Tag Archives: Constitution

Sheriff of El Dorado County strips federal law enforcement of their law enforcement powers

Posted on by

dagostini-01El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini has stripped the power of the forest service law enforcement to enforce State laws in his county according to CBS Sacramento.

In a letter they obtained, Sheriff D’Agostini wrote:

“I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide. The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

The Sheriff said that he took the action after numerous complaints.

Sheriff D’Agostini is also known for a January 2013 letter to Vice-President Biden over the proposed gun ban according to KRNV in Nevada. In the letter he wrote:

“The purpose of this letter is to go on record of re-affirming my oath of office and making it clear that I and my staff will never violate [our oath of office] by being pressured into enforcing any unconstitutional provision, law or executive order.”

He noted that disarming law-abiding citizens would not prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

James Madison on General Welfare

Posted on by

James_Madison

“With respect to the words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators.” — James Madison 1831

High school text book really does re-write Constitution

Posted on by

04160E9CCD6B405ABE832FB368757512BreitBart reports that one high school text book publisher literally does re-write the Constitution. It overturns a Supreme Court Decision, as well.

Page 102 of United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination (PDF) gives brief descriptions of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Their version of the Second Amendment states:

The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.

The official Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF) that the right to bear arms is independent of being a member of a militia. In 2010, the case of McDonald v. Chicago (PDF), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment restrictions on government applied to State as well as national government.

The book is authored by John J. Newman and was published in 2003 by Amsco School Publications Incorporated.
Continue reading →

Nevada range war: Western states move to take over federal land

Posted on by

Christian Science Monitor

Christian Science Monitor

Like a mustang tied to a fence post, many westerners for years have resisted Uncle Sam’s control of land they say more properly belongs to states or counties – or to nobody at all except the ranchers, miners, and loggers who work the land for its natural resources.

The tussle over Cliven Bundy’s 400 cows – grazing on federal land, although he refuses to pay the required fees now amounting to more than $1 million – sharpens this debate, which has featured state legislators, county officials, environmentalists, and federal judges (all of whom have ruled against Mr. Bundy).

In Salt Lake City Friday, representatives from Utah, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington met for a “Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands.”

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder said at a news conference. “We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms.”

Read more at The Christian Science Monitor

Hillsdale College Constitution 101 course starts Monday.

Posted on by
hillsdale

Hillsdale College Campus

Hillsdale College in Michigan is starting up a free basic online course on the Constitution on Monday, February 24. Potential students can per-register now.

These courses are non-credit courses which are based on the curriculum that the resident students must take in order to graduate. These are great extra-study courses for high school students and students of other colleges.

These well-done courses consist of video lectures and downloads from their Constitutional Reader and other sources. The course covers the Constitution in the view of the founders through their words and the government-approved Federalist Papers.

The course is complete with examinations and you even receive a certificate of completion for the courses.

Upon completion, there is a Constitution 201 course available. They also have two history courses and a new economics course.

The course comes in ten weekly sections with a video about 45-minutes long. The reading depends on how much time you devote. If you want a good understanding of the Constitution, this is about the best ten weeks you can spend.

Sedona TEA Party offers seminar on the Constitution

Posted on by

“[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes — rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments.” —Alexander Hamilton, letter to James Bayard, April, 1802

SEDONA—The Sedona TEA Party will be holding two lectures in December entitled “The Peoples Convention.” The seminars are $10 each and features attorney Blair Henry on Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

Article 5 of our Constitution sets down instructions on how the States can hold a convention and make amendments to the Constitution. Blair will cover conception, history, and application of Article 5. He will explain how we can make it work for We the People?

“The People’s Convention” seminar dates, times and locations are as follows:

WEDNESDAY, 12/4, 5:45 to 8:00 PM,
SEDONA PUBLIC LIBRARY
3250 White Bear Road, Sedona, 86336
—
THURSDAY, 12/5, 6:15 to 8:30 PM,
CANYON TRAILS COWBOY CHURCH
3132 White Bear Road, Sedona, 86336

Source: Sedona TEA Party

Two House proposals raise Constitutional concerns.

Posted on by

Republicans in the Arizona legislature are submitting several bills aimed at protecting the rights of the citizens of Arizona. In their zeal of patriotism, however, two bills have been submitted concerning patriotic oaths that are causing concern.

Although one might question why one would be reluctant to take a patriotic oath of allegiance to the country, they may violate the First Amendment right of the individual. If they were to pass and somehow merit the signature of the governor, they would almost certainly wind up in the courts.

HB 2284, sponsored by Representative Steve Smith would require schools in grades one to twelve to set aside a specific time during the day in which students would be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance unless their parents specifically request the pupil be excused.

According to AZCentral, Representative Smith said he introduced the legislation in response to a Maricopa high-school student who last year reported feeling mocked and embarrassed after she was the only one in her class to stand and say the pledge.

Making time for students who want to voluntarily say the Pledge should not pose a problem, but forcing them is raising First Amendment concerns.

Another bill raising constitutional eyebrows is sponsored by freshman Representative Bob Thorpe. HB 2467, would require students to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution similar to those required by public officials. In addition to passing the required course of instruction, the principle or head teacher of a school would have to certify in writing that the student performed the following oath:

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

Representative Thorpe said that the intent was to inspire the students to further study the Constitution. He said, however, that he intends to change the wording of the bill to make it voluntary.

“Both bills are clearly unconstitutional, ironically enough,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham in the AZCentral article. “You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”

Transparency not an option?

Posted on by

The Internet is abuzz with the story that the January 20th swearing in of Barrack Obama may be a private affair. Apparently the word is that Obama intends not to allow the media that installed him to attend the ceremony. Alana Goodman of Commentary Magazine reported, “Politico reports that Obama’s second inaugural oath for the ‘most transparent administration in history’ might be administered privately, without any media present.”

The web site Politico reported a quote from the NBC News White House correspondent. “Call me shell-shocked. I’m stunned that this is even an issue; it boggles the mind,” Chuck Todd told POLITICO. “This is not their oath, this is the constitutional oath. It’s not for them. It’s for the public, the citizens of the United Sates. It just boggles the mind. How is this even a debate?”

In his original swearing in ceremony, there were mistakes in the oath of office that he took. Some said that mistake nullified the oath causing another swearing in ceremony to be conducted in the White House in private.

According to the Politico office, the White House intends a public ceremony after the private ceremony. Apparently they intend to reverse the process from the first gaffed ceremony.

The excuse of the White House is alleged to be that January 20th falls on a Sunday, they will hold the ceremony privately and hold a public ceremony the following day.

“The White House Correspondents Association has reason to be concerned,” Goodman wrote in her commentary. “While Obama’s second oath of office in 2009 (if you remember, he had to do it twice) wasn’t completely closed to the media, only four reporters were allowed to attend, writes Dylan Byers.”

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

Posted on by

Proposed law scheduled for a vote next week originally increased Americans’ e-mail privacy. Then law enforcement complained. Now it increases government access to e-mail and other digital files.

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans’ e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It’s an abrupt departure from Leahy’s earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by… requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to “reconsider acting” on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday.

Read more at CNET

Governor Brewer vetoes bills strengthening Sheriff controls and endorsing the Second Amendment

Posted on by

PHOENIX—Governor Jan Brewer, whose finger-wag was seen ’round the world, vetoed Arizona H.B. 2434 which would have required federal law enforcement officials to report to the County Sheriff prior to taking any law enforcement action.

In her April 11th letter, she informed House Speaker Andy Tobin of her concerns with interference with federal agencies.

“This legislation has the potential to interfere with law enforcement investigations and adds unneeded reporting requirements for law enforcement. Rather than hinder the efforts of our federal law enforcement colleagues, we need to focus on collaboration,” she wrote.

She noted that the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Center gathers local, state and federal law enforcement to jointly fight against terrorism and other serious crimes. Apparently that does not include securing the southern border.

The Governor also vetoed House Joint Resolution 2001 “Authorizing opposition to the use of an international force on american soil that seeks to enforce any united Nations treaty that has not been ratified by the United States senate.”

The resolution reads:

Whereas, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution firmly states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”; and

Whereas, Article II, section 26, Arizona Constitution, states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired”; and

Whereas, member nations of the United Nations have formed committees with the intent to regulate private firearm ownership; and

Whereas, the United Nations committees have held hearings on the Arms Trade Treaty, which includes regulation of private firearms ownership; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States prevents the President from enacting a treaty without ratification from the United States Senate; and

Whereas, the National Rifle Association has secured the commitment from 58 current United States senators that they would not ratify the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty as long as it includes regulation of private firearms ownership; and

Whereas, the United Nations Security Council regularly shows its disregard for sovereign nations and their constitutions and laws; and

Whereas, the United Nations has used force to disarm citizens of a sovereign nation in the past, which led to mass killings by bladed weapons; and

Whereas, the United Nations often uses international forces to impose its will on sovereign nations.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

1. That the State of Arizona opposes any use of an international force on American soil that seeks to enforce any United Nations treaty that has not been properly ratified by the United States Senate.

2. That the State of Arizona authorizes using organized resistance to thwart any international force that infringes on the United States Constitution or any of its amendments.

Continue reading →