Rumblings Of Dictatorship

Wild Bill for America sounds the warning!  Red flags every where.  There are some disturbing trends coming from the White House. Americans beware.  With a Cowardly Congress, a complacent Supreme Court, Obama is gathering the power of a dictator.



Click here if the video doesn't load.

Thought For The Day.

So according to the Supreme Court, we can now force people to buy and own guns by simply calling it a "tax".

Finally a victory for the 2nd Amendment!

THE FIGHT IS ON!!!!

Taxed For Living

That is the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Today in a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court just told the citizens of the United States that they not only must buy health insurance, but if they don't they will be taxes for the crime of living.

The Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of President Obama's health care overhaul, in effect allowing the law to survive.

In a 5-4 decision unveiled Thursday, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains intact.

It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in making the decision.

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

Source

The clock is reset.  It is 2010 once again.  It is time to get out, vote the Donkeycrats out of office, vote Barack Hussein Obama out of office.  That is the only way to repeal this monstrosity of a bill.

We can now expect higher premiums.  Few doctors practicing, fewer new doctors.  We can now expect Obama and the left go farther and demand a single payer system.  G-d forbid that ever happens.

We need to get angry.  Angry enough to go to the polls.  We need to be so angry that this will be the last hurrah for Obama and the Donkeycrats!

Last Monday And No Decision About Obamacare

It is another nail biting day.  It is the last Monday in June and the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare has not be handed down yet.  We have to wait on that one.

But the Supreme Court has ruled on 3 cases today:

1.  The court has decided that it is cruel and unusual punishment to sentence juveniles under 18 to Life in Prison without parole

The high court on Monday threw out Americans' ability to send children to prison for the rest of their lives with no chance of ever getting out. The 5-4 decision is in line with others the court has made, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing.

The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted.

Miller was convicted of killing a man in Alabama. Jackson was convicted of being an accomplice in an Arkansas robbery that ended in murder.

I guess sending them to bed without dinner would suffice for them.

2.  The court has decided that it is illegal to put spending limits on corporations.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its two-year-old decision relaxing limits on corporate campaign spending. The justices on Monday reversed a Montana court ruling upholding state restrictions.

By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.

This will make elections a lot more interesting.  I can see Obama trying to blackmail corporations into donating to his cause.  He already has tried to get people to send their wedding, birthday, anniversary gifts to him.


3.  The court has decided that 3 out of 4 provisions of Arizona's Immigration Law was Unconstitutional, but upheld the right of police to check on immigration status.

The Supreme Court has struck down most of the controversial Arizona immigration law, but upheld a key provision.

The provision that was upheld requires state and local police officers, during routine stops, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.

Other provisions, though, were struck down.

The federal government claimed the law encroached on its authority to enforce immigration law.

At least the SCOTUS has allowed the police to check on a criminal's immigration status.  Given 4 more years of an Obama regime the court will be so far to the left that anyone but immigrants will be considered illegal.

The decision of the Healthcare law will be given on Thursday.  And given this court I fear that this abomination of a law will be upheld.  G-d help us if it is.

Higher Gas, Supreme Court And A Lox Smear!

Just a few of the items tacked in this weekends Newsbusted.  Add in Charlie Rangel, Jane Fonda, and Nancy Reagan and the soup gets interesting.  But it goes ballistic when you toss in the Taco Drone and Obamacare.

To E:  THIS IS SATIRE!!!!

Clarification Of Points In The US Constitution

I often hear Conservatives complain that a person isn't a natural born citizen if one of his parents was not a citizen of the United States at the time of his or her birth upon US soil.  This is especially applied to President Obama.  It is also a wrong assumption on their part. It shows an ignorance of American Jurisprudence before the adoption of the Constitution.

Prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, it was English Law that was in force.  English Common Law to be precise gave each colonist his or her concept of citizenship and specifically Natural Born Citizenship.

For the definition of a “natural born subject”, William Blackstone (1723-1780), frequently cited for English Common Law, defined a “natural born subject” as follows:

“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king;and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government;the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.***The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361—62.

As we can see, for children born within the King’s dominions and allegiance, they were considered “natural born subjects” without any consideration for the citizenship of their parents. On the question of what the Framers meant when they inserted the “natural bornCitizen” clause in Article II, putative President Obama supporters argue that the Framers simply used the “natural born Citizen” clause in place of the English common law“natural born subject” clause. Hence, they argue that the clauses mean the same exact thing. In practical terms, they therefore argue that in the mind of the Framers mere birth on United States soil without any reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents (withexceptions for children of diplomats and of invading soldiers) made one a “natural bornCitizen.” In support of their argument, they cite language in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The quote is:

“‘And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the king, andunder the king's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.' ‘Subject' and 'citizen' are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term 'citizen' seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, 'subjects,' for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to thegovernment and law of the land.' Id. 258, note.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169U.S. 649, 664-65 (1898). (quoting Chancellor Kent’s Commentaries).

The authors of the Constitution were for the most part lawyers and judges deeply schooled in English Common Law, and had spent their entire careers working within its confines.  Logic dictates that they would base their new legal system around the very law in which they knew. And they did. A very good example of this is the fact in the greater part of Europe a person is considered guilty of the crime they are accused of.  They must prove their innocence.  Under English and US law, a person is considered innocent of the crime and the State (or Crown) must prove his or her guilt. This is found no where in the Constitution, but is accepted as law.

This issue has arisen before in American politics:

Chester Arthur (born of an American mother and Irish father, purported birthplace of

Canada) was sworn in as President, however his status as a "Natural born citizen" was challenged because he was born with British citizenship (therefore not jus sanguinis) and it is contended, on foreign soil (therefore not jus soli). Some argue that those born abroad to U.S. citizens are not eligible to ascend to the Presidency (not jus soli), since an act of the United States Congress such as the Naturalization Act may not overrule the Constitution (see "Natural born citizen" as presidential qualification). Presidential candidates George W. Romney (born in Mexico), Barry Goldwater and John McCain (born in U.S. territories), were never seriously challenged on the basis of their "natural born" citizenship, but no candidate falling under this classification has ever actually become President.

The other bemoaning is that the courts, especially the Supreme Court has no authority in the Constitution to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. That it is the President or even better the states who should decide the issue.  What a recipe for disaster that would be. President Obama would declare every law he didn't agree with unconstitutional, or you would have 50 different decisions from 50 different states. Inn one especially liberal state gun possession would be punished by life in prison, in another all drugs would be legal, in other abortion (including miscarriages) would be murder, in other it would be perfectly legal, and in Utah polygamy would be legal.  Anarchy Rules!

Once again the answer results from English Common Law. Under English law the courts decide which laws are legal and which laws contradict early law without trying to change the earlier law.

Remembering that the founders were lawyers and judges who practiced under English Law, it is easy to see how this was adopted by the first court to prevent anarchy within the legal system.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 is passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington, establishing the Supreme Court of the United States as a tribunal made up of six justices who were to serve on the court until death or retirement. That day, President Washington nominated John Jay to preside as chief justice, and John Rutledge, William Cushing, John Blair, Robert Harrison, and James Wilson to be associate justices. On September 26, all six appointments were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Supreme Court was established by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution granted the Supreme Court ultimate jurisdiction over all laws, especially those in which their constitutionality was at issue. The high court was also designated to oversee cases concerning treaties of the United States, foreign diplomats, admiralty practice, and maritime jurisdiction. On February 1, 1790, the first session of the U.S. Supreme Court was held in New York City's Royal Exchange Building.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note


Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

John Blair and James Wilson were signatories of the Constitution. In fact James Wilson signed not only the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.  Thus these men not only knew the intent of the Founding Fathers, but were the Founding Fathers.

I find that opposition to the Supreme Court holding jurisdiction over the Constitution stems from anger over Roe V. Wade and both Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp. The last two removed prayer from public schools.  And not with decisions like McDonald v. Chicago or District of Columbia v. Heller.

News Round Up #5

All the news fit to yell about!

No praying at the Supreme Court
Praying will be allow at Night Court though.

Oil has stopped flowing.
Only out of the well in the Gulf.  Arab readers can breath again.

Feds asleep on sex offender passport law.
They were up all night viewing porno on-line.

Obama rises in the polls!
By 1 point in Israel.  He is now at 7%.

What does Mickey Mouse, a swastika, and a nude woman's body have in common?
The answer to last night's Final Jeopardy answer.

Tel Aviv mice hold the keys to the brain.
Researches develop "Super Mice" to conquer Vanishing White Matter (VWM).  These mice will be sent to The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division to help out there.

Israeli Firm Develops 'Stealth Paint' for Aircraft
US Democrats who voted for Obama's agenda are looking to have it spray painted on them.

Queens of the dessert
Females take back the title queen.  Gay men in a rage!

Pregnant woman to be stoned.
Only one Iranian victim allowed by the West each year.  Iran gets to do this one as a pass.

Shikse to marry nice Jewish boy.
Grandparents in shock.

'Barefoot Bandit' is 'remorseful'.
That he got caught.

Will Steve Jobs Admit to iPhone Flaw?
Not unless he is forced to.

El Chupacabra Spotted in Texas?
Probably seen outside Home Depot looking for a job.

Senate Nears Restoring Jobless Benefits
Considering how many will be out of work in January, it seems like a good idea to them.

Donald Berwick's first cost cutting measure.
Follow the North Korean lead.

Hope you enjoyed them!!

Kagan lied to Supreme Court in 9/11 case, should be disbarred

As Obama's solicitor general, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged the Court to dismiss the suit that our 9/11 families have been pressing against the Saudi government and several Saudi princes for their extensive funding of al Qaeda. The families sued under the domestic tort exception to sovereign immunity, which according to Kagan's Supreme Court brief (at p. 14):

requires not merely that the foreign state’s extraterritorial conduct have some causal connection to tortious injury in the United States, but that “the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee” be committed within the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5).

The "tortious act or omission" is the wrongful act (the tort) that leads to the injury. Thus she is claiming that for Saudi funding of al Qaeda to be actionable, the funding itself has to have been transacted within the United States. Compare this with the actual wording of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5):

(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case – ... (5) ... in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment..."

Contrary to Kagan's assertion, the law only specifies that the injury has to have occurred within the United States. Not a word about the wrongful act that leads to domestic injury also having to have taken place within the United. Kagan flat lied about the clear wording of a law that goes to the very heart of our ability to use the courts to combat Islamic terrorism, and thanks to the Court's failure to review this crucial case, the simple wording and intent of Congress—that foreign states whose actions do injury in the United States can be sued for those injuries—has now been undone, as if the law had never been passed.

"Oops!... I did it again"

Kagan proves that her lie was self conscious by also lying about the relevant Supreme Court precedent, claiming (again at p. 14):

In Amerada Hess the Court considered and rejected the argument that domestic effects of a foreign state’s conduct abroad satisfy the exception. 488 U.S. at 441.

In fact, the Court in Amerada never considered "the domestic effects of a foreign state's conduct abroad" at all, for the simple reason that there were no domestic injuries in that case. The injuries occurred outside of U.S. territory, which is why the domestic tort exception was held not to apply. Here are the simple facts, as recounted in Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion (joined by Brennan, White, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy):

... the injury to respondents' ship occurred on the high seas some 5,000 miles off the nearest shores of the United States. Despite these telling facts, respondents nonetheless claim that the tortious attack on the Hercules occurred "in the United States." [At p. 440.]

The Amerada Company ship was attacked at sea. Since the tortious act and the damages from it both occurred "5,000 miles off the nearest shores," the Court did not bother to distinguish between the wrongful act and the injuries from it. Kagan uses this to claim that the Court found Amerada's domestic injuries to be unrecoverable, when in fact the Supremes agreed with the district court that there were no domestic injuries (p. 439-441).

Has any solicitor general ever flat lied to the Supreme Court before? Isn't any lawyer who unambiguously lies to the Court about the simple facts of a cited holding subject to disbarment for unethical behavior? And she did it for an unethical purpose: to help the financiers of 9/11 escape justice. Any moral person would either resign in the face of such a job assignment, or would limit himself to making what honest arguments could be mustered. This moral pervert chose to lie and ought to be busted out of the profession for it, not promoted to the highest court in the land.

Obama favors a legal response to terror while working to pull the law's teeth

Obama has long been a proponent of shifting from a military response to Islamic terrorism to a civilian/criminal law response. Putting the terrorists in jail is supposedly more effective shooting them on the battlefield. This is why Attorney General Eric Holder decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in New York City. There is supposedly nothing Mohammad wants less than a public platform for crowing that America must submit or die, while credibly demanding that we must either reveal our intelligence secrets or let him go free.

It is an insane idea, seeking to move the fight against Islamic terror to an arena that disarms us and empowers them, but even that isn't enough for Obama. He has to have his solicitor general lie to the Supreme Court for him in a way that guts what laws Congress has already passed for fighting terror in the courts. First he moves the fight to our relatively toothless courts, then he pulls what teeth the courts have.

If Obama's gutting of the legal fight against terror is intentional it means that he prefers America to have NO effective defense against Islamic terrorists (perhaps because they are his co-religionists). Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court is a clear indication of this intent. Obama is ratifying, in the strongest possible way, her gutting of the law, and like Kagan, he also proves intent by repetition, nominating Kagan's partner in crime, James Cole, to be his Deputy Attorney General.

Oops!... Obama does it again: DAG nominee also favors a legal response to terror while working to pull the law's teeth

Shortly after 9/11, Cole wrote that, since the targets were primarily civilian, the 9/11 attacks should not be viewed as acts of war, but as violations of civilian law, to be combated through our civilian court system. If Cole really wanted to make the civilian courts our main line of defense against Islamic terrorism he would be for aggressive use of the courts in this fight, but in practice, he comes down on the other side, arguing as the lawyer for one of the implicated Saudi princes that the family suit to recover damages from the 9/11 attacks is invalid.

Cole's service to the Saudis creates "a direct conflict of interest" writes Debra Burlingame:

In light of this history, it is impossible to fathom how Mr. Cole can ethically carry out his duties and responsibilities as the de facto head of the Justice Department while U.S. troops are fighting terrorists who receive funding and support from organizations associated with the Saudi government and their proxies. This is a direct conflict of interest. Given Saudi NGOs’ continued involvement in terrorist facilitation world-wide and their connection to the Saudi royal family, this conflict of interest will cripple Mr. Cole’s ability to ethically perform his duties as head of a department charged with investigating and prosecuting terrorist facilitators associated with or working for the Saudi government.

Yes well, to Obama, that's a feature, not a bug. Like Obama, Cole is against a military response to Islamic terror and he is against a civilian court response. In sum, neither of them want the United States to fight on any front, but want us instead to appease and submit to Islamic terror.

Which is nothing new. Obama's entire Department of Justice is of the same stripe:

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in. [Byron York February 2010.]

Which is worse, the DOJ lawyers who defended terrorists pro bono on the basis of shared contempt for America, or the DAG nominee who defends the financiers of terror for a share of their filthy lucre? "Why decide?" says Obama: "Hire 'em all!" So long as they are defenders of al Qaeda, its all good.

Why isn't Congress fighting back?

While Obama's terror-defending lawyers are determined to secure rights and civilian court appearances for Islamic terrorists who should be treated as criminal combatants under military justice, they are equally determined to prevent our 9/11 families from getting their day in court, despite the clear intent of Congress that they should. It is time for Congress to start fighting back. The Supreme Court shamefully failed to review a blatant subversion of congressional intent on a crucial front of the war against terror, but Congress doesn't have to take it lying down.

How about passing a clarification to the domestic tort exception that explicitly renounces Kagan's attempt to gut the clear intent of the law? Just use the Senate hearings on Kagan's nomination (commencing this week) to expose her devastating lies to the Supreme Court and to agitate for a clarification of the law that would allow the families' suit to proceed. Kagan would be routed, and the destruction she has wreaked on our terror war efforts would be repaired, killing two dirty birds with one stone.

From Error Theory. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.



Most Flight 93 blogburst posts are about our effort to stop the Park Service from planting the world's largest mosque atop the Flight 93 crash site, but sometimes they are on related topics. What is the relation between the crescent mosque and the suit against Saudi funding of al Qaeda? Both are spearheaded by Tom Burnett Senior (father of Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Junior), who is lead plaintiff in the families' lawsuit and co-sponsor of our petition to stop the Flight 93 memorial. Please join us:

Republican List of Sonia Sotomayor Supporters

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Bloomberg reports that the vote for Sotomayor's confirmation has been delayed one week to accommodate Republicans. Now is the time to let your Senator's hear from you again, or hear from you even though the RINO's listed below are not your own Senator. If your Senator is not on this list, contact them anyway and register your vote against Sotomayor. Contact information is listed below.

For a list of reasons not to vote for Sonia Sotomayor, and for discussion points, please read this.

The latest list of Republican Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor supporters is:

Sonia Sotomayor

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) - up for re-election in 2010
Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-2532
Augusta Phone: (207) 622-8414
Bangor Phone: (207) 945-0417
Biddeford Phone: (207) 493-7873
Caribou Phone: (207) 493-7873
Lewiston Phone: (207) 784-6969
Portland Phone: (207) 780-3575
Email
Washington, D.C.Fax (202) 224-2693
Augusta Fax: (207) 622-5884
Bangor Fax: (207) 990-4604
Biddeford Fax: (207) 283-4054
Caribou Fax: (207) 493-7810
Lewiston Fax: (207) 782-6475
Portland Fax: (207) 828-0380


Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME) - up for re-election in 2010
Toll Free in Maine: (800) 432-1599
Auburn Phone: (207) 786-2451
Augusta Phone: (207) 622-8292
Bangor Phone: (207) 945-0432
Biddeford Phone: (207) 282-4144
Portland Phone: (207) 874-0883
Presque Isle Phone: (207) 874-7631
Email
Auburn Fax: (207) 782-1438
Augusta Fax: (207) 622-7295
Bangor Fax: (207) 941-9525
Biddeford Fax: (207) 284-2358
Portland Fax: (207) 874-7631
Presque Isle Fax: (207) 764-6420


Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) - up for re-election in 2012
Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 224-4814
Evansville Phone: (812) 465-6313
Fort Wayne Phone: (260) 422-1505
Indianapolis Phone: (317) 226-5555
Valparaiso Phone: (219) 548-8035
Email
Washington D.C. Fax: (202) 228-0360
Evansville Fax: (812) 421-1883
Fort Wayne Fax: (260) 424-1342
Indianapolis Fax: (317) 226-5508
Valparaiso Fax: (219) 548-7506


Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) - retiring in 2010
Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 224-3041
Orlando Toll Free: (866) 630-7106
Orlando Phone: (407) 254-2573
Fort Myers Phone: (239) 332-3898
Jacksonville Phone: (904) 398-8586
Miami Phone: (305) 444-8332
Palm Beach Gardens Phone: (561) 842-8300
Pensacola Phone: (850) 433-2603)
Tampa Phone: (813) 977-6450
Email
Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 228-5171
Orlando Fax: (407) 423-0941
Fort Myers Fax: (239) 332-3898
Jacksonville Fax: (904) 398-8591
Miami Fax: (305) 444-8449
Palm Beach Gardens Fax: (561) 842-8949
Pensacola Fax: (850) 433-2554
Tampa Fax: (813) 977-6593

Locate all Senator's contact information here.

Main U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Obama Citizenship: Lawsuits Continue

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

This video explains the role of a Constitutional Republic. If you believe that Barack Obama was "elected by the people" and as such our Constitution is not relevant in the 2008 Presidential election, think again. America is not a Democracy.

Scroll down for commentary on the Supreme Court's refusal to hear Leo Donofrio's case, and information on the latest citizenship lawsuit to be considered for review by Justice Scalia. View video at YouTube.com





On December 8th, the Supreme Court refused to hear Leo Donofrio's claim that Barack Obama was born a British citizen, and as such, is not constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States. The case was dismissed without comment from the Justices - so once again, there is no hint of Obama's legitimacy or the lack of it.

The latest information in this saga came just after 7 pm on the 8th, from Leo Donofrio's website, NaturalBornCitizen.com.

Donofrio has participated in the preparation of another lawsuit known as Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. The Supreme Court Docket No. is 08A469:

Wrotnowski Application Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia - Distributed for Conference on Dec 12 - Supplemental Brief to be Submitted Tomorrow

From the Press Release: December 8, 2008 7:20 p.m.

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.

There is extensive information at the above link.

Another excellent place to keep on top of any and all lawsuits filed in the endeavor to make Obama prove that he is natural born, is America's Right. The blog owner, Jeff Schrieber, lives and works in Philadelphia and is a "Legal writer by day, exhausted law student by night... He broke the story of the first failed Philip Berg lawsuit.

For those advising that I just take a look at the Obama birth certificate on fightthesmears.com, I ask how you give validity to a birth certificate which documents no hospital where the birth took place, and is not signed by a doctor?

I do not know whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and neither do you. I do know that if our President-elect had any respect for our Constitution, his proof of natural born status would have been provided immediately - and that proof would have included a delivering physician and a hospital name. Will we ever learn the truth, it's doubtful. Doesn't that make everyone feel comfortable and secure about our Constitutional Republic?

Related discourse on Constitutional Republics and Democracies:
United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy

Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic--a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

Ron Paul: Constitutional Republic vs Democracy
Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers.