Sonia Sotomayor vs the Second Amendment
It appears as though Sonia Sotomayor is no friend of the second amendment. Earlier this year she ruled that the second amendment of the bill of rights doesn’t guarantee that states have to abide by the constitution and that an individual does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state
As someone who believes that the federal government has become too strong and that more power needs to be returned to the states I can almost sympathize with this opinion. Almost. But there are certain rights that are guaranteed to the people of all states and the bill of rights was written to ensure that the rights of the people could not be taken away.
The fourteenth amendment of the constitutions states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Sonia Sotomayor conveniently forgot to read the fourteenth amendment of the constitution which basically states that a state cannot take away the rights of the people that are guaranteed in the constitution.
Her ruling also is in contrast to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Heller vs District of Columbia which ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right. She neglected to use Supreme Court precedent in her ruling.
Here is what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller vs DC:
The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”
“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Is it any wonder that the president is trying to rush Maria Sotomayor’ s confirmation process along? Thankfully Justice Souter was a dissenter in the Heller vs DC second amendment ruling or else we could be on the verge of losing an individuals right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision was 5-4. One vote in the other direction and the second amendment is gone.
Judge Sotomayor does not believe that owning firearms is an individual right. This is how close we are to losing the second amendment, not by constitutional amendment but by having it adjudicated from us.
We are only one Supreme Court justice away from losing the second amendment and Sonia Sotomayor typifies this president’s idea of an ideal Supreme Court justice. This president’s next appointment to the Supreme Court will hold the same beliefs as this one, we just have to hope that the next justice to retire will be either Stevens, Ginsburg, or Breyer. Otherwise the constitution will be null and void.
Today we learned a little something about the Democrats in the New Hampshire Senate; they don’t give a damn about the voters. By a 14-10 vote along strict party lines the Democrats blocked a bid to add a referendum question to the ballot in 2010 about gay marriage. The question was to be simply stated as to not be misleading, “should the Legislature amend New Hampshire law to permit two people of the same sex to be married to each other?” Yet the voters were denied to let their voices be heard at the ballot box.
The New Hampshire constitution does not allow binding referendum questions, this would have been non-binding. In other words a poll, a chance to gauge how the voters of New Hampshire feel. No harm would have been done no matter how the vote turned out and no matter which side of the issue that you are on.
There has been heated debate in New Hampshire on the issue and it was suggested that the issue be allowed to cool off until after the 2010 election when the people would have a chance to voice their position. This cooling off period would not have hurt gay couples in New Hampshire as the state’s civil union law gives gay couples equal marital rights.
Polls show the state deeply divided on the issue, somewhere around the 50-50 range. It seems like a non-binding question would have helped lawmakers decide where to go on this issue. There are only to scenarios that I can see for the reason why the state Democrats are opposed to letting the voters be heard.
One; the polls are being fudged to show stronger support for gay marriage then what actually exists in New Hampshire and the Democrats are feeling the pressure from the large amounts of special interest money that has been pouring into the state by gay activists. They are trying to drum up false support.
Or two; Democrats feel that the Republican party in the state is reeling and disorganized. They still feel that conservatives are still disgruntled enough to stay away from the ballot booths and they don’t want to do anything to change that. Perhaps they feel that if the gay marriage issue was on the ballot it would turn out conservatives and moderates who were planning on staying home, and that would in turn hurt the Democrats’ chances of re-election. including the governor’s chance of being re-elected.
No matter what the reason for their vote today, New Hampshire Democrats have shown us that they do not even care enough about how we feel to put the question on the ballot.
Note: For the latest news on this issue please read this post from 08/07.
There are some people in this administration that seem to be warming up to the idea of imposing a national sales tax on the American people to help us pay for the president’s “free” health-care plan. While it does seem to be a long shot at this point the idea is gaining momentum within the administration.
There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. “I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table
Unfortunately Senator Conrad is not alone, Budget Director Peter Orszag has hired an advocate for a 10% national sales tax to help advise him on health-care. The man that he hired just happens to be Rahm Emanuel’s brother.
Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book “Health Care, Guaranteed.
And if you still don’t believe that this idea is gaining momentum the president has hired Paul Volcker, also a sales tax advocate, as the chairman of the task force that is studying the tax code.
Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.
And still, here is what a director of the Tax Policy Center had to say about fleecing the American people every time they make a purchase.
Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we’re going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate
Notice how there is no mention of cutting any programs to help solve the deficit, only the idea of finding new revenues (taxes)? The idea of actually spending less money never even occurs to them; its always “how can we screw the taxpayers?” There is also no mention of this tax replacing another tax, it will be in addition to the taxes we already pay.
This is still a long shot to happen, and it probably wouldn’t happen until after the mid-term elections, but the fact that the talk is there and seems to be gaining momentum is still problematic to those of us who believe that we should be able to keep the money that we earn and not be forced to subsidize the health-care plans of people who do not have health-care in addition to paying for our own health-care. Not to mention the adverse effect this will have on the economy. The last thing that a slowing economy needs is another disincentive for people to spend money. This tax will further cramp an already stalled economy.
This is how these people operate, they float the idea and it seems like it will never go anywhere, but they never let up, they indoctrinate the people through aggressive campaigning and advertising and convince them that it is for the “common good.” Eventually they get what they want.
I think interest is quietly picking up,” Graetz said. “People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious
Once the mid-term elections are over we can expect to see this sales tax gain even more momentum as this president continues unprecedented deficit spending– the same type of spending that liberals railed against President Bush for. Only this president is spending at levels that have never been seen before.
As P.J. O’Rourke once said if you think that health-care is expensive now, wait until it is free. Now we are beginning to see how much this “free” health-care is going to cost. I still can’t believe that a majority of Americans really and truly believe in or want to pay higher taxes. I refuse to believe that. Once word of this type of oppressive taxes gets out there I have to believe there will be a revolt at the ballot boxes. By the time that the chance comes to vote the usurpers out it may be too late to reverse the damage that has been done.
Oh and if this idea ever does gain the momentum and is seriously considered and possibly even someday passed I just have one question. How will the president exempt that ninety five percent of Americans that he promised would see a tax cut? He won’t. He was never serious about cutting taxes on anybody. To quote a term that I heard once on a local radio station, he is a level three tax offender.
This is my second post in a row in which someone in the government speaks about changing people’s behavior. Both of these posts deal with different aspects of the same subject– global warming.
This time, instead of the government dictating that Americans need to change their eating behaviors we have an administration official claiming that we need to change our transportation behaviors. Here is what the Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, had to say:
He says he has joined a ‘transformational’ administration: ‘I think we can change people’s behavior
This is what the true goal of global warming is to these politicians, regulating people and their behaviors. I know that I keep saying the same thing over and over on this issue but it is too important not to.
But that was not all that Ray LaHood had to say on the subject.
It is a way to coerce people out of their cars
He continues that he likes the “the idea of creating opportunities for people to get out of their cars.” What he calls “opportunity” I call government intrusion. This administration seems hell bent on controlling various aspects of average Americans– from what they can eat to what they can drive.
The attack on the auto industry began in earnest with the government take over of GM and Chrysler and it isn’t going to let up. From telling automakers which cars they can produce to “coercing” people out of their cars; the global warming effort in Washington to control, regulate, and tax Americans is in high gear.
These people feel so emboldened now that they are not afraid to tell us what their agenda is any more, Ray LaHood’s comments are proof of that, if only people will listen. It is not time for the government to start changing the people’s behavior, it is time for us to start changing the government’s behavior.
How am I supposed to read this story and not write about it? I can’t, I have to write about it but I still can’t believe that this story is real. So what am I talking about? The first paragraph of the article that I linked to sums it all up.
GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment.
Is that the most ludicrous thing that you have ever read? Lamb burping poses a serious threat to the environment? Let me just explain something to these morons, lambs are part of nature; if they burp that is part of nature. Nature is not going to destroy nature. Nature adapts; it always has and it always will.
This is just so ridiculous that I can’t even believe I am wasting my time. But there is a more serious aspect to this story; the government wants to start convincing people that they have to start changing their eating habits. Besides lamb, the government wants people to stop eating tomatoes and drinking alcohol in order to save the planet. Tomatoes and alcohol are two of the more environmentally unfriendly items that a person can consume according to the Committee on Climate Change.
The climate committee is analysing emissions from farming and will suggest measures to reduce them. However, it has concluded that people will have to change their habits.
We are entering scary times. The government is really taking this hoax to a whole new level. To suggest that lambs burping has any kind of negative effect on the environment is asinine, there cannot be any person that truly believes this and if there are I pray that they are not of voting age.
The government is going to stop at nothing with the global warming scam; the end game is to gain control of the people and their behaviors. This is just more proof of the end game. People should read this story and say enough is enough. The global warming/climate change issue has jumped the shark. Speaking of sharks, what is their carbon footprint?
Today the president made his first nomination to the Supreme Court and he selected Justice Sonia Sotomayor. There really isn’t much to say about his choice, we all know where the president stands– he is the most liberal president in history– so we should expect that he would nominate liberal judges to the supreme court. It is to be expected.
I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know a whole lot about Sonia Sotomayor, but I do know one thing about her; her view on the role of justices. And it is this view that I have a major problem with. She has not pulled any punches on her view of what role the court is to play, below are her words on the issue.
“court of appeals is where policy is made, and I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
That sentence alone should disqualify her as a Supreme Court justice. The biggest problem that I have with justices is when they legislate from the bench, when they go from interpreting law to creating law. There is supposed to be a separation of powers, there is a branch of government to create laws and it isn’t the judicial branch. But here she is quoted as admitting that the court of appeals (which she served on) is where policy is created. But the second part of that statement is even more telling to me. If she was ignorant of the proper role of the courts that would be one thing, but she continues on (as if she had just remembered that she was being recorded) to say that she shouldn’t say on tape that the appeals courts create policy because the courts don’t do that. I don’t believe that she would ever have made the awkward backtrack on her initial statement if she didn’t remember that she was being recorded. She meant what she said about the role of the appeals courts.
This is an admission that she knows the courts are not supposed to create laws; a clear attempt to backtrack on her first statement. As if she realized that she made a mistake by her admission. To me this is more egregious; if she knows that the courts are not supposed to create policy but she does it anyway because she feels it is more fair than what the constitution lays out for the role of judges she has no business serving on the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter.
It is no secret that there are many judges that legislate from the bench instead of keeping themselves confined to their proper role, but it is rare if ever that a judge has admitted to creating policy. This is s a brazen flaunting of her judicial philosophy, she knows that it is not the role of the courts to create policy but still she admits that she is doing it anyway. If she is willing to admit that she will overstep the courts boundaries how far will she go in implementing her radical belief on the role of the court?
In the end this one appointee will not change the make up of the court but it provides us with clear insight of the type of judges that this president will appoint to the Supreme Court. He will be looking at justices who do not feel bound or constrained by the constitution. And that is what I worry about most with his potential future nominees as well.
She will probably breeze through her confirmation hearings and this will embolden the president even more when his next nominee to the Supreme Court is made. The senate needs to pressure her on her belief of the role of the courts, she cannot be given a free pass on this issue just because conservatives are afraid to look mean. This is a legitimate concern and needs to be brought to light.
EPA Admits That Obama’s Cap and Trade Proposal Will Hurt Manufacturing and Send Jobs Overseas
In an economic recession when thousands of Americans are losing their jobs on a seemingly daily basis the last thing that the American people need are government rules and regulations passed that will guarantee that even more Americans will lose jobs. But that is precisely what the president’s cap and trade proposal will do.
In addition to the price of energy skyrocketing under this president’s cap and trade proposal now we learn that there will be less work also as companies head overseas where they are not over-regulated by an over-reaching government.
Wasn’t it this current president who claimed during the campaign a disdain for companies who took their work overseas? Now he is proposing legislation that would ensure companies do just that.
I have long said that cap and trade, and the issue of global warming, is being used to raise taxes and to regulate the people, but perhaps there is even more to this scam than that. Perhaps this fake issue is also a way to get more people dependent on the government. Perhaps it is designed to take away jobs from the private sector so that more people will rely on their government to provide for them their necessities.
This bill is a disaster waiting to happen, we need somebody to step up and put an end to this nonsense. There is nothing good that will come out of this bill, in fact just the opposite is true. We are headed backwards in this country. Now is the time to stand up and put the breaks on this legislation. Hopefully there are still enough people in congress who realize that America can not afford this type of legislation.
Memorial Day Videos
Thank you.
I understand that when we are speaking in terms of trillions of dollars that a mere $68 million is really just a drop in the bucket. But that is how much money it will take to renovate two private parking garages that the United States House of Representatives use. As this article points out that is equal to over $150,000 per congressman for an improved parking space. The house will be voting soon on appropriating this money.
It seems to me that when the president proposed his $100 million in budget cuts (also a drop in the bucket that totaled only .007% of the budget) that this idea could have been scrapped as well. How can the congress justify renovations to their parking lot for that price tag when there are many other good uses for that money? Cutting taxes and giving the money back to the people to spend and stimulate the economy sounds like a good plan to me. Unfortunately this president thinks that he can spend our money more wisely than we can and does not understand the concept that if people have more money they will spend more and this will help the economy. Sorry, I got off topic; back to the issue.
This is exactly the type of wasteful spending that needs to be done away with, especially in the recession that has only deepened under the influence of this president’s economic policies.
When every day thousands of Americans are losing their jobs how can these people even have the balls to debate and complain about the fact that their private parking garages aren’t nice enough?
If these people care about the American people at all, (scratch that last statement, there is not one of them that gives a damn about the American people), or even just the way they are perceived, then they will vote this bill down. If they do not vote this down then we must remember and vote them down in 2010.
Lying
Yesterday Nancy Pelosi made her smartest decision when it comes to the CIA and waterboarding since we learned that she knew about and was okay with the CIA waterboarding terrorists– she said nothing. She finally shut up.
I have made the statement that I’m going to make on this,” she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. “I don’t have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment
But while she finally stopped running her mouth she did say that she stands by her comment that the CIA misled her and other members of congress. Her newly found silence doesn’t answer the nagging question that must be asked and still needs to be answered. Why is she and her fellow Democrats against investigating the CIA? If the CIA truly lied to Nancy Pelosi and other members of congress that means the CIA committed a crime and the Democrats should be gung ho on the idea of investigating the CIA for an alleged crime against congress.
After all this would be their chance to finally nail the Bush administration. This is something that the far left has been waiting for and this should be the perfect opportunity. Yet congress has decided not to investigate the CIA. They should be livid that the CIA lied to them in order to justify the illegal torture of people if that is indeed what happened.
Obviously that is not what happened or there would be a full court press put on to bring these people before congress and make them testify on the issue of torture and the accusations of lying. The only one who has been lying is Nancy Pelosi. When she held her press conference and told the whole country that she was misled by the CIA she was lying. She needed to take the heat off of herself and in doing so she libeled the CIA. Now Democrats are in full retreat on the issue of investigating the CIA and it is because they know what will be uncovered of they do. Congress knew about waterboarding all along and they approved of it.
They should be proud of that decision, it was the right thing to do but they have spent so many years bashing the Bush administration over this that they have to pretend that they can claim the moral high ground when in truth they were right there in the swamp the whole time.
But now the truth has come out and this all started because of the current president’s stupidity in releasing a few selected documents that he thought would hurt the Bush administration. It has come back to bite his own party.
Nancy Pelosi levied some serious charges against the CIA and I want a full investigation. The people deserve it. If the CIA lied to congress than they need to be punished, if Nancy Pelosi lied about the CIA she needs to be exposed.
Congress found the time to hold hearings on steroid use in baseball and more recently congress had time to hold hearings on whether college football should have playoff series, but now when they hear accusations that they were lied to about possible torture they don’t have the time? Isn’t possible human rights violations a much more important issue?
I think their unwillingness to investigate Nancy Pelosi’s claims tell us all that we need to know; the CIA did not lie to congress but Nancy Pelosi lied to the American people. Congress knows who knew what, and they know when it was known. They just don’t want us to know that they all knew.
Nancy Pelosi owes the CIA an apology, she then needs to resign.
