The Snooper Report

I have been reading and writing on this subject for nearly 30 years.  The Constitution isn't very hard to read or understand.  The problems are in conjunction with the Bleeding Heart idiots that wear their nightgowns to work.  Those are the judges on SCOTUS.  Other problems evolve around the Congress Critters we have in the united States Senate.

Like I have said now and many times before, the USC is nothing new to me.  However, I want to bring to your attention several posts that are very near and dear to myself.

The American Thinker by Gary Horne, The Mental Dry-Run

This article goes along with what I have become known to some as the Liberal Pathology.  The mental dry-run.  many times think they have accomplished something but when it comes down to the wire, nothing has been done except ... except they have considered to have done something but nothing was done.  Go read that article and picture your United States Constitution in action...or not.

[...] The mental dry-run in the minds of Obama voters had already checked off that the inevitable magic of hope and change (?) would achieve the unachievable. The Hope and Change Bridge to the Garden of Eden is increasingly sagging under the weight of reality.

According to the mental dry-run, a flower-power foreign policy would surely produce a fairy-tale world community. Never mind the total contradiction of the lessons of history. This Chamberlainesque approach continues despite accelerated nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea and a resounding nyet to Hillary in Moscow. [...]

No Health Care in the Constitution by Larrey Anderson.

Not one.  Ever.  Some liberals, democrats, republicans and aardvarks seem to think that if something isn't in the USC that they had better legislate the idea into office.  No where in the USC is this ever discussed.  Obama has stated many times that the USC "doesn't go far enough".  For what no one knows but the Leftinistra sure like to think that anything can be legislated.  This can be truly unprecedented.  Legislate around the USC?

[...] Notice that the Constitution doesn't say the "general welfare of the citizens of the United States." It says "general Welfare of the United States." This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project -- including health care. Read the rest of Article I, Section 8 below. The exact powers of the Congress are listed there.

That's it. That is all the constitutional power that Nancy and Steny have. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the "And we really mean it!" amendments. [...]

And those two amendments are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  Go read them.  If in the powers of the Congress, there are only 18 of them, nothing is required of the Congress, it isn't and they cannot legislate around the USC.  Period.  When the issues not addressed within the USC, the issues go to the States.  End of discussion and I don't care about some Judicial Review and OPINION of the "courts" that says the Commerce Clause covers everything there is to be covered.  That's not what the USC says or does.  Go read that article.

For you atheists out there, gird your loins.

Douglas V Gibbs: The Founding Fathers on Tyranny and God

Why are the leftists so opposed to a Christian God? I believe it is because they realize that tyranny cannot exist on the same plane with a Christian God. My thoughts on this are confirmed by quotes by Thomas Jefferson and William Penn:

Jefferson said, "The God that gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

William Penn wrote, "If men will not be governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants."

Take that.  Tyrants we have and we call them Congressmen.

Dan Riehl: Virtue, Governance And The State

I know.  I give Dan a hard time once in a while but that's because he is a Republican and at times that's all he seems to be.  However, Dan is on our side in most cases...

Are we even permitted to discuss such a thing as virtue in America any more, let alone be capable of it? Sure, some discuss it. But I suspect much of our political class doesn't. And academics and elitists discuss it only as an exercise, not so much as a search for the practical application of same. To recognize virtue is to judge. Progressives today only permit judgment within the physical realm - wealth, mostly and how evenly it's distributed. [...]

Go read that one.

Power Derives from Lawful Authority by Jed Gladstein.

The President of the United States has no more legal right to sign a treaty that turns legislative, executive, and judicial functions of our national government over to the United Nations than he has to declare the United States an Islamic Republic and its people henceforward subject to Sharia. Nevertheless, that would be the effect of the proposed United Nations Climate Change Treaty awaiting Mr. Obama's signature in Copenhagen this coming December.

The proposed treaty authorizes the establishment of a "government" to transfer wealth from industrial nations to non-industrial nations in payment of a "climate debt" which, the treaty declares, the industrial nations owe on account of burning carbon-based fuels. The newly created international government is to have the authority to decide issues relating to carbon emissions in signatory nations, the power to levy what amounts to carbon taxes on signatory nations, and the power to enforce its levies without reference to the will of the people who live in the signatory nations. [...]

Darn.  That one is packed full of data for all to read.

[...] So, given what the treaty portends, the obvious question is, does it pass constitutional muster? Well, the answer to that question is two-pronged. First, there is the pragmatist's answer, which is that anything the Supreme Court says is constitutionally permissible is constitutionally permissible unless and until a later Supreme Court says otherwise. But then there is the answer that is rooted in American constitutional history, which is that no President, even with the advice and consent of the Senate, has the power to delegate legislative, executive, or judicial authority to any body in derogation of the manner in which such authority is granted by the United States Constitution. [...]

Indeed.  Go read that one.

Smitty at The Other McCain: Stamping out Federalism

Yes.  The Other McCain went tit for tat with Dan Riehl a few times but, that's the way the Republicans and we Federalists are like.

[...] The US Constitution was written to give the Federal government enough juice to ward of re-absorption of the States into England, or some other European country (among other motives). The crap-tacular policies of the Obama Administration seem a modern variation on the theme of the Stamp Act. [END]

Another post to read.

Douglas V Gibbs: Alexander Hamilton and the General Welfare Clause

I have spoken with Mr Gibbs and Loki thousands of times on Blog Talk Radio and on the private phone lines. How many hours have we spoken?  Who knows?  We are Constitutionalists and we beg to differ about the plethora of illegal laws oozing forth from the United States Congress.  What we came up with is this: about 85% to 95% of the FEDERAL laws oozing through the quagmire of unconstitutional activity are well, unconstitutional.  Period.  And, here again is that darned old General Welfare Clause.

Douglas goes into this coverage very succinctly...much better than Larrey Anderson linked earlier.  I would not dare to take one single outing on this blog so you MUST go there and read the entire post.  However, I will introduce his "preamble".

Two words struck fear into the hearts of Americans after their fight for Independence had concluded, and during the formation of the great Constitution under which we have since prospered despite the best efforts of those in Washington. Those dreaded words that caused consternation were none other than “General Welfare”. It did not matter for most Americans which side they were on when the thought of a new Constitution was being discussed to replace the failed and impotent Articles of Confederation. Whether they were for or against the proposed Constitution both the majority of Federalists and the anti-Federalists knew how two simple and clear words would be taken by those that desired neither liberty for the people or limited government power. Those words, they knew, would be taken by such people to mean that Congress when assembled would have the power to tax the public and spend their money on any object of benevolence or pet project that they would dare justify as helping to “promote” the “general Welfare.” It was also known that these cads would get away with such diabolic actions too unless the people were educated as to the proper meaning and application of the term. [...]

There is much to learn in all of these posts hereby mentioned.  I have approximately 1,200 posts on the United States Constitution...I think I know a lot more than any SCOTUS and any Congress Critter.

And yes, Nancy Pelosi and Mr Leahy, we do have very specific questions for you.

The Snooper Report.  Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly

Update on Monday, November 2, 2009 at 9:06AM by Mark "Snooper" Harvey

Here's Clarice Feldman: A new (terrible) paradigm for America

[...] When government overreaches and establishes programs that require a modern form of tax farming that makes an art of taxing everything that national, state and local governments think they can get away with in order to impose state mandates to replace the free choice of its citizens, the people get restive and angry. And that state of mind leads them inevitably to use the one weapon that has always been available to them to curb government gluttony...the ballot box. Sadly, by that time, any damage done by this Congress will already be the law of the land. [...]

Not hardly.  Not on my watch.  IT'S IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!