist the encroachment of the others, and yet not so much that the liberty of the people is lost.
How many times does it appear that those congressional officials who we elected seem to be more interested in matters that don’t concern us in the least? When you are feeling neglected or your government is not responding the way that it should – look around if only for an instant – and in most cases it will be either protection from the potential encroachments of the other branches, or in the House of Representatives it very well could be other members of your party or another party creating factions within the same house.
This institutional design allows the sovereign people to observe and to know which branch is responsible for which actions in order to hold each to account. The sense of mutual responsibility built into the separation of powers is a reflection of the moral and civic responsibility all Americans share.
As for us, the sooner that Americans begin to take hold – firmly of their rights, responsibilities, and giving back – indeed more than we are taking into account, the shaky and undetermined future of America rests with those who involve themselves in all aspects self-government.
In the American regime, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” No one branch is superior to it; all three branches have a duty to abide by it. While each of the three branches plays a unique role in the passage, execution, and interpretation of laws, all of the branches must work together in the governing process. Therefore, with the former House Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi saying that the Houses’ agenda for the forthcoming elections and thereafter is going to be “a commitment in altering the U.S. Constitution” people from her district should take considerable notice.
The defining characteristic of the executive is “energy.” The president can act swiftly and decisively to deal with foreign threats and to enforce the law and can also provide a check on legislative tyranny through the veto.
With careful cultivation of one’s soul, attention to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and the uplifting assistance of family, church, and the local community, an individual is able to tame base passions and live worthy of the blessings of liberty. Virtue is vital to good government. However, how do you feel about the quickness of response of our President Obama?
Among the greatest of blessings—and the most important of rights—is religious liberty. Rejecting the low standard of mere “toleration” that existed elsewhere, the Founders enshrined liberty of conscience as a matter of right. It is immoral, they held, for any government to coerce religious belief. Yet they also argued that it is advisable for governments to recognize their reliance upon “Divine Providence,” and to provide for the support and encouragement of religion.
The government of the United States (or any of the fifty states) is not a church, and the church is not a governmental entity. This institutional separation, a clear statement of which is in the First Amendment, is a boon to both religion and politics, for instead of tying man’s religious fate to the future of the state, the establishment of religious liberty frees up religion so that it might flourish. This important point is missed by the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation, repeated numerous times since 1947, of Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
So many times during the year we get asked, “What can we do?” with reference to the goings on within our government. The plea’s heard from the people who read this site at times, can be devastating. Collectively the notion comes forth that “…we don’t want this…or….we do want that…” what can I do? For the life of me I’ve always advocated that the individual get in touch — either by letter, email, or in person — with the elected officials of their congressional district.
How do I know what congressional district I’m in — get the applause for the most oft asked question. Everyone’s congressional district is listed in the telephone book — normally in the blue government sheets. Although one may just as easily check with their postal service, or when online the possibilities are endless starting with Thomas.gov, or even a quicker way is to go to the House of Representatives or Senators pages and simply pick the one’s who represent you.
Yet by far we have found that our readers (some, a few, very little) do not have a handle or grasp on what makes the American government so unique; therefore, we have taken the liberty with our sources to do just that — explain how the government works.
A political regime has three dimensions: the ruling institutions, the rulers, and the way of life of the people. In America, the rulers—the people themselves—and their ruling institutions—staffed by the people’s representatives—aim at securing the Creator-endowed natural rights of all citizens. The Framers did this in two ways. “Vertically” considered, our ruling institutions are defined by federalism, or the division of power between the national, state, and local governments. “Horizontally” considered, the ruling institutions of the federal government itself are separated and co-equal. (See diagram on right.)
In the American regime, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” No one branch is superior to it; all three branches have a duty to abide by it. While each of the three branches plays a unique role in the passage, execution, and interpretation of laws, all of the branches must work together in the governing process.
The legislative branch is closest to the people. It is also the branch in which the danger of majority tyranny lurks. The passions of the people are reflected most in the House of Representatives, where the members are elected for terms of two years. The Senate, with its six year terms, was designed to be a more stable legislative presence than the House.
The defining characteristic of the executive is “energy.” The president can act swiftly and decisively to deal with foreign threats and to enforce the law, and can also provide a check on legislative tyranny through the veto.
Members of the judiciary, the third branch of government, must exercise judgment in particular cases to secure individual rights. Through “judicial review,” the judiciary is given the authority to strike down laws that are contrary to the Constitution. But judicial review is not judicial supremacy; even the Supreme Court must rely upon the other branches once it has rendered judgment.
The checks that each branch can exercise against the encroachment of the others ultimately protect the liberties of the people.
Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about on this blog – the victim, feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, corruption, discrimination and all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic and it still gets worse.
As we are sure you are aware there is a real concerted effort going on lately of worldwide attacks on Christian icons. Congress and the Administration must take more steps to protect religious freedom around the world, said a member of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace. This notion is well-received by our staff but the rules apply here as they do anywhere and they are simply this –
That matters that come under siege within the confines of the United States are always treated first and foremost. And our research has indicated that there is plenty of seizing going on right here in our own country, and whilst the government is part and party to some of it, we nonetheless feel the need to make all of us aware.
“Religious freedom is not solely freedom from coercion in matters of personal faith; it is also freedom to practice the faith individually and communally, in private and public,” said Bishop Ramirez. “Freedom of religion extends beyond freedom of worship. It includes the freedom of the Church and religious organizations to provide education, health and other social services, as well as to allow religiously-motivated individuals and communities to participate in public policy debates and thus contribute to the common good.”
Unfortunately, recent events tragically show that religious freedom is under attack in many countries around the world. A Pew study showed that Christians, more than any other religious group, face some form of either governmental or societal harassment in 133 countries.
Tolerance of anti-Christian attitudes in the United States is escalating. Recently, a woman in Houston, Texas was ordered by local police to stop handing out gospel tracts to children who knocked on her door during Halloween. Officers informed her that such activity is illegal (not true), and that she would be arrested if she continued.
In Madison, Wisconsin, the Freedom from Religion Foundation distributes anti-Christian pamphlets to public school children entitled, “We Can Be Good without God.”
The entertainment industry and syndicated media increasingly vilify Christians as sewer rats, vultures, and simple-minded social ingrates. The FBI and the Obama White House brand fundamentalist Christian groups as hate mongers and potential terrorists.
Even a casual observance of the facts reveals growing isolation of Christians as a people group, especially school age believers. Faculty and peer efforts to convince public school children that America was not founded on Christian ideals, and that our forefathers actually wanted a secular society, permeates public school interaction. History revisionists labor to eliminate any and all contradictory historical evidence from public school curriculum, and mockingly stereotype Christians as unenlightened fringe.
Is the Fabian process of gradualism taking modern America down a similar path? Perhaps. For the past five decades Americans have allowed the liberal Left to defend the use of public funds for pornography, explicit sex education, and anti-Christian curricula. The Hollywood elite have denigrated Christian values and mocked the virtues of purity. The highest courts in the land have ruled with contemptuous decree against God, against prayer, and against the free expression of religion. Is it any wonder we have become the most profane and violent society in the industrialized world?
Furthermore, U.S. soldiers assigned to Camp Marmal in northern Afghanistan said the removal of a cross from an Army chapel has created a “huge controversy” and at least one soldier called it a “direct attack against Christianity and Judaism.”
We have covered the brouhaha over individual crosses in the State of Utah—please see this link by clicking here. In addition we have covered America, European and Christian Origins (please click here) as well as The Two Clauses placed at Mutual Tension which can be found on the same page as the other articles mentioned in this paragraph (Page 3).
The following key issues have emerged in the legal briefs recently filed in the cases stemming from Obama’s signature and most controversial domestic achievement that involved the biggest reform of the healthcare system in nearly 50 years:
INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE MANDATE
The most important issue involved whether the Congress exceeded its power by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The law aims to provide more than 30 million uninsured Americans with coverage. That alone is wonderful; but how is the federal government first “allowed” to dictate who and what insurance to purchase and who the hell does this central government think they are to attach “paying penalties?”
The Obama administration in its Supreme Court appeal argued that Congress could enact this provision, called the individual mandate, under its powers in the U.S. Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. The mandate is due to take effect in 2014. We are having real difficulty with Congress regulating what humans do with commerce and orders upon their monies.
Congress adopted the law to address a national crisis of health insurance costs rising beyond the reach of millions of Americans and coverage denied to millions more, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, a former White House lawyer, said in a brief.
Opponents of the law, including 26 of the 50 states, argued that Congress exceeded its powers. They said the law dramatically expanded the federal government’s power and argued that the provision should be struck down as unconstitutional.We agree.
Former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the states, called the law “an unprecedented legislative initiative” that seeks “to force individuals to engage in commerce so that the federal government may regulate them.”
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST OF THE LAW?
In a broader issue, the states and the National Federation of Independent Business – a lobbying group for small businesses — said the entire healthcare law must fall if the mandate is declared unconstitutional.
The federation and states contend that the individual mandate is at the heart of the law, a carefully crafted compromise, and new insurance regulations and other provisions cannot survive on their own.
The administration disagreed. It said it would be wrong to strike down all other provisions of the law, especially those unrelated to the mandate, such as the requirement that insurers provide coverage for young adults. Now, upon reading this section, what is the argument?
The administration said a few key provisions, including one that will bar insurers from refusing to issue coverage to a person because of a pre-existing medical condition, could not be separated from the mandate.
EXPANSION OF MEDICAID ON THE STATES
The states also challenged the expansion of Medicaid, a federal-state partnership that provides health care to poor Americans. They argued that Congress unconstitutionally forced the expansion on the states by threatening to withhold billions of dollars in funds from states that refuse to cooperate. This was referred to as “Behind closed door meetings.”
The administration said the provision expanding Medicaid eligibility to cover individuals with income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to set the terms in appropriating federal funds. Actually this is far more reminiscent of a circle jerk insofar as it’s taxpayer funds that support Medicade.
MUST THE PENALTY BE IMPOSED FIRST?
The Obama administration and some opponents of the law asked the court to address whether lawsuits challenging the mandate are barred because the penalty for not obtaining individual insurance has yet to be imposed. Is punitive action even warranted, we ask?
At issue is a federal law aimed at preventing lawsuits from tying up tax collection and whether the challenges can only be decided after taxpayers actually begin paying the penalty for not purchasing insurance. As for us, this entire “ownership” exemplifies the federal government’s unwarranted role in American lives.
The administration said the law, the Anti-Injunction Act, did not require dismissal of the challenges to the mandate. But the administration said the Supreme Court should consider the issue and consider appointing a lawyer to make that argument. Like some Justice Department lawyer and at who’s expense?
ARGUMENTS LIKELY IN MARCH
The Supreme Court next month is expected to consider the various appeals, to officially agree to take up the law, and it could clarify the issues to be decided.
Legal experts said it was impossible to predict how the court might rule. A decision by the nine-member court, closely divided with five conservatives and four liberals, could come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote, they said.
The Supreme Court cases are Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Obama, No. 11-117; National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400; Virginia v. Sebelius, No. 11-420; and Liberty University v. Geithner, No. 11-438.
I would really love to take credit for this wonderful piece of journalism, yet, I can’t. Yes, once again over at one of my all time fave’s, “American Thinker” Rick Moran has written a beautiful piece and of course, he collaborated with some others, as well all do.
For me, it’s only been a matter of time. Just as Justice Anthony Kennedy, whilst writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” Who couldn’t agree with that notion?
Yet, with all due respect Justice Kennedy, the writer’s of the document never intended it to be a ‘static document’ immune to change. Many scholars and constitutional experts believe that the document was written with the intention for allowing wide open spaces for compromise. And quite openly, the Court as retentive as it is did not take this into consideration. However, isn’t that how attorney’s and the judicial system make money?
In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.
The Supreme Court has all but said that the US is not at war with anyone, that the detainees at Gitmo are just like any other foreigners who come to the US to see the sights. Perhaps we can get them all in a bus and have them visit the Supreme Court building. I am sure they would wish to thank the justices personally.
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Approximately 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. (Yet, they’re living better than if they were at home!)
One issue is very clear to me: This is every bit as much a ‘political ruling’ as any in history. Moreover, this is a military matter and as such should be treated with full military protocol.
This is from a response and quite a good one at that:
“Now I’m really confused. The Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo detainees were entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention – essentially conferring POW status on them. Now they’re ruling that Habeus Corpus also applies, seemingly ruling that detainees are actually criminal defendants. I honestly don’t know – can these two conditions exist without a logical contradiction?”
Yet, by far this one gets the “Unofficial Oversight Committee’s” Golden Gavel Award for this week:
“Oh, by the way, good reading in this case is Article I, Section 9, and Clause 2 of the Constitution; Habeus Corpus does not apply to terrorists.”