Freedom Wins in case over Campaigning - Citizens United v. FEC

Thanks to the McCain–Feingold Act (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), the established corporate news media can do something you cannot. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to communicate about politicians, campaigns, and issues. This gives the media an advantage when it comes to informing the public as to what your choices are when it comes to Public elections. They rarely include real people who are considered underdogs, in favor of the very career politicians that create these kinds of freedom limiting laws.

To gain an even better understanding of these kinds of campaign finance laws please watch the following 4-minute video:

Most cases against the campaign finance laws have focused on the freedom of speech, but these challenges have always been denied by the courts, under the perverse reasoning that "money isn't speech." However, a 2003 case, Ron Paul v. FEC, argued that the freedom of the press is a right that must be protected for all Americans, not only for those who run media businesses. The claim was denied, but that was only the beginning . . .

A co-plaintiff in the 2003 case, Citizens United, renewed the fight last year. They challenged campaign finance provisions that prohibited them from broadcasting a movie they had made about Hillary Clinton, who was then running for President.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee prohibits the Government from enforcing any financial restrictions limiting core political speech involving elections based on a speaker’s corporate identity. The Supreme Court restored some of your ability to join with others in order to better exercise your freedoms of association, of speech, and of the press.

However, there are still many more media lies that need to be corrected, more taxpayers need to be educated about the true causes of government corruption, and why campaign finance laws like McCain-Feingold are not a cure, but a cause. There are still many other incumbent protection laws that make it difficult to fire members of Congress, and limit your rights of association, of speech, and of the press.

Enumerated Powers

---

DC Downsizer Michael Mitchell of Alaska compiled this list from Article I of the U.S. Constitution. These are all the powers that the Congress has.

1. Borrow money
2. Regulate commerce among the states
3. Regulate naturalization
4. Regulate bankruptcies
5. Coin money
6. Fix weights and standards
7. Punish counterfeiters
8. Establish post offices
9. Establish post roads
10. Record patents
11. Protect copyrights
12. Create federal courts
13. Punish pirates
14. Declare war
15. Raise an army
16. Provide a navy
17. Call up the militia
18. Organize the militia
19. Makes laws for Washington, DC
20. Make rules for the Army and Navy

And that's it! Mitchell continues, "According to the 10th Amendment, all else is controlled by the states or the people."

Go to DownsizeDC.org's Enumerated Powers Act campaign.

---

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano that number is only 17 (I wonder what three he missed or combined). According to Mr. Napolitano:

"Congresses used that power to control the conditions for production and sale of goods that eventually made their way into interstate commerce. And modern Congresses have used that power to regulate any human behavior they wish, so long as the behavior, when combined with other similar behavior, might conceivably affect the movement of goods or persons in interstate commerce. Thus, today, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the size of the toilet bowl in your bathroom, the number of legs on your desk chair, the strength of the water pressure in your shower in your home, the amount of wheat you can grow in your yard, the amount of sugar manufacturers can put into ketchup, the words you can utter in public or private, are all regulated by the Congress, claiming power under the Commerce Clause."

He also points out that: it would take the "state legislatures of 34 states to enact a resolution by a simple majority vote of each house of the states’ legislatures [to instruct] Congress to convene a constitutional convention. . ."

But as Glen Beck points out, "when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia for their constitutional convention their orders were to do nothing more than “amend the Articles of Confederation.” By day three they had unofficially agreed to abolish the Articles and create a new form of government". I think Glen has a point here. Without elected officials that truly believe in doing what's right for the people, instead of making themselves more powerful, a constitutional convention would likely lead to the end of our government as we know (or even knew) it. What we truly need are good people to stand up for what's right in the face of almost certain death; something the founding fathers themselves actually did.

A stimulating letter to Senator John Cornyn

I got an e-mail from one of my Senators this week asking me to reply to the question, "How do you think the "stimulus" package has fallen short?" Here was my reply:

Senator Cornyn,

Thank you for you're question about the so called "stimulus bill and other failed initiatives that have passed threw congress recently. I hope you will take the time to personally read my thorough response.

It seems to me that you voted for a "stimulus" bill late last year. I urged you not to. Not because I didn't think there was a problem (there obviously was/is), not because I didn't think something needed to be done (I still think something does need to be done that isn't even being considered currently), but because I know it isn't wise to give people billions of dollars who mishandled a great deal of money in the first place. As we have since seen the money has not even gone to the very purpose it was meant to, but instead as gone to fill to coffers of those who came asking for the handout in the first place!

Now you've sent this request for comments, I can't help but say "I told you so", but you didn't listen. Apparently you are listening now, so let me tell you what should be happening. And I hope you can see it as I do, not as an opinion, but as a matter of constitutional law and authority.

I believe every single member of congress has violated his or her oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution. I would love to get elected to congress myself so that I could start presenting cases as to why all of you (including President Obama, all of his zars, and at least half of the supreme court justices) should be removed from office, but as it is right now, I'm too busy working hard to do the right thing, and support my family; including my two 10 month old twins. Not to mention that the current election laws just make it too time consuming, expensive, and right down impossible to do so with out an army of bureaucrats and lobbyists assisting you. Perhaps you could pass a new "stimulus" bill to help "stimulate" more direct participation in government from you're constituents that employ you.

I would exhort you to spend some time reading and studying The Constitution as I have and especially pay attention to the 9th and 10th amendments. They used to be a valued part of the constitution, but today they might as well not exist. Also, try to find anything in The Constitution that authorizes federal bailouts or social programs of any kind.

I understand there are a lot of tough battles to be fought in Washington right now, which is all the more reason why we need strong people who will stand up to those who are violating our constitutional and God given rights (see the Declaration of Independence while you're at it, and pay attention to the part about our "Creator" and the rights he gave us). People of the highest integirty who will NOT compromise on doing what is best for their constituents, within the bounds set forth by The Constitution. Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy, and the majority cannot do anything they want just because they have the largest voice, rather they must follow the rules and laws as they are, and the foundation of those laws in this contry is The Constitution.

Please start fighting for a return to our core Constitutional foundations an give the people of this country and opportunity to make us a great nation once again.

- Seth Hollist

Enumerated Powers Act & The 10th Amendment

Arizona State Legislature HCR2024 - sovereignty; tenth amendment.

New Hanpshire State House Concurrent Resolution 6.

The 10th Amendment is the most over looked amendment in the U.S. Constitution based on laws passed by the U.S. Congress over the last century.  Arizona and New Hampshire appear to have started figuring it out, how soon before the rest of the country does too?  Well, actually an number of ther states have already passed such resolutions.  According to the New Hampshire resolution this includes: Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia.  Places I find to usually be more accepting of larger and more liberal government.

Both resolutions point out that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that: "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".

Basically this means that in order for the U.S. Congress to pass a law, there must be something within the U.S. Constitution that allows them to do so.  This is why I'm in favor of John Shadegg's 'Enumerated Powers Act'.

What laws have been passed over the last century that violate the constitution?

Let's start with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  It forced people to accept a private entities bank notes as legal tender, going against what the constitution says in article ?? section ?? that it's the job of Congress to coin money and set standards.  I don't think the Federal Reserver would be unconstitutional if it wasn't for the Legal Tender laws surrounding it.  Of course we'd have a very different financial structure in this country if that were true.  I'm not sure the Federal Reserver, nor the U.S. Governments current money creation and spending sprees would survive under that kind of a structure.  On the other hand would the even be necessary at that point?

Where in the constitution does it give the U.S. government the right to administer social services such as Social Security, Medicare, or educational bills like No Child Left Behind? Simply put, it doesn't.  Although it does give the power to congress to set standards and provide oversight, it certainly doesn't give them the right to dictate to the states how to go about providing those services.  Not to mention the $53 Trillion dollars those services are projected to cost over the next few decades (could this by why the Fed want's to inflate the money supply - so they can out grow the problem threw inflation).

And these are just a few examples...

- Posted by Seth Hollist

Separation of Church and State

When people think of the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America they often think of words such as, “separation of church and state”, or “Freedom of Speech”, or of the press, or of religion; however one of these phrases doesn't actually show up on the First Amendment, or anywhere else in The Constitution. What it does say is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

You can only find one other statement regarding religion within The U.S. Constitution, in Article Six, Third Clause:

“ . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Does all of this really equate to a “separation of church and state?”

On the one hand, we have a statement basically saying we cannot allow religion to be a qualifier for becoming a public servant. On the other hand, we have a statement saying we have to allow people to exercise their religion freely. They can almost be seen as contradictory to each other, but if we really look at them in context, we find that they are in fact completely unrelated.

The one that was part of the original constitution, in Article Six, is actually only in relation to the election of public officers; which it clearly says in the beginning of the Third clause, saying it relates to:

“. . . Senators and Representatives . . . Members of the several State Legislatures . . . all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the United States and of the several States . . . “

This means this clause has no relation or influence upon what goes on in our public schools, or even local city governments. In fact it is only meant to protect the election of State and Federal officers from exclusion from office due to religious understanding, religious knowledge, or even religious affiliations. It also protects them from having to prove an absence of religious beliefs, and does nothing to bar them from allowing their religious beliefs from influencing the way they deal with their position as a public officer. This is actually were The Bill of Rights comes in.

When it comes to The Bill of Rights, people often like to interpret it by quoting the “founding fathers”; however, this is inappropriate because the Bill of Rights was actually passed many years after the founding fathers had written The U.S. Constitution and established The United States of America. In fact many of the founding fathers were in opposition to the Bill of Rights because they didn’t like how it limited the powers of the federal government. That’s right, some of the founding fathers wanted a stronger federal government with weaker states rights; however the Bill of Rights won out to become a protection for the rights of the States and the people (see Amendment 9 and 10 specifically).

As part of this protection of state and personally freedoms, we were actually guaranteed (or at least we should be) protection from the Federal government from passing any laws that would either favor or discourage any specific religion. It also insures the individual the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Just as important, in this same amendment, you’ll find the insurance of our freedom to speak; including about our religious beliefs, so if someone says they are offended by what you are saying, I suggest telling them you are offended by their lack of respect for your right to speech. After all, your right to speech is protected, and you actually have no constitutional protection from being offended.

In fact your rights to free speech only ends when it starts to endanger the life or livelihood of another, so before you go off and start yelling and screaming threw the streets all kind of profanities in the middle of the night, keep in mind that the ability to speak does not require yelling and screaming or even offensive language. It also doesn’t mean you have a right to disturbed the peace, say things that prevent others from exercising their rights, nor does it give you a free pass to cause panic or tyranny within or towards others.

The real question at this point is were did the words “separation of church and state” come from in the first place, and why it is becoming so easily used today to prevent our kids from having a religious influence on them within our public schools; while at the same time it’s becoming so much harder to keep kids in public schools in line and under control. That phrase has been used to prevent praying in schools, talking about the social and historical significance of many religious influences and texts within our schools, from exploring alternate theories to many scientific ideas, and even to prevent our kids from taking part in reciting a pledge that helps instill a sense of national unity and pride.

So where did it actually come from? It’s not in The Constitution, it’s not in any laws that I’m aware of, and if it were, I would consider it to be an unconstitutional law. The truth is that those words were actually derived from, though not actually a part of, of a United States Supreme Court ruling made in 1947 In the case of Everson v. Board of Education. As part of the ruling, Justice Hugo Black gave his interpretation of the First Amendment, saying:

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

Although this statement is very strongly worded, much more so then I can agree with, the actual ruling was only meant to prevent any aid or benefit to a religion from governmental actions, a sentiment that I actually agree with; unless the benefit is equally and easily available to all religions, such as allowing tax exemption for religious establishments based on their non-profit status.

Unfortunately this statement has since been abbreviated into the phrase “Separation of Church and State” and taken to also mean that government cannot get any aid or benefit from any religious actions; which is something I completely disagree with, and for which there is no supporting evidence of within The Constitution. In fact I believe the constitution says just the opposite, as preventing a religious action from taking place within government would actually be preventing the free exercise of religion; something very specifically protected within the First Amendment.

Please note, I said “religious action”, not “religious organization”. While I see no problem with personal religious actions within government, and have shown how those actions are constitutionally protected, there however is no place for any organization, religious or otherwise, to be taking actions within the government. Such actions are the soul responsibility of the officials who were elected by the people they represent, and relinquishing those responsibilities to any organization or unelected persons, I would see as being a treasonous act.

If religion truly was not allowed to be involved in government, then why have so many presidents sworn the oath of office, to protect The Constitution, while laying their hand on a copy of The Bible? Why then does The Constitution actually have references to religious beliefs? The Constitution even acknowledges Sunday as a day of rest in the Article One, Section Seven:

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law . . .”

The Constitution also has a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ as found in Article Seven just prior to the signatures:

“ . . . in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven . . ."

The Declaration of Independence is even more obvious in it’s declaration of a God, especially in the first and second paragraphs where it says:

“ . . . to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. . .”
“ . . . [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . .”

[For full text see: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html]

Certainly without the declaration of independence there would be no Constitution, and as such it is vitally important to acknowledge The Declaration of Independence as a sort of moral code of The United States of America. It is in fact the very justification for the very existence of The United States of America.

While it is important that we do not allow our government to get involved in our religions, it is important that we acknowledge the roll God should have within our government. It certainly shouldn’t be an overbearing roll, but we are a nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, with many laws based on the ten commandments, and the further we get away from those values, the closer we get to a divided and dysfunctional nation.

We do, however, need to be fair in our public dealing with religion. As such I do not believe it is appropriate for any organization, including religious, to be heavily involved in a public school system. On the other hand I certainly wouldn’t turn down any charitable donations meant to help enhance the educational experience, such as a donation of supplies or equipment, but I would probably turn down a truckload of books or manuals that were specific only to religious teachings. I wouldn’t turn down volunteers just because of their religious affiliations, and would allow students to take a regularly designated class period off for religious reasons.

More importantly, however, is that students should be allowed to pray, mediate, or recite their favorite list of beliefs while in school if they choose to do so at appropriate times; such expressions are after all protected by the First Amendments “Freedom of Speech” clause. What I wouldn’t allow is for such practices to interfere with the classroom instruction, but I would like to see public schools teaching theories of Creationism when theories of Evolution are presented; as well as seeing Social Studies and History classes including factual information on all major religions and their roles in society and history.

I would like to see Congress and other governing bodies, offering a prayer before every meeting so that they may lead in ways that will best benefit us the people, allow us to prosper, along with helping other nations to do the same. But most importantly I would like to see the increasing pattern of religious bigotry and hatred stopped. If you are offended by it, then I suggest you try remembering that the Constitution does not protect you from offense, but it does protect your right to talk about it, just as it protects the right of those offensive words to be said.

- Posted By Seth Hollist