“What kind of politicians complain about truthful revelations of unconstitutional behavior by the government, but not about death and destruction, and, let’s face it, criminal abuse of power by the president? Only cynical power-hungry politicians who have disdain for the Constitution they have sworn to uphold could do this with a straight face.”
– Judge Andrew Napolitano
Sadly, the answer to the judge’s question is simple most, if not all, Democratic and Republican politicians. Rather than investigating the “leaks,” Congress should be investigating President Obama’s “kill list” and his acts of war against other nations.
Congress blew another chance to restore the U.S. Constitution, and sadly Rep. Renee Ellmers voted in favor of restricting the natural rights the Constitution was designed to protect.
Rep. Ellmers voted against an amendment to the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act and then voted for the bill, which contains provisions giving the president the power to detain Americans citizens indefinitely merely because he suspects them of helping terrorists groups.
In effect, this bill negates the 4th Amendment. No evidence presented to a judge or grand jury. No public record. No trial. No ability to confront witnesses or hear the evidence against you. No writ of habeas corpus.
There is still time to urge the U.S. Senate to act to stop this attack on civil rights.
Let me repeat: I would not have voted for this version of the NDAA, nor the previous version. Indefinite detection by U.S. authorities of any person is not only unconstitutional but immoral.
For background read this May 18 update from the Campaign for Liberty:
“A federal judge in Manhattan has blocked enforcement of provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allow the government to place individuals they claim supported al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” in indefinite military detention.”
Read more here.
Congress has a chance to partially atone for their trashing of our rights this week when a bill to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 comes up for consideration in the House of Representatives. The NDAA past last year contained two controversial and unconstitutional detention provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens and resident aliens arrested on U.S. soil.
The Campaign for Liberty, and other civil libertarian groups, are urging people to contact their Congress person to urge them mitigate this outrage by getting rid of these provisions or else voting “no” on H.R. 4310, the FY 2013 NDAA.
Reps. Adam Smith and Justin Amash are proposing an amendment to the NDAA to make it clear that it does not authorize indefinite detention of American citizens or legal residents.
You can contact Rep. Renee Ellmers here (she doesn’t have a direct email listed) or call her Washington office at (202) 225-4531 or the district office in Dunn at (910)230-1910, Toll Free 1-877-645-8764.
Note: If you are one of her “new” constituents (under the new district maps), you can’t use the contact form. It’s still based on the old district. You’ll have to call.
I just called her D.C. office, let them know who I was, and asked her to vote yes on the amendment!
If I were in Congress, I would not only vote yes on this amendment, and no on the bill if the amendment does not pass, I would not have voted for the 2012 NDAA in the first place.
Whenever a Congressional bill is praise for being “bipartisan” there’s one thing you can be sure of: it’s an assault on the U.S. Constitution and your freedom and liberty. You can also be certain that the more “bipartisan” the bill is, the greater the damage to your rights.
Such is the case with HR 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which just passed the House 248-168.
District 2 Rep. Renee Ellmers voted for the bill.
For the record, I would not have voted for the bill.
Apparently the state constitutional amendment regarding marriage will not be called Amendment One when it appears on the ballot. According to this story in the News & Observer it does not have an official name, and probably will just be called a “constitutional amendment” on the ballot.
That’s just one of the confusing (on purpose?) aspects of this issue. As the story notes, people who say they’ll vote for the amendment in polls change their minds when the find out what it actually means.
But that’s what happens in a “democracy,” the majority gets to tell you what your rights are.
The North Carolina Libertarian Party unanimously passed a resolution opposing the proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage at its annual convention held Saturday in Durham. Rather than fulfilling the “great value” of a constitution, which is to protect individual rights, the amendment would deny rights to segment of the population and discriminate against a minority.
The Libertarians not only urged voters to defeat the amendment, which will be on the May 8 primary ballot, they also encouraged those planning marriage to “shun and disparage the licensure of the state,” in other words to not get a state marriage license. “A free and proud people do not ask the State for permission to marry,” the resolution says.
The resolution also reiterates the party platform plank calling for repeal of marriage license laws altogether to honor the principle that “couples are married when they declare they are.”
The party is a member of the Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families working to defeat the amendment, know as Amendment One. It would define marriage between a man and women as the only “domestic legal union” recognized by state law.
The resolution also asserts the amendment would violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts for many couples married in other states.” In addition, the amendment advances “no legitimate governmental interest” and is so vaguely worded that “no one can predict the scope of its harm.”
BURNET, Texas (Nov. 5) – One of the first things you do when you’re applying for a job is to read the job description to find out the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the office. After listening to years of presidential campaign speeches and debates, it seems to me that most candidates for the office simply haven’t read the job description for President of the United States. The Founding Fathers wrote it some 200 years ago, and despite some wear and tear, it is still perhaps one of the finest job descriptions ever written for the leader of a free republic.
The presidential job description was drafted, refined and honed during the months of the Constitutional Convention held in 1787. The duties of the President of the United States are outlined in Article II. The placement is deliberate. The first article of the Constitution establishes the Congress, the legislative branch, because the Founders believed the legislative was the most important function of government. As if to emphasize that point, the first mention of the President of the United States in the Constitution is in Article I, Section 7. This section says he must sign a bill passed by Congress before it becomes law. If he does not sign it, or he vetoes it, it can only become law if two-thirds of each House vote to approve it.
So what does the presidential job description say? First, there are three simple qualifications: you must be a natural-born citizen, 35 years old, and a United States resident for 14 years. I am all three. The “selection committee” for the job is technically the Electoral College, composed of people chosen by the states.” But in reality, it is the people of the United States who hire the president. The length of service is four years.
The first thing a new president does is to take an oath. It is a plain and simple oath, similar to the one I took many years ago when I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force. The oath states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But in those few words lie some very powerful sentiments.
“Every word of a constitution is the difference between power and freedom.” – James Madison
BURNET, Texas (Aug. 29) – Taking a break from the campaign, let me offer an idea for consideration by local Libertarian Party affiliates. I offer this not as a Wrights 2012 campaign initiative, but simply as something that has been successfully used by Libertarian Party groups for promoting libertarian ideals. Not all Libertarian Party activism needs to be political actions or campaign activities. Often we can more easily and more effectively promote the libertarian message of individual liberty and personal responsibility by simply being good citizens and participating in civic action.
“The drug war has arguably been the single most devastating, dysfunctional social policy since slavery.”- Norm Stamper, retired Seattle Chief of Police
BURNET, Texas (Aug. 14) – The most destructive and devastating war in American history was not the Vietnam War, not World War II, not even the Civil War. The most destructive and devastating war in American history is the 40-year War on Drugs. It is a war in which thousands die each year, which wastes billions of dollars, and which has put more people in jail than any other nation in the world. It has come to the point where the War on Drugs is deadlier and more destructive than all the dreaded drugs scattered upon its battlefields.