Posts in "Constitution"

DMorris's picture
By Daniel Morris at 12:55PM

Constitutional Intent Perverted

In 1823 John Taylor wrote a book titled “New Views of the Constitution of the United States.”  A strange title for a book written so close to the ratification of the US Constitution, I had originally thought -- however, after reading the book the title is very appropriate and it should be mandatory reading for anyone with a desire to learn the true nature of our government.  The secret journals of the Constitutional Convention were not published until 1821 and it was these journals that spurred John Taylor into writing this book:

Had the journal of the convention which framed the constitution of the United States, though obscure and incomplete, been published immediately after its ratification, it would have furnished lights towards a true construction, sufficiently clear to have prevented several trespasses upon its principles, and tendencies towards its subversion. Perhaps it may not be yet too late to lay before the publick the important evidence it furnishes.

It was the opinion of John Taylor that the same men who promoted and argued for a consolidated national government during the convention were the same men who, after the ratification, were attempting to interpret and “construct” meanings from the document that were never intended. 


Read more here
BrianMUGA's picture
By Brian Underwood at 1:19PM

Capitalism in America: Lochner v. NY and the Right to Contract

American IndustryLochner v. New York (1905) is one of the most roundly criticized cases in the twentieth century. This is an unfortunate effect that progressivism has had on our academic and legal systems in the United States, because Lochner is actually one of the strongest stances the Supreme Court has ever taken in the defense of individual liberty.

Despite being overruled by a more progressive High Court in New Deal America, Lochner still serves as a reminder of our Ninth Amendment liberties which exist, recognized or not. And moreover, it gives us a look into the path we must take to restore a true, liberty-oriented interpretation of the Constitution:

This is the idea of substantive due process – the idea that one’s life, liberty, and property are theirs so long as the use of that life, liberty, and property do not violate another’s right to his own life, liberty and property. This is best summed up in a statement by Justice David Josiah Brewer, Justice Field’s nephew, in his own dissent in the Holden v. Hardy: “The utmost possible liberty to the individual, and the fullest possible protection to him and his property, is both the limitation and duty of government” (1896)...


Read more here
DanHerrera92's picture
By Daniel Herrera at 6:40PM

We the People!

In the video above, the Preamble of the U.S Constitution being read to police at Occupy DC started by Catholic University of America Young Americans for Liberty. You can see Joey Hughes (Vice President) and Byron Sanford (Activist Director) in the back as I, Daniel Herrera (President) hold the Camera

The night started when we saw Occupy DC on the local news channel. I was with Joey and Byron while when we decided this would be a great oppertunity to distribute Constitutions to Occupy protesters. We brought a huge box of Constitutions with us and gave them out to everyone we saw. Some offered help to distribute them and we were more than happy to have them join us. The more we gave out, the more the people were aware of what was happening.

We took part in the protest and, as the video shows, we were able to get someone with a loud voice to recite the Preamble of the Constitution to the police and to educate them on our constitutional rights.

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 12:28PM

Join the Fight against the NDAA

If you haven't kept up with the dangerous details of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), here's an update from YAL's Jack Hunter in the Daily Caller:

Commenting on the controversial Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act — which many contend gives the federal government new powers to arrest American citizens without charge — [Senator Lindsey] Graham made clear this week that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

The entire world is now a “battlefield”? “Including the homeland”?

There have been serious constitutional questions raised recently concerning whether our federal government should be able to arrest or assassinate American citizens overseas without charge or trial. This new and largely uncharted legal territory has been troublesome. But arresting or assassinating American citizens here in the United States without trial? Rounding up and holding American citizens indefinitely without charge? What country is this?

The charge agains the NDAA has been led by Senator Rand Paul, who -- though unsuccessful in stopping the bill's passage in the Senate -- was able to remove an amendment which would have allowed indefinite detention of enemy combatants acquited of crimes in court.  He did so by requiring a recorded vote rather than a voice vote, which caused a number of senators to switch their positions for fear of constituent backlash.

When the bill finally passed, only seven senators voted against it.  That's your cue to take action.

Click here to see how your senators voted.  Click here to find your representatives' contact information.  And click here to download a petition to collect signatures against the NDAA on your campus before it's too late.

File Attachments
106 KB
BrianMUGA's picture
By Brian Underwood at 2:28PM

We the States?

Bill of Rights

Since the early day of our republic, states' rights have been an integral part of our country's federal system.  In The Federalist, No. 40, James Madison states, "I ask hat are these principles [of opposition to the Constitution]?  do they require that in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed."

Without a doubt, the states have rights, but riddle me this:  Do the states have the right to take away the individual rights of their citizens? Undoubtedly not, as Slade Mendhall explains:

In order to illustrate the immorality of their positions, let us consider a hypothetical circumstance. Imagine that the federal government was to cede all of its regulatory authority to state governments— the regulation of industry, healthcare, education, communications, food, drugs, transportation, and environmental impact were retained as they stand today; all entitlement and social welfare programs were divided between the states according to the amount of their citizens’ contributions to the programs; nothing was changed save for the locus of power in our national political structure being reoriented from Washington D.C. to the fifty capitals. With all policies held constant, ultimately, the degree to which current laws and regulations violate the rights of private citizens and corporations would remain unchanged. In envisioning such a circumstance, the question which arises is this: if force is to be used to extract from individuals the products of their labor in order to contribute their wages and property to unjust aims, of what significance is it that the party that takes those wages is an agent of the state instead of the federal government?

Read the full article here.

aheram's picture
By Jayel Aheram at 3:17PM

Lee introduces bill to repeal 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'

Rep. Barbara Lee has introduced a bill to repeal the odious “Authorization for Use of Military Force” that Congress passed a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks:

Dear Colleague:

Please join me as an original cosponsor of the ‘Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2011.’  This legislation repeals the joint resolution providing overly-broad authorization to the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those involved in attacking our nation and to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.

This broad authorization of force has had far-reaching implications which shake the very foundations of our great nation and democracy. It has been used to justify warrantless surveillance and wiretapping activities, indefinite detention practices that fly in the face of our constitutional values, extrajudicial targeted-killing operations, and an ever-growing and indefinite pursuit of an ill-defined enemy abroad.


Read more here
Markus427's picture
By Mark Bautista at 9:36AM

Bill Aims to Emphasize Founding Documents in Ohio Schools

 

George Washington said that "The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon." But just take a glance at the city that shares his name, and you'll see just the opposite:  Most politicians have no reservations when it comes to abandoning this critical document.

Sadly, this is also reflected in our schools. The youth of America spend very little time learning about our founding documents and the role that they played and continue to play in shaping our republic. However, Ohio Senate Bill 165, The Founding of America Documents Bill, aims to change that.


Read more here
Roadkill's picture
By Alan Brooks at 5:38PM

Time for a New Constitution?

On September 24th and 25th of this year there will be a conference at Harvard University that will mark the beginning of an attempt to draft a new constitution for the United States.

Conconcon, as it is being called, is designed to lay the groundwork for the writing of a new U.S. Constitution that some groups feel is long overdue.

If this conference is successful then we will see, in the near future, a multi-partisan constitutional convention that will draft a completely new constitution for the country.

Constitutional law expert Michael McConnell of Stanford University says that such a thing is  possible.  “It would probably be a result of a constitutional convention and not an act of congress,” he said in an interview Tuesday.

Under Article V of the Constitution, a new constitution could be proposed as an amendment to the current one. Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states would have to ratify it and then it would replace the current constitution and all amendments. Professor McConnell didn't seem to think that it was likely to happen, but it is a novel idea and it will be interesting to see what happens with it in the next year.

Craig Dixon's picture
By Craig Holland Dixon at 7:37AM

Super Congress: Politburo for a Brave New America

History repeats itself.

At the height of the Soviet Union’s power, the principal decision-making was done by a small, powerful cabal: the central committee’s politic bureau, more commonly known as the politboro. You see, under Marxist-Leninist states, the Communist party is propagandized as “the vanguard of the people” instead of being presented as what they really were and have always been:  government agents seeking to centralize power into the hands of a few, effectively creating an oligarchy. Of course, other variations of this power structure have existed or continue to, from the Third Reich to the China.

China's Politburo... coming soon to The District

No debates. No amendments. No filibustering. Checks and balances? Gone. Constituent input? Not happening. That’s what the law-making process may soon look like, as we usher in the era of "The Super Congress.

...or the American Politburo. 

While swallowing the first bites of that “satan sandwich” that is the bi-partisan “debt ceiling deal,” Americans will come to find the compromise bill contains more than just an additional 7-to-10-trillion-something in debt shackles. By now, you’ve probably heard about the alarming proposal of a legislative body that would supercede both houses:  “The Super congress,” as it was originally labeled by the Huffington Post. Like a bad Freddy Krueger movie, or watching Tom Delay try to dance on reality TV, it’s a nightmare now manifesting itself into reality (thanks to a provision jammed into the bill that allowed for the committee’s creation).


Read more here
xojewlzvxo's picture
By Julie VerHage at 12:13PM

Congressman Justin Amash: A True Patriot

Congressman Justin Amash

A congressman from my district has been a true patriot throughout his first 210 days in the House of Representatives. Besides the fact that he has not missed a vote as a U.S. Representative or a State Representative, he has remained true to the standards he was elected on. He was one of only 22 Republican Congressman to vote "no" against the Boehner Bill on Friday and the Budget Control Act of 2011 on Monday. 

He has a policy of posting every one of his votes along with a brief statement as to why he voted yes/no/present on his Facebook Page. After voting on Monday, he posted a statement on the failure of Congress to effectively address the detrimental debt problem our country finds itself in.  It opens with:

The Budget Control Act trades $21 billion in cuts next year for a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion. That’s one penny in cuts for each dollar of new debt. The bill does not seriously address the drivers of the federal government’s fiscal crisis.

I did not follow Congressman Amash much during his campaign, but later I did some quick research and have grown to like him more and more throughout his service.