Federal Behavior Verifiably Bizarre

Federal Behavior Is Verifiably Bizarre

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [Art. IV Sec. 4].

The solution is the problem in the eye of the Obama Administration.

It's a good thing Arizona's Governor knows the Constitution and has tenacity to support it. The Federal government is taking their time preparing for a law suit against the state for enacting almost exactly the same law that has been in the federal law books for 70 years. That is, with the exception of two big differences. Arizona's law is actually less stringent because it includes a clause against racial profiling where the federal law does not; and, Governor Brewer has every intention of enforcing the law where the Federal government has proven they are not.

There are actually three places where protection against invasions are in the Constitution. Two dictate a duty of the Federal government to protect each state, and one allows states to defend themselves against invasion by their own accord (Art. I Sec.8xv, Art.IV Sec.4, and Art.I Sec.10iii, respectively). Coupled with the 10th Amendment providing to the states and people absolute rights not specifically prohibited in the Constitution (Art.I Sec. 10), the idea of the federal government suing a state trying to defend itself, especially when the federal government isn't, is absurd. The behavior of the Federal government is becoming so bizarrely indifferent to the states and the people that this latest intent becomes unsurprising.

But the threat of suit by the federal government says much more than indifference, of course. It squeals an intent by those in federal power to harass and intimidate Arizona into relinquishing it's rights. Considering the mentality in Congress and the Obama Administration that the pen is equal to our cash flow, perhaps this administration believes they can outspend Arizona on this issue, in an effort to eventually silence the state. Or, it may be that those in the Obama administration want to send a signal to other states as well, not to tangle with this liberal oligarchy.

This action will be a test, not of the federal government, but of the people themselves and their respective states.

The absolute counter solution:

All governors, with their Attorney's General, must understand that not only are they not prohibited from demanding action from the federal government to protect their states, but not doing so will only encourage an insatiable appetite for federal (even world) power by those in office at that level presently. Meanwhile, the United States hemorrhages from the effects of invasion since all the states feel the effects of defunct national laws.

They should rally. Arizona should not only be prepared to defend her rightful stand, they should counter sue for non-performance and breach of contract in a class action. Other states should pile in on this one, since the security, safety and sovereignty of all states is in jeopardy. A class action will send a signal to this group of dysfunctional leaders that the states and people know their rights and the Federal government's duty.The Constitution is indeed a Contract. The United States must be united if we are ever to retrieve our Republican sovereignty as a nation of states again.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law: and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time [Art.I Sec.10vii].

Yesterday, I listened to a panel of four "experts" sharing their opinion about Pelosi's newest expenditure--a $16,000 (not a misprint--Sixteen thousand dollars) per month rental office space in a posh and elite business district of San Fransisco. The building was built and owned by the Federal government. Half of the panel were disgusted by the expenditure. The other half vindicated it. The reason for the justification? One, Speaker Pelosi was third in line behind Obama for the Presidency. My answer: And? Your point is? Excuse me, but I like the idea the Founders came up with, of a government owned and run by the people, not an aristocracy. This "expert's" comment clearly shows an aristocratic mindset.

Another argument was because the building, federally owned, would sit empty if it weren't for the Speaker's lease of it. My rebuttal is multi fold: First, Pelosi's monthly rental is being paid at tax payer expense. The building was also paid for at tax payer expense. So, the great and diligent taxpayer pays for this space TWICE! Secondly, common sense is that you don't solve the problem of a too high vacancy rate by renting the space back to yourself; you get rid of it! The bigger question is, why does the government own a building in an elite business district rather than a more modest and economical district which would have been far better use of the people's money, in the first place? Furthermore, if elected officials must rent space, it would be far better for the federal government to sell virtually all office space--eliminating financial liability--and allow needed leasing to be done through the private sector.

One last justification on behalf of the Speaker was that, as the speaker, she was entitled to it. What? Which country is this? One has to wonder if we have digressed to precolonial English aristrocity or switched silently to elitest Marxism, when we allow this kind of privilege to accelerate for decades. Who more than the highest leaders should be setting the example to other leaders of how to be a good steward of the people's assets than the Speaker? Instead, we have a belief that the aristocratic leaders of this free nation qualify for unimaginable extravagance, most people in the world--even this people, cannot wrap their minds around.

It is important to understand that experts, on any side of an issue, simply represent the thoughts of the public. So, it isn't unreasonable to be disturbed by the philosophies that reveal themselves above, even if they are held by a few rather than the many. If the philosophies above disturb the public as polls, Tea Parties, and other rising groups suggest, then they had better rise to the occasion and use their power now by combining their efforts in one objective--to return accountability and responsibility as the Constitution laid out. Additionally, states cannot idly sit back and watch what happens to a fellow state. They, too must rise to the occasion and rally behind their bullied sister states.

There are no innocent bystanders, in United States governance.

To...secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America [Preamble].

The problem: People v. US Congress

I got a notice of the DISCLOSE Act last week. For those who don't know or understand HR 5175, it is, in summary, a bill that tightens the ability of the public to support a candidate unless qualified through a larger organized group, such as a union. It is targeted toward small business, who don't make use of unions, and unregistered groups such as Tea Parties who support or promote a particular candidate. Of course it just happens that the bill only applies to traditionally conservative, mosly Republican affiliations. It is sponsored by Representative Van Hollen (D-MD) and about 130 other Democrats.

Despite testimony on Capital Hill by such citizens as well-respected Constitutional attorney, Eugene Scalia, the bill passed through committee and is scheduled for House vote. It is certain this bill will be stricken down in the courts. That isn't the point or strategy according to many. It is to stifle and tie up the free speech of the public until after the elections in November. This is such a violation of public trust, it's bazaar gumption is more in line with a Clancy inspired reality show.

The solution is held in the preamble: the People must live the Constitution.

If, despite the people's objections to this legislation, the Congress and President pass this into law anyway, as it has done with regularity since Obama took office, it may prove to push movements like "The Tea Party", (which actually include members from all parties), sick of taxation without representation, to formally organize into a legitimate party. That may prove to backfire the intended purpose of the legislation, creating the largest, most powerful party/lobbying force ever.

One way or another, the people and states must work together to become sovereign again, because there are no innocent bystanders in United States governance.