Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Here is the money quote:
Clause 16 gives Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the Unit d States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."(70) Houston's lawyer reasoned that the Congressional power over the national militia is plenary and, therefore, states could not legislate on the subject.
Pennsylvania's lawyers responded that Congressional power over the militia was concurrent with state power, not exclusive. They pointed to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to states all powers not granted to the federal government.(71) Further, they said, the Pennsylvania statute punishing militia resisters was consistent with the similar federal statute punishing resisters.(72)
The Supreme Court's opinion was delivered by Justice Bushrod Washington, a nephew of George Washington. Justice Washington concluded that, as a general principle, federal legislation regarding the militia was exclusive. Since Congress had enacted a law punishing militia resisters, the states could not enact their own laws about militia resisters.(73)
But, continued Justice Washington, the instant case was different. Here, the question was whether a Pennsylvania court-martial could enforce the federal law. Yes, answered Justice Washington, since the Congressional law creating federal court-martials for militia resisters did not forbid states from enforcing the federal law. And the Pennsylvania statute did not create a new law, but merely enforced the federal one.(74) Thus, the Pennsylvania conviction was upheld.(75)There we have it: The States and their political subdivisions, your local PD and Sherrif's Office, a la Sherrif Joe Arpaio, can arrest all the illegals they can and they have to leave law abiding Americans alone with their guns, including automatic weapons and assault rifles. Take that Obamessiah.
Like Hewitt's support for amnesty and his multiple failures, especially for an attorney, on the nomination of Clinton to the Secretary of State position that is clearly prohibited by the Constitution and the issue of Obama's place of birth. His response to that issue was the State of Hawaii has "certified" Obama's as yet unreleased original birth certificate. Well, since the State of Hawaii issues birth certificates to person's not born in Hawaii, how does the State of Hawaii's "certification" of the birth certificate close the issue of Obama's birth overseas?
One would think an attorney would be a little more discerning. But, then his colleague Michael Medved is on an ant-Rush crusade and a fanatic on giving amnesty to the next generation of radical leftwing voting Hispanics, who voted over 60% against the Republican who supported amnesty. Oh, and by the way, lost the election. I am wondering as to what Hewitt really is. And who Medved really is.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
First, why is the government subsidizing the already government subsidized, and unconstitutional, taxpayer funded NPR. Why is one government agency wasting taxpayer dollars on a program already a black hole of taxpayer monies? It makes no sense.
But, of course, the real issue is that NPR's listeners complained that DHS was sponsoring something on NPR, not that some other agency was sponsoring something on NPR. You know they were not complaining when it is an agency who's mission they agree with. NPR of course went through all the contortions that liberals enjoy, self-absement, foolish statements about how inaccurate E-verify is, which is a lie, as E-Verify is 99.9% accurate. Liberals were just shocked that NPR would do something racist, because enforcing the laws of the U.S. are racist.
Now liberals claim NPR isn't political, but it is all about leftwing politics and it was pointed out that NPR is rife with pro-illegal propoganda and it was apparently disconcerting for a liberal to hear anything he disagrees with, but liberals then claim that NPR just speaks truth to power and makes its decisions in a neutral manner. Then the became even more upset when NPR continued the ads, with NPR saying that their corporate decisions are separte from their editorial decisions. But, wait, so they admit that their editorial decisions are blatantly leftist and pro-illegal? No getting around that. Liberals apparently want neutrality of decision making, but not any decisions that violate the principle of supporting illegal immigration.
It gets even worse. Liberals are always saying they want to punish the employers who exploit illegals. Well, that is what E-Verify does, it keeps employers from hiring illegals. Liberals are such hypocrites.
Even worse though, apparently a Catholic Bishop, who's diocese owns an NPR station also complained, saying that more immigrants should be allowed to come to the U.S. to work legally. Well, Bishop, first, NPR is a radical supporter of abortion and homosexuality. Why are you supporting abortion propoganda and the homosexual lifestyle? But, more to the point, what does increasing immigration have to do with stopping illegal employment, which causes declines in wages for legal workers? In any event, amnesty and an increase in legal immigration, have nothing to do with E-Verify, which only verifys a legal right to work in the U.S. Giving more people the right to work in the U.S. is a separate issue.
Thus, liberals are hypocrites. I am sure if the Civil Rights Division or the EEOC had an ad on NPR there would be no complaints. Liberals just don't want some laws enforced, which makes them enemies of a Republican form of government and of Democracy as well. You can't pick and chose the laws you enforce. It is called a dictatorship and the politization of the law if the laws are subject to political interference.
Oh, and by the way, Merry Fitzmas. He is coming for the Obamessiah. Take that on the rule of law you liberals complained about when you thought Bush was avoiding prosecution for war crimes.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
More interestingly, the City of San Francisco said it could not enforce its laws outside the United States. Well, I thought the city could not enforce its laws outside of San Franicsco. How, pray tell, does San Francsico regulate benefits provided to employees of companies who operate outside of San Francisco? How does it prohibit airlines it does not like from landing in San Francisco?
More to the point, why are the homosexuals so accepting of the execution of homosexuals in the Emirates, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? I guess they don't really care about oppression, so long is is done by someone with dark skin and not a Christian.
All just part of imposing the homosexual agenda throughout the U.S. I wonder if some city outlawed benefits for domestic partners and applied that to every company operating in that city? I bet the homosexuals and their liberal friends would suddenly discover federalism.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Aside from the fact that this is a 14th Amendment violation, as other law schools in the UC system will not do that, much less all the other schools in the UC, the State of California has a massive budget deficit of over $40 billion. So, during this time of crisis, the welfare queen Irwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the law school, thinks this will attract good students. Well, maybe the laziest students; those who don't want to hold a paying job, only an intership with a communist community organizing special interest group that would force taxpayers to pay even more to welfare queens of this state.
How about we start with budget cuts with UC law schools. Close them, or, better yet, have the students pay the full cost of their education. Maybe then we can cut our high income tax rate and attract businesses, instead of training welfare queens to sue them.
First, the birth certificate presented by the Obama campaign is a genuine document. However, it is not a birth certificate, despite the State of Hawaii claiming it is. It is, in fact, an abstract of certificate of live birth. An abstract is, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 1: a summary of points (as of a writing) usually presented in skeletal form ; also : something that summarizes or concentrates the essentials of a larger thing or several things". In the case of abstracts of live births, it is a summary of the information on a birth certificate. For the Obamessiah it summarises the information on the birth certificate.
However, it does not give all the information which would be on a complete birth certificate. The problem is that Hawaii issues birth certificates for persons born outside of Hawaii to parents who lived one year previous to the birth in Hawaii. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM
And so we cut to the chase. In my profession I routinely confront people with facts that put themselves in peril. Routinely those persons can present information to me to clear themselves of that peril. Usually those persons want to present that evidence. However, many routinely claim there is such exculpatory evidence, but they refuse to present that evidence. And so we come to the Obamessiah, who can prove that this is all barking up the wrong tree, but he still refuses to present the proof that will end it all.
Why? Why is he refusing to end this story? Probably for the same reason he has yet to release the records showing the contact between Advisors A and B of his staff and Governor Blogavich. Because any release will show he is both a crook and a liar.
Where is David Frost when you need him?