Wicked Commentary

Posts tagged ‘habeas corpus’

Do States Have The Right To Secede?

Editorial by: Dave Taylor

Supreme Court Judge Scalia believes they do not due to the outcome of our civil war. In a letter he wrote in 2006 to a screen play writer that was working on a farce story of Maine seceding Scalia wrote:

“I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit…”.

 I vehemently disagree with Judge Scalia on this issue and frankly find the reasoning for his conclusion without basis. These are my reasons for my conclusion states are granted the right to secede from the union.

The only thing the civil war resolved was the north won the war; period. Using Judge Scalia’s reasoning; what would be resolved, if the south had won the civil war? Slavery was abolished due to the north winning, so would slavery still be legal had the south won? Apparently so using Judge Scalia’s reasoning. His reasoning goes right along the lines of “to the winner go the spoils”. 

I do not believe anyone should be enslaved and simply winning a war does not make something right, but if the south had won (using Judge Scalia’s reasoning) slavery may be alive and well this very day.  And Lincoln had made seceding unlawful during the Civil War thus going around the Constitution. He also suspended habeas corpus which is against the Constitution.

Also; individual states freely created the union and it was not done by force. Creating a union of free will in return gives a party the right to freely leave the union. At the time the union was created; the people all had a common goal and with greater numbers common goals more easily attained. Would a union been freely created, if the individual states broadly disagreed on goals? I believe the no-brainer answer to that question is no.

There’s also the matter of our Constitutional rights that disagree with Judge Scalia. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Tenth Amendment confirms its federal characteristics. The term “federalism” is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). The Tenth Amendment (which is part of the Bill of Rights) states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people. The tenth amendment 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.” Nowhere in our Constitution is the right granted to the government to force states into staying in the union. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right for states to secede from the union labeled unlawful or unconstitutional. The tenth amendment was written to push back against unconstitutional federal laws and regulations on a state level. The principle is known as “nullification,” and was advised by many prominent founders.

Next we have the issue of the Declaration of Independence. Here is a portion of the preamble:

“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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”.

I believe very strongly I’ve provided sufficient information that makes my opinion correct and Judge Scalia’s totally incorrect. Our founders fought off a corrupt, tyrannical government and threw them out. They did this to give us the freedom’s and right’s our great nation was founded upon. Many of these rights afforded to us by the hero’s of our Revolutionary War are under attack and we once again are facing a corrupt, tyrannical government. The only questions now left in my mind are “have we learned from our history and what is the best approach to exercise our constitutional rights?”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/there-is-no-right-to-secede-see-the-letter-where-justice-scalia-shoots-down-idea-of-leaving-the-union/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_Constitution

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Advertisements

Executive Orders by Dave Taylor, Contributing Writer

George Washington used the first Executive Order after only three months in office.  Every single president since then used EOs.  By the time Lincoln was president during 1862,  13,000 were issued. Those were not numbered.

President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by an EO.  So how did United States Presidents get the power to issue an EO and bypass congress and carry the same legal weight as laws passed by congress?

Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution grants this authority to Presidents.  Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  EOs run completely against the general logic of the Constitution that no one should have power to act unilaterally.  However, those who wrote the Constitution gave the president this power. Am I the only one confused?  Was this set up to fail from the beginning? Where in the world did our Founders find the faith to believe Presidents would not abuse this power?

Many important policy changes occurred through EOs.  President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools.  Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting.  President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. Then years later President Clinton reversed this order when he was in office.  Is anyone else thinking our Founders should have thought this one through a little better?

If Congress does not like an EO, it has two main options.  First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act.  Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority is often required to override an EO. Huh? This is the truth, but it sure doesn’t make sense to me.

EOs can also be challenged in court on the basis it deviates from congressional intent or exceeds the President’s powers.  History shows the Supreme Court has been very tolerant of a range of EOs.  Oh goody.  We see how well that checks and balance has worked out!  We all just learned that Obamacare is Constitutional because the SCOTUS said so.  Well, actually four communist said it was in its submitted form and then Chief Justice Traitor rewrote it for congress, so he could vote it Constitutional.

I’m sure the brilliant men who wrote our Constitution had nothing but the best intention by giving Presidents the power of EOs.   I just wish they remembered power always corrupts.  Someone with that power will push their personal agenda.  Our Republic and history proves they get away with it almost every single time using EOs.  I believe it’s time to revisit that part of our Constitution and give it a much more narrow scope of power and clear-cut definition.  I wish that could be accomplished before this November’s election.

Government Gone Wild

There have been warnings for over a decade that Americans may become targets under laws for terrorists.

I believe this may be a dramatization of things possible to come.

The Senate is about to move on a law (either today as it would already be done) or sometime this week that would include American citizens to be arrested by the military for “suspected” terrorism.

Might I add that these arrests would occur without a warrant/charge and no trial.

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

This bill was secretly drafted by Senators Carl Levin D and John McCain R  and then be passed behind  closed door committee hearing without any input on it.   The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

These 3 senators need to GO!  At least McCain is retiring next term, but the other 2 need to be thrown out of the Senate.  We don’t need whack jobs like these in the Senate.   These 3 have done enough damage already.

Are those 3 senators above made in China?  How many more of these goons are there to be ousted for their unconstitutional ideas and implementations?

“I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil

This gives the military free reign to arrest people in the US if the military thinks it is necessary, it breaks precedent over the history of the US that the military does not do law enforcement. When the military arrests you they have to afford you the same rights as any citizen under the Constitution. You do have to prove you are a citizen. You will also have to deal with the military judicial system,  military rules and military practices of incarceration and questioning. You will also have to deal with where the military may incarcerate you.

“Let me make this perfectly clear.  Go to jail, you have no get out of jail card.  No you don’t get a lawyer, no you are not innocent until I say so.  Trial?  What is that?  Let me get one of my drone’s out for your pleasure. You’ll never know what hit ya.”

Being part of Homeland Insecurity I have some grave doubts about the kinds of things that could occur.  There is no reason to detain a 90 year old woman dying from cancer to examine her diapers as there is no reason to “grope” a 6 year old girl. The mother of that child who refused the groping ended up in jail.  Where have our rights gone?

Is Janet instructing her Homeland Insecurity goons on how to grope people?  I hope to never be in her clutches with that lecherous face.  UGH!!

Has the government gone wild or is there paranoia going on here?  Maybe the Gunny can be more helpful with this in explaining to us what all of this means as Gunny has information that many of us do not.  But, it is worrying me.

We all realize the government is now reading our email, reading our blogs, they can see through our houses with their newest electronic devices.  They have GPS on each of our houses.  How much more can the government do to us to keep watch over its’ own citizens rather than find a better way to find terrorists, not innocent Americans.  I’m for using the Israeli method of behavioral profiling.  It seems much more effective and does not take away our rights to privacy as citizens.

Who Me?  Worried? How many rights do I have left? How many are gone? Am I still living in the country I was born in, the United States of America? Or am I dreaming I’m in the USSR under Stalin?  Help!!

Meanwhile on the economy there were record sales on Black Friday. As reported by Judge Napolitano tonight this incident happened to a grand father trying to buy a toy for his grand son in a Walmart in Phoenix, AZ.

Judge Napolitano on Fox Business Channel at 8pm has been reporting police bruatality issues every night.  Some police have become lawless.  I blame this as coming from the head of the snake at the head of the law of this land.  Not all cops are engaging in this kind of behavior but the stories are becoming numerous and alarming.

In the above story the police say he was shoplifting and sustained the injuries because he resisted arrest and became aggressive after being found with a video game down his pants.

But Mr Newman’s tearful eight-year-old grandson, Nick, has spoken out to defend his grandfather to ABC News, saying: ‘I only got one game and people were trying to take it away from me and put it under his shirt so no one would take it. ‘Never go there on Black Friday, because if you go, you will get hurt,’ the boy said about his local Wal-Mart.

On The Five tonight at 5pm, this situation was discussed and Dana Perino stated that she twittered she did not know what could make her go to one of these black Friday sales.  She received over 700 tweets by parents who told her she does not have financial worries so she doesn’t have to fight to buy something for Christmas for her children. Dana stated this after Bob Beckel claimed all these shoppers were out due to the “Obama recovery”.   Yeah, right Beckel!  These people are hurting for money more than ever and went to these knock down drag out sales so they could get toys for their kids for Christmas. It would not be my way of making sure my grand children got presents but for some people it is. Who am I to judge them?

SOPA – which  stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act, this past weekend the government seized over 100 domain names that it deems are places where piracy occurs.  Is this dangerous?  Should the government have this kind of control?  Will this eventually mean that SOPA can target sites it does not like what they are saying politically?  The bill is written so widely and so openly that one could interpret it for other reasons than protection for Gucci and Pravda knockoffs.  Fears are that sites the government does not like in regard to political speech could become black listed also.  That could mean you and me sometime in the future. I can’t say I personally have much trust in anyone in DC anymore. I don’t see these people looking out for our interests but only for their own demented or financial reasons.

This is one place for which I don’t want our plentiful duct tape used.  The Hawk uses it for everything as do I, but never over our mouths to shut down free speech, even within our marital bliss debates (or they could be called arguments).  What right has the government to do this?

References:  http://www.infowars.com/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066554/Black-Friday-sales-2011-Story-body-slammed-grandfather-Jerald-Newman.html#ixzz1f3xRy5sq

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-16/tech/30404716_1_sopa-internet-freedom-innovators

%d bloggers like this: