Arresting the Tea Party

PolitiJim

It is one thing to overturn ObamaCare should we be fortunate enough to A) Have an election (yeah, you heard me), B) Get a GOP President, C) Get a CONSERVATIVE House that will hold Boehner accountable as Speaker to not cave as he did on the budget ceiling debate, and D) get at least 51 votes in the Senate.
But how do we rectify the insane “precedent” set out by Roberts that the judiciary has the right to reclassify – even create – a “tax” that was never written in the original law? Or that you can now be “taxed” for a behavior instead of an economic activity. A current or future liberal congress would tax you going to church or NOT going to a “diversity” class.

We continue to expose just how disconnected the conservative elite are from the rest of us. Supposed “conservatives,” George Will and Charles Krauthammer, try to explain how this makes political sense - either for the future Court or for the GOP. Krauthammer goes as far to call it “the great constitutional finesses of all time.” Sure, if by giving government the right to tax behavior instead of economic transactions “constitutional” I suppose it is ‘great.’ So would “finessing” the lack of ANY documentation for a member of the Marxist New Party to stay unchallenged as being Constitutionally eligible to be President would be. And don’t get me started on the ability of a “conservative” judge to see the word “tax” where it isn’t even written, debated or passed into law by the representatives of the American people when they would have had a chance to stop it as such.

By the logic of King George and King Charles, we should now all be liberals and do what is political expedient instead of what is correct and constitutional. No wonder they hated Gingrich who wanted to actually TRUST the mechanisms of moral law and trust God in their outcome.
Allen Raymond and Kathy Amidon shared a link that is a valuable understand of how the Founders foresaw these challenges and how THEY wanted us to address it. (And those who think we had ANY CANDIDATE more equipped for what has just happened – and what is in front of us – than the former Speaker are blinded by their own bias.)

Newt Gingrich makes 5 key points:

First: The Judiciary is designed to be the LEAST powerful branch of government , and the Legislative was to be the strongest. Not until the 1958 Warren Court was their ANY thought that the Supreme Court had the “last say” in what was and was not Constitutional. Jefferson said (of a Judiciary being “Supreme” over the others), that it “would be an absurdity. That would be an oligarchy.”
In Abraham Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural speech, responding to the Dred Scott decision which declared slavery a Constitutional fact and there was nothing anyone could further do about it, he said, “To believe that 9 people could dictate to the entire nation, the meaning of the Constitution, would be the end of our liberties.”

Second: It is ok for Presidents – on occasion - to ignore the court as Andrew Jackson did over the attempt to institute a Second Bank of the United States. Of course, this means that you have a President that understands the Constitution, and that he or she has a super-heated titanium spine necessary to do what is right, rather than what is politically convenient. (It would be a Constitutionalists wet dream for the GOP Convention in Tampa to rethink Romney and put someone who has demonstrated a walking into fire track record like Gingrich or Palin. Second best would be a VP slot allowing Romney to hide and let them battle it in public opinion.)

Knowing that Roosevelt would not accept a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment) from the Supreme Court regarding German saboteurs, should give nightmares to us all given the inclinations and actions thus far of this current President. The Constitution reads:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No problemo, for us law abiding, Constitution loving, Tea Partiers, right? Don’t forget that alongside the Neo-Nazi's and the Black Separatists, the Department of Homeland Security
defines “terrorists” as including:

…the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”

Don’t tell me that our putative President, current choice of the US Communist party, and former member of the Marxist New Party now tied to Cloward and Piven by that same socialist organization - hadn’t planned to ratchet up taxes beyond comprehension. Or that he and his treasonous Trotskyist tribe weren’t preparing for the inevitable conflict with a people whose DNA was created over the same tax issues in 1776. The PP Affordable Care Act proves it. As Limbaugh pointed out yesterday, it is designed for people to pay a very cheap penalty for not going with ObamaCare, robbing the insurance trust of funds needed to run it. It also makes it impossible for a business to compete by paying for more expensive health care plans and dumping employees on the ObamaTaxCare plan. Later, when most insurance companies are out of business or struggling, the penalty dramatically increases as do the stresses on the entire health care industry pressure points. Essentially, you get Greece. I guess those Grecian columns at his inauguration WERE appropriate.

I am no longer timid about tin foil accusations that Obama would suspend Habeas Corpus on arrested Tea Party members, since he is already going back on a pledge to not abuse Executive Orders, a pledge not to raise taxes on the Middle class, and – according to the Attorney General’s of nine states – he has also broken 21 laws and/or Constitutional protections. And that isn’t even including not complying with Congressional subpoena’s, forging committee findings on the Gulf Oil disaster or bypassing Congress on appointments and regulations or law executively. Even the ACLU is now suspecting Obama is abusing his powers.

But a true Constitution-loving President has a Constitutional right to simply protect it and defend it just as the 9 justices do.
Third: As Jefferson did in the Judicial Reform Act of 1802, Congress can write legislation that can not be appealed. It can be REPEALED with either 51 or 60 votes in the Senate. Even the assurance of a Constitutional Amendment isn’t set in stone as we learned in Prohibition. That’s a good thing considering how whimsical our populace has been when it comes to matters of responsibility and morality. But it does make it more difficult to undo both good and bad law.

Fourth: The Congress can attempt to pass a law that defines the meaning of Constitutional concepts such as “Natural Born Citizen” or “Personhood” (as in the case of the 14th Amendment by extending it to unborn children). This of course is what this embedded video to the right suggests when the Democrats attempted to redefine “Natural Born Citizen” between 2003 to 2008. (What it also proves, in my opinion, is that the even the Democrats already KNEW that a natural born citizen had to have two US citizen parents. Ironically, people like Byron York and other CONSERVATIVE NBC naysayers are willing accomplices of this fraud and have no explanation why this would be necessary if it were inherent “fact.”)
We have to regain the view of the Founders that NO law, no interpretation of the law by either court or Congress changes what are “inalienable truths.” The Congress can attempt to define “all men are created equal” to mean “dolphins and monkey’s” but that congressional act wouldn’t make it so. This is why the John Adams said (emphasis mine):

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There IS empirical truth. Regulating American’s consumption of alcohol might have been thought unconstitutional – which is why they pushed for not just a law – but a Constitutional Amendment. The PEOPLE ROSE UP and decided that it was not “constitutional” and repealed it. The PEOPLE were the Constitution. Not the courts, not the President, and not the Congress.
Monroe, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and the like clearly understood that unless a majority of Americans were people of good faith – that is grounded in a common understanding of what “morality” is – no “system” would work since it would create conflict, chaos and confusion. And those elements ALWAYS invite corruption. If a “lie” is not universally held as wrong, then nothing can be counted on as “truth.” And you are back to the whims of King George or King Barack or King “whoever that sits on the court bench.”
This is why we fought the Revolutionary War. And it is why the precedent of the Great Awakening was so critical as our fore-countrymen were retrenched in the fear (holy worship) of God.
So it seems the legislative and Constitutional efforts, as well as the balance of powers, are more of a consensus or barometer of what we agree as a people to be true rather than a specific “writing” or rule that can never be interpreted another way. The Founders left it possible to challenge even the original intent of the Constitution with Amendments. But they were designed to be very difficult so that they couldn’t passed by a corrupt Congress that didn’t reflect the will of the people as ObamaCare did. And this is also why they discussed the need for the President to be born on US soil to two US Citizens. There is an “American” way of freedom that comes from understanding our history, our culture and our responsibility to run our own show.
The power was ALWAYS intended to be with “WE” the people. And this is Gingrich’s point that by challenging those interpretations and directly challenging the court’s definitions, you are re-emphasizing that the ultimate decision rests with the people, not just 9 unelected people.
It also means that, as Jefferson said (paraphrased), that a little revolution every now and then is good for our country. I expect the REASON he thought that, wais, not that conflict itself is good – but it forces those in power to not feel safe in controverting the will of the people and that it helps to re-educate ALL of us on what values we truly want to stand and fight for.

Fifth: The wonderful notion of simply “firing” the 9th Circuit court excites every Christian patriot that was incensed by their ruling that Buddha could be in the class room but Jesus couldn’t. Gingrich admits he isn’t quite this extreme but WOULD shut down the court of the San Antonio judge the said he would arrest anyone using the words “benediction,” “invocation,” “prayer,” or “God,” and put the 9th Circuit on notice.

ALL OF THESE POINTS ARE UNDERLINED WITH ONE SINGLE THEME: We have to quit encouraging the notion that the Supreme Court has the last word on anything.

The Heritage Foundation has a great summation of what was good and bad in the SCOTUS ObamaCare ruling and what to do next. Essentially we all know. Getting Romney elected IS NOT ENOUGH.

EPILOGUE
I pray that if Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination and is elected President he reverses his historical inclination to manage his politics by popularity, and has a reawakening of Constitutional values as Newt Gingrich put forth in his speech. I will take every chance to replace Mitt Romney with a Gingrich or Palin should the Lawyers for Ron Paul unlikely succeed in their efforts by Tampa time.
But even were Ronald Reagan’s resurrected spirit to become President, there is so much corruption at EVERY LEVEL of government that we need a CONSERVATIVE (not just Republican) House and Senate, and a leader who will fearlessly press these reforms with prudence.
We don’t just have to remove Barack Obama, but also the hordes of regulations, regulation makers, entrenched bureaucrats, entrenched bureaucratic processes and policies that will still be in place when our nominee is in office.
And only Gingrich has been open about this Herculean task in the primary, admitting that eight years might not be enough. Oddly, many conservatives let the conservative elites dissuade them from one of the only people in our history who was equipped to take this challenge on. Let’s not allow our movement to be saddled with a George Bush 41 repeat for Vice President, that will continue to leave power in the hands of the GOP, corporate and political powers that continue to play the people like peasants – rather than fearing the power the Constitution gave us.