Self Defense is a Fundamental Right Guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment By Maryann Zihala

Self Defense is a Fundamental Right Guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment
By Maryann Zihala

http://www.fujah.com/current-issue/124-self-defense-is-a-fundamental-right-guaranteed-by-the-2nd-amendment.html

When first ratified and added to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights applied only to the national level of government. The federal government would not be able to infringe on our fundamental rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Fundamental rights go by many names including basic rights, human rights, inalienable rights, and natural rights. These are rights that we are born with; the government does not give us our fundamental rights – the government is there to protect these rights.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one of the Civil War Amendments, was ratified in 1868 and changed the tone and future of the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment says very clearly: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” From this point forward the Bill of Rights would apply to the state governments as well as the federal government.

Over the next hundred or so years, the Supreme Court would use the 14th Amendment to force the states to comply with and protect the “fundamental” rights of the people contained in the Bill of Rights. One by one, case by case, the Supreme Court applied the 1st Amendment rights to the states, and then the rights of the accused found in the 4th through 8th Amendments.

One amendment had curiously escaped this treatment, the 2nd Amendment, until recently. In the DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment gives to the people the right to “keep and bear arms.” For some in this country that case was not enough to set the precedent and force the states’ compliance; the District of Columbia is not a state. And so we had the case of McDonald v. Chicago ruled on very recently by the Supreme Court. In this case the Court allowed that the right of self defense is a fundamental right deserving of protection from government, federal and state. The justices in the majority decided that the 2nd Amendment was applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause and its due process clause. The decision was 5-4 with the four conservative justices voting in favor of a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and the four liberal justices voting against it. The “swing” voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, voted with the majority.

Our most recently Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, told the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing that she agreed with the Heller decision and believed that the 2nd Amendment did give the people the right to keep and bear arms. She added that the Heller case makes this idea of an individual’s right to bear arms “settled” law – meaning that it is the law of the land and requires no further review. In the recent McDonald case, on the same subject, she was on the side of denying the people this right. In fact, she claimed to see nothing that suggested the right of self defense to be a fundamental right and agreed with Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion that DC v. Heller should be overturned.

Lately we have been watching the confirmation hearings of President Obama’s latest nominee for the high court, Elena Kagen. She has told the Judiciary Committee that she agrees with the McDonald decision and believes the right of self defense to be a fundamental right. This is very likely to be as untrue as the similar statement made by Justice Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing. This is the problem with Supreme Court nominees and their subsequent appointments. They can say anything while in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. If confirmed, and it is determined later that the nominee lied to the Senators, there is no repercussion; the Justice will sit on the Court for life.

By the time this goes to print Kagen will, in all likelihood, be confirmed and sitting on the Supreme Court. While the issue of self defense and the right to bear arms is important in and of itself, it should also serve as a warning to Senators that maybe the confirmation process should be taken a little more seriously – unless they don’t mind being lied to. Of course, the House of Representatives could always level an impeachment charge of perjury against Justice Sotomayor.

Maryann Zihala, J.D. is a political scientist and author of Rights, Liberties & the Rule of Law (2004) and Democracy: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number (2003). Email: zihala@msn.com

Firearm’s, Training & Self-Defense! Shoot Out At The IDPA Bear Creek Tactical Range

Bear Creek Tactical

Firearm’s, Training & Self-Defense
Shoot Out At The IDPA Bear Creek Tactical Range
Article and photography by Edward Biamonte

http://www.fujah.com/current-issue/132-firearms-training-a-self-defense-shoot-out-at-the-idpa-bear-creek-tactical-range.html

OR – http://www.fujah.com/current-issue/september-2010-flipbook/book/10-firearms-training-a-self-defense/3-september-2010.html

With so many people owning firearms today it’s just common sense to learn “a refined and scientific approach to shooting and self defense.” I had the opportunity to sit down with the owner of the Bear Creek Tactical range in Stockton Missouri, Rick Allenbrand. Bear Creek has a training day, that I refer to as a shoot out, the first Saturday of the month– 12 months out of the year. The focus of Rick Allenbrand is to train all users of firearms. He trains SWAT teams, private security to advance sniper training. His vision “is to provide a client-focused training center committed to the continual development of innovative techniques and training solutions, pertinent to the ever-changing environment of today’s world.”

Although our time was brief, because I was called to the range, I could tell Rick was very methodical in his approach to training as his pedigree reveals. I asked Allenbrand what instructional class he believed every shooter should take? Without blinking he stated the Conceal and Carry / Advanced Handgun I. Throughout the day I asked shooters on the course if they had taken the class. Those who did said it was worth every minute. Watching them shoot one could tell they’re better skills measured their time spent in the class.

A novice, myself, I am trying to learn as much about the sport of firearm shooting as possible. This being my third IDPA I can say I really enjoy it and want to get my spouse involved. So I decided to buy her the perfect .380 ACP semi auto by Walther? After reading reviews on the web about the .380 auto many women shooters stated the gun fits a women’s smaller hand perfectly. The .380 and other subcompacts like the 32, 25 and 22 are all the rage today and resemble the very cool Walther PPK (James Bond) style gun. I was curious what Risk’s thoughts were about the smaller semi autos and why the IDPA did not allow any of the new conceal and carry .380 caliber or any caliber under a 38 caliber on the range?

Rick stated that the new subcompact semi auto’s are – OK – but really not the best self defense or conceal and carry weapon. I was shocked? After all, they’re the hottest pistol selling today. Their slim and sexy, easy to hide. Rick believes their good as a back up, but on the range they lack the fire power to knock down a steel target so the IDPA does not allow them or any lessor caliber on the range. Furthermore, in a close combat defensive situation where you are surprised or grabbed by a perp you want at least at a 38 caliber for self defense.

For C&C, Allenbrand likes the 38 CIA special revolver (no external hammer) or even better a taser. The 38 special is very small, powerful, easy to hide and will not jam! It allows you to ready the weapon very fast and pull the trigger. Concerning the taser – Rick says “a taser will drop anyone.” He has seen law enforcement training films where a drug enraged bad guy took repeated hits to the body by a 45 caliber and kept advancing to grab the officer. Then when tased finally drop to the ground. Allenbrand

states “if an assailant grabs you, you have the time it takes to speak one sentence to ready and use your weapon.” Rick trains people to waist pull their weapon and use lower extremity targeting for self defense.

OK – So if the 38 special is the best small gun or a taser is the best conceal and carry, why did every shooter on the range that day have a semi auto? The semi auto is a very, very good gun that can be carried in a shoulder holster, belt holster, leg holster or as home defense weapon. More experienced shooters can pull and shoot the double action weapon very fast with deadly accuracy? However – experience is the key.

I just had to ask– “what is the best home defense weapon?” A resounding 12 gauge with number 4 loads resounded from the guys listening in on the conversation. The very sound of a 12 gauge loading a shell is enough to make a perp turn and walk away. So why is everyone buying semi autos big, thin, long or small? They’re just fun to shoot! And people are finding fun and safe ways to get their guns off.

Coming from all demographics and social norms people who own firearms do so for many different reasons. And that’s why groups like the IDPA – International Defensive Pistol Association – and the NRA exist. They help people learn, understand and train with their firearm and use the firearm in a safe and civil way. Plus it’s just great fun that’s challenging and competitive far beyond what standard range shooting offers.
Looking for a fun family activity, make shooting a family event by joining the IDPA, NRA and a an indoor range like The Sound of Freedom!

Here’s a little history you might not of known about the NRA. The NRA has been around since the late 1800’s. Their web site states: “Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA’s first president. An important facet of the NRA’s creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.
Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA’s matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey.”

So one begs the question: If we have the NRA why do we need the IDPA. Different clubs focus on different applications and scenarios of training. The rifle used in the 1800’s was a long rifle, hence– the National Rifleman’s Association. The IDPA is The International Defensive Pistol Association. The difference – the focus is on the pistol.

The IDPA creates unique scenarios that you have to defensively work through. Their web site states: “The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) is the governing body of a shooting sport that simulates self-defense scenarios and real life encounters. It was founded in 1996 as a response to the desires of shooters worldwide. The organization now boasts membership of more than 17,008, including members in 50 foreign countries. One of the unique facets of this sport is that it is geared toward the new or average shooter, yet is fun, challenging and rewarding for the experienced shooter.

The founders developed the sport so that practical gear and practical guns may be used competitively. An interested person can spend a minimal amount on equipment and still be competitive. The main goal is to test the skill and ability of the individual, not equipment or gamesmanship. “Competition only” equipment is not permitted in this sport. The firearms are grouped into five (5) divisions:

Custom Defensive Pistol (.45ACP semi-automatics only);
Enhanced Service Pistol (9 mm (9×19) or larger caliber semi-automatics);
Stock Service Pistol (9 mm (9×19) or larger caliber double action, double action only, or safe action semi-automatics);
Enhanced Service Revolver (.38 caliber or larger double action revolvers); and
Stock Service Revolver (.38 caliber or larger double action revolvers). See Appendix One – Equipment for delineations in the revolver divisions. Shooters are then classed by like-skill levels with progression from Novice (NV); to Marksman (MM); to Sharpshooter (SS); to Expert (EX); and, finally, to Master (MA).”
What are the  goals of IDPA?

1: Promote safe and proficient use of guns and equipment suitable for self-defense use.

2: Provide a level playing field for all competitors to test the skill and ability of the individual, not their equipment or gamesmanship.

3: Provide separate divisions for equipment and classifications for shooters, such that guns with similar characteristics are grouped together and people with similar skills compete only against each other.

4: Provide shooters with practical and realistic courses of fire that simulate a potentially life-threatening encounter or that tests skills that would be required to survive a life-threatening encounter.

5: Offer a practical shooting sport that is responsive to the shooters and sponsors, with unprecedented stability of equipment rules.

6: Offer a practical shooting sport that allows the competitors to concentrate on the development of their shooting skills and fellowship with other like-minded shooters.

Rick Allenbrand’s Mission

To provide basic and advanced training, coupled with both tactical and comprehensive real-world scenario exercises.
To provide the tools and knowledge to those who are constantly seeking self, tactical, and team skill enhancement, while willing to think outside-the-box.
Today’s tensions require the use of trainers that are not paper tigers. To meet that demand, the goal of our organization is to provide only experienced and highly motivated trainers and operators. To fulfill that philosophy, our trainers are proven individuals, having served at the federal, state and local levels, with experience in real-world incidents.
This no frills approach will provide a professional, customer-oriented training aspect, designed to fit the specific training requirements for an individual, as well as the agency training program.

Contact Rick Allenbrand at PO Box 536 Stockton, MO 417-276-6118 http://www.bearcreektactical.com/index.php

The shooters present that day at Bear Creek’s IDPA Saturday morning training session love to shoot. There were four courses the shooter’s engaged. Each course had a unique set up or progression you had to follow. Speed and accuracy score your attempt to self defend. Some shooters say take a moderate speed approach while others try to go as fast as possible. Accuracy is always a must. Shooters form groups of friends that adapt fun ways to attack the course. While others are very serious and see the training as method to self defense.

There is never a wrong way to any safe approach. So keep your approach safe by following the rules. And there are a bunch of safety rules that if not followed will eject you from the course. The group I enjoy shooting with have adopted a fun and safe approach to the competition called the ZMOS approach?

ZMOS? The “Zombie Militia Of Springfield” – still don’t get it? How do you kill a Zombie? Head Shots!! Shawn Dixon and Jeff Madden “We’re the head shot guys. We run the course as fast as possible, killing Zombies the only way you can kill a Zombie – shooting the dead in the head.” The target is smaller therefore demanding more focus and precise shooting.

The ZMOS guys, having trained for years as youth on Zombie video games, are good shooters and make running the course fun. Now mature adults they use real guns and train on paper (zombie) targets. Standard old school shooting is two to the body one to the head. Head shooters do two to the head and on the last Zombie target unload or get their gun off!!! After all – one has to get ready for the Zombie uprising– we’re told is “emanate”.

Final thoughts. I’m no expert, however, with any sport – you have to use common sense and employ Safe Guidelines. All fire arm shooting organizations have safety rules to follow. If you belong to a club that does not – find a club that does! Safety first! Keep hand guns out of the hands of bad guys – get a gun safe! Keep your children safe – Get A Gun Safe! If your firearm is lost or stolen report it immediately to the authorities to protect yourself from reprisals if the gun is used unlawfully. If you have children – allow them to be a part of the sport and as a family take a gun safety class. Involving your children takes away the curiosity factor children often have when told not to touch something. Redundant? Keeping the gun in a safe removes the opportunity of children showing the firearm off in front of their friends. Use Common Sense, stay safe!

Edward Biamonte is a free lance commercial and editorial photographer.
You can see Edward Biamonte’s work in 417 Magazine at http://www.417mag.com
Or visit Edward’s Webs at http://www.edwardbiamonte.com and for Architecture at http://www.ebiamontephotography.com

New START Treaty with Russia will START to Decrease U.S. Security

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has begun hearings on President Obama’s recently negotiated arms control treaty with Russia. The ‘Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty’ was signed by the President in April and submitted to the Senate for ratification in May. The Senate must ratify the treaty with a 2/3rd vote in order for it to become law in the United States. The President is hoping for a vote on ratification before the November election. Constitutionally, treaty ratification requires 67 senate votes –something that will be difficult for the 59 Senate Democrats to get now and almost surely impossible after the November election, when the Republicans are likely to increase their number in the Senate.

Apple Boycotts Fox News Glen Beck

Sarah Steelman | ON Point!

“Why Stand We Here Idle?”
by Sarah Steelman,
Former State Treasurer of Missouri
Currently an advisor to TFI Portfolios LLC
A Terror-Free investment portfolio advisor
http://www.terrorfreeinvesting.com

In the spring of 1775, while many in the Virginia delegation were content on waiting for King George to respond to Congress’s latest petition for “reconciliation”, one was not – Patrick Henry.  Henry presented a proposal to the Virginia delegation to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry to defend themselves against the British.  His words expressed urgency and a commitment that we should all remember today.  Our enemy is not as visible as King George and the British grenadiers.  However, terrorists stealing our freedom and killing our citizens is once again at stake in a much more insidious and evil way.  And just as Patrick Henry refused to appease the enemy and wait for “reconciliation”, he instead prepared for battle.  We as Americans need to wake up and take action instead of waiting for government to “protect” us.  Full story online at http://www.fujah.com

A 2009 Retrospective – Is Brand Obama Tarnished Forever?

2009 was anything but typical from sea to shinning sea. From the swearing in of the first biracial to the Presidency of the United States to the Tea Party protesters movement, this country will never be the same. It has been said that change is good, in retrospect we’ll see. What we have seen thus far by the new President has been mediocre at best. The Obama brand “Hope and Change” is it tarnished forever?

Starting with Cap and Tax, Health Care reform, outrageous spending with rising national debt into the trillions, anti-terrorism failures, constitutional rights for enemy combatants, green jobs moving to China, unemployment at double digits, no focus to create jobs, back room deals in health care, no transparency as promised, Acorn scandals, a blatant disregard for the constitution, and the attempt to remove contextual heuristic structures of blue and white from the debate and replace it with a democratic (socialist) red reveals contemptible administrative actions. Is Obama trying to bankrupt the nation? What should be the foremost agenda by our government? Full story on line at http://www.fujah.com

Fujah Magazines February Issue On-line Now!

Sarah Steelman ON Point – “Why Stand We Here Idle?”
Dr. Z’s Perspective – Freedom of Speech, Politically In – Correct?
InspiRED Valentines Day Fashions, by Nicole Taylor – Photography Edward Biamonte
Racist Republicans??
Transparency? Liberty for All! by JB MAX and much much more On Line Now

“The Humpty Dumpty Effect”

The Humpty Dumpty Effect

On Line at http://www.fujah.com

by J.B. Max

The United States of America has fallen and many fear her inability to pull herself back up. Finally the USA, which has been perched for some time on the wall, teetering between socialism and capitalism has now fallen, some say irreparably, on the cold, hard ground of socialism. Who is going to put her back together again?

Over the last few months we have witnessed the ride of Obama, his cabinet and his many, many czars trying to make repairs.  Obama took office with the U.S. economy taking a nose dive, second only to the Great Depression. The congress then began a frenzy of buying and bailing. In February, the House approved the Obama economic stimulus plan with a vote of 246 to 183, followed by the Senate with a vote of 60 to 38. The appropriations section of the bill details spending in excess of $311 billion, for programs ranging from Pell grants for college students, to clean water in central Utah, to nearly $100 billion in new transportation and infrastructure projects. Totaling $787 billion the final bill allotts only around $37 billion to actually aide people affected by economic downturn and a mere $870 million of the $787 billion specified in the small business category. U.S. small businesses provide nearly two-thirds of new private sector jobs, employ more than half of all workers, and account for more than half of the output of the economy – yet they received only .001 percent of the stimulus budget. This only further solidified the consensus that the government is out of touch, and has become an oligarchy of environmentalist, socialists and political opportunists.

The Cap and Trade bill, which places limits on emissions, taxing and fining according to the discretion of the government in power, passed soon after, further threatening American businesses. The environmental benefits of this bill have been severely questioned by some leading environmentalists. They voiced concerns that unless the entire industrial world follows suit, the Cap and Trade was a mute bill that would only further destroy our economy as businesses outsourced to countries without the regulations.

Recently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, casting all bipartisanship aside, called for a vote of the House on a 1,200 page, highly controversial healthcare reform bill. If the bill passed it would cost at least an additional $900 billion over the next 10 years. While there has been, across the board, agreement that the healthcare system is failing, there is extreme discontent and disagreement as to the extent the government should play in our healthcare decisions.

A chasm in ideology of the two Americas, one being the liberal metropolitan America vs. the rural conservative America, has widened, with polarization growing in each camp, and at an alarming rate.  As the liberals rush with break-neck speed to legislate into laws all of their
ideologies, their opposition is incredulous and mortified at the speed in which their countries’ financial landscape and personality are changing.

Rural America is seeing the changes as an eroding of their liberties and theft by taxation as an affront to the ideals and work ethic instilled in them by their parents and forefathers.  These flag flying, patriotic, self-sacrificing people, making up the back bone of the United States in work, ethics and contributions, are severely disillusioned. Parents hoping to see their children enjoy a better life see only the hamster-wheel future.  A future in which you work harder and run faster, but do not get ahead. Or, if you should get ahead, then you would be forced, if the current administration has their way, to share your gain whether you wished to or not.  Thomas Jefferson  summed up how our forefathers viewed this mentality when he said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Rural America sees their way of life being ridiculed, and any opposition being downplayed and attributed to ignorance. Their opinions are being marginalized by the Pelosis, Reids and national news network anchors feeding the flames of their concerns. Even after all the tea parties, rambunctious town hall meetings and open opposition to a government takeover of our healthcare, Speaker  Pelosi, proudly had this to say after her introduction of the 1,990 page bill to the House. “The Affordable Health Care for America Act is founded on key principles of American success: opportunity, choice, competition and innovation. We have listened to the American people. We are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges.”

Metropolitan America is elated that the Bush regime is gone and they are finally in power.  A power they have gloated to the point of intoxication.  Finally, they have someone who shares their extreme left views with the onviction and charisma to push it into law. The Metro America does not relate to the rural America, understand their way of life or understand how they could possibly have the belief system so prevalent in middle America. A growing number  of Americans are very socialistic in their views, with many going even further with their Marxist-bent beliefs that the wealthy should share their wealth with the poor. The metro-Americans are proud of the fact that they are not afraid of change, but embrace it. They view the rurals as intolerant, unmovable and out to increase the wealth of big business. Rurals obviously have no conscience regarding environmental issues. Where metro-Americans believe strongly in the separation of church and state to the degree of keeping church out of the state, the rural Americans also believe in separation but that the state should stay out of their homes and their churches.

The  distinctive contrast between these two factions of America was summed up as follows by The Barna Group in a study done on liberalism vs. conservatism.  The study indicated that those differences are related to substantially different spiritual beliefs, behaviors and alignments. Overall, the research showed that nearly one-third of all adults (32 percent) consider themselves to be “mostly conservative” on social and political matters. Half as many (17 percent) claimed to be “mostly liberal” on such matters. The other 50 percent of the adult population generally takes a position somewhere in between those opposing viewpoints.  Yet in the last few months the “somewhere-in-betweens” have slid rapidly more to the conservative side of the scale, especially regarding the issue of less government involvement. The left-wingers seem to have swung far more radical in their beliefs, placing a considerable rift between the two positions.  It seems that instead of either liberal or conservative, it is becoming more about “big government” vs. “individual freedoms.”

The majority of conservatives, and now, an ever-growing number of the independents and democrats, see the hand writing on the wall. They fear that unless the government stops and turns itself around soon, it may be too late. The confidence of Americans in their government has been broken. In talking with rural Americans, many feel the need for a return of the government to its proper place in their lives. The metros feel that drastic measures must be taken, and the government needs to be involved to regulate and administer
this radical change. Today the United States of America may be better described as the Divided States of America. What is the answer for a country so divided and so broken?  Who can fix it, and how can we come together again and be once more a united nation?

Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back

"The Humpty Dumpty Effect"

together again.

“Finding The Real Thing”

"Finding The Real Thing"

Finding the “Real Thing”

On Line at http://www.fujah.com

By Sarah Steelman, former Missouri State Treasurer

Coke used to have a commercial differentiating its taste from Pepsi by calling itself – “the Real Thing.”  Unfortunately, when I watch today’s critical debates over public policy I rarely, if ever, see “the Real Thing.” And I don’t think it is just me feeling this way.  More and more I hear my friends and neighbors complaining about how plastic Washington politicians appear as they bombard us with rhetoric from a set of narrow talking points, completely unwilling to set aside political differences to try and solve problems. The real crisis I see is not in health care or carbon emissions, but it is the collapsing confidence the public has in our government’s institutions.

We are living in a society where image is everything and perception is reality.  I just finished the book “Where Men Win Glory,” by Jon Krakauer. This is a story about a true American hero, Pat Tillman. Krakauer traces every error in judgment, mistake and incident that resulted in Tillman’s tragic death at the hands of friendly fire. He also documents how the military hierarchy covered, lied and manufactured a story about Pat Tillman to ease their conscience, benefit their cause and further perpetuate their myths about the glories of war.   Pat Tillman was a true American hero because he did not believe a person’s value came from the position you hold, or because you are famous. His intrinsic value came from his soul, his purpose here on Earth and his willingness to forgo the fame and fortune of his professional football career to do his duty to his country. In fact, when offered the chance to get out of the Army halfway through his service and go home and play for the Cardinals, he turned it down without fanfare, and honored his commitment. Krakauer reveals the nature of Tillman’s character as a disciplined seeker of truth and knowledge, one who wasn’t afraid of working hard or taking risks.

In essence, this is what is wrong with our leaders today on both sides of the aisle. Far too often, fame, fortune and spin are what work in today’s political world. That may sound harsh, but the truth is a stubborn thing. Let’s get to the bottom of what has caused the American public to lose faith in our leaders, our institutions and our ability to deal with issues and problems using straight-forward common sense consistent with our constitution.

Our economy was brought to a complete standstill just a year ago because of valueless paper investments causing investors to lose faith and trust in the capital markets. The government responded by bailing them out, underscoring the fact that substance, or doing it right, wasn’t as important as acting like they were saving the financial world.  And now, a year later, unemployment is at 10 percent, retirees have lost half the value of their retirement funds and the fat cats on Wall Street who are responsible for the demise of our economy are still capitalizing on taxpayers. To this day no one has been held accountable for the failures in that system. There have been no consequences to the wrongdoers.

Passing the health care reform bill has become more important than the goals and outcomes of the bill itself, as is evidenced by the pundits who believe we have to have “reform” – any legislation at any cost. The problem with health care is the high cost of insuring one’s family or providing insurance for employees. The current form of each health care bill does not bring costs down, but instead makes it more expensive because of additional taxes.

Cap and trade pretends to be a better way of reducing carbon gas when in fact it is a way for corporations to profit from buying and selling allowances while still continuing to pollute.

President Obama receives the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize before he completes the first year of his presidency. That’s kind of like getting a super bowl ring before you play the game. He may earn it, but right now there is still war in Afghanistan, Iran is building a secret nuclear facility and the terrorists who orchestrated 9-11 and killed over 3,000 Americans will not be tried as war criminals.

Our culture rewards the pretenders with reelection, or election to a higher office, or maybe even their own reality show or talk show, or best yet, multi-million dollar bonuses for destroying our financial system. And true American heroes who understand the value of those things that you can’t hold in your hand… they are the ones who you rarely hear about. We can no longer rely on packaged candidates, polling data and political consultants to get our country back on track.

Pat Tillman represents the polar opposite of our current political system. He never looked for the easy way out. He understood the meaning of the word sacrifice and willingly embraced his role in his platoon. He never expected to be rewarded for his service.

Tillman was one of the smallest safetys in NFL history compared to most NFL players, but he worked harder and longer and he hit with more force and velocity than bigger players. He couldn’t spin his way out of a bad play on the football field. Nor would he even consider it. Pat Tillman stood strong – on the field of play and on the field of battle. Not for fame or glory or money or power or political office. He did what he believed was right. No more and no less. That’s the kind of greatness that founded this country. We are in great need of more of that greatness today. In a world where the real thing is getting harder and harder to find, in my humble opinion, what we need are more people like Pat Tillman.

By Sarah Steelman, former Missouri State Treasurer

“Unconstitutional Government”

Unconstitutional Government

On Line at http://www.fujah.com

by Maryann Zihala, J.D.

Unconstitutional Government

In 1787 the Framers of the U.S. Constitution wrote a contract between the governed and the government. It is a contract that creates a “limited” government: a federal system that divides power between national and state levels of government, with a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances among and between the three branches at the national level – all designed to limit the power of government. Additionally, they added a Bill of Rights so that the newly created national government would be very clear about the rights retained by the people. This is known today throughout the world as the Madisonian model of limited government – in deference to the father of our Constitution: James Madison. Ours is a Constitution that clearly defines the powers and limits of the national government. There are delegated powers: those expressly given to the government; there are implied powers: those that are necessary in order to carry out the delegated powers; there are denied powers: those that cannot be exercised. Madison even explained this for us:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

The current government in Washington is certainly not the first to ignore the Constitution. Constitutional government in America has been eroding for the better part of a hundred years. Many of those who have occupied the Executive Branch have used inherent powers and executive privilege –neither of which appears in the Constitution– to usurp power never intended for that branch. Those in the Legislative Branch have used the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause –all contained in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution– as justifications for expanding powers for the Congress way beyond what the Framers intended. That being said, the current holders of power in Washington have completely breached the contract we call our Constitution. More than disregarding it, they have shown utter disdain for its main principle of “limited” government.

Unconstitutional Presidency
President Barak Obama has exhibited tremendous contempt for the Constitution, evidenced by his words and his actions. He seems to believe that the limits placed on government by the framers of the Constitution are a hindrance. In a now famous interview on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ in 2001, Obama said:

“As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution . . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can’t do to you; says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. ”

As president, Obama has usurped power for the executive branch in a manner never seen before. Even if we were to allow that the executive has certain inherent powers, we cannot find justification for this president’s actions over the last year. In 1952, in the midst of war, the steelworkers threatened to go on strike and President Harry Truman seized the steel mills –steel being critical to the war effort– citing inherent power and national security. A mere two months later the Supreme Court ruled the president’s actions unconstitutional opining that this action was a violation of the principle of separation of powers because the president did not have “lawmaking power” as that belonged to the Congress alone.

Louis Fisher recently told the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of the danger associated with an executive invoking inherent powers –those powers beyond what is explicitly granted by the Constitution. “The Constitution is undermined by claims of open-ended authorities that cannot be located, defined, or circumscribed. . . .Whenever the executive branch justifies its actions on the basis of inherent powers, the rule of law is jeopardized. To preserve a constitutional system, executive officers must identify express or implied powers for their actions.”

Stimulus Bill
One of the first actions of the new government that took control of both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue in January was to pass an outrageous spending bill under the guise of stimulating the economy. This is money that will have to be borrowed or printed now – and the people will be taxed to pay for it later. And we have since seen that the money from that bill which has been spent has not stimulated the economy or created jobs – but much has gone to the favored constituent groups that placed these same politicians in office. On the spending limitations in the Constitution, Madison wrote: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Government Takeovers
Consider President Obama’s seizures of private businesses: AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GMAC, General Motors, Chrysler. He fired the CEO of GM, hired a new CEO, and appointed a Car Czar to make decisions about suppliers, unionization of workers, and types of cars to be built by the auto companies the U.S. government now owns.

The takeover of these companies, in and of itself, is a violation of the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment. The government can only take property if it is for public use and the previous owners of the confiscated property must be fairly compensated. These takeovers were not for public use and the bailout money cannot be considered fair compensation to the previous owners because the stockholders of these companies received nothing. Buying stock in a company is always a risk, but most stockholders did not even consider there was a risk that the company would be confiscated by the federal government rendering their stock worthless.

The original bailout program and the creation of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) by Congress can be cited as authority for the president’s above listed actions. However, that fund was never intended to be used to buy auto companies. It was supposed to buy the toxic assets of financial institutions that were deemed “too big to fail.” So the president’s actions are not only unconstitutional, they are also not sanctioned by law. And even if the Congress passed a law authorizing the president to do the things he has done, such a law would be unconstitutional as well. The concept of “too big to fail” is anathema to our country, our culture, and our Constitution. We are a capitalist country; a read of the delegated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution reveals that Congress has a duty to promote capitalism and free enterprise; it has no duty to protect companies that have become inefficient and are no longer able to compete in our capitalist economic system. When private companies are labeled “too big to fail” and are saved from bankruptcy by the taxpayers, we no longer have capitalism.

The president’s appointment of a Pay Czar to set salaries for these –and other– companies violates numerous constitutional principles. The argument that these companies are operating with taxpayers’ money, and, therefore, have to allow the government to control salaries and bonuses, fails on several levels. These companies were not informed that this would be the situation if they accepted bailout money. Without this upfront disclosure, changing the rules now amounts to an ex post facto law, disallowed by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Cutting the bonuses and salaries of employees is also a bill of attainder because these people are being singled out for punishment by the executive and legislative branches –also a violation of Article 1, Section 9, and a violation of the separation of powers principle. Only the judicial branch can mete out punishment and then only after the requirements of due process have been satisfied with a trial. Additionally, denying the salaries and bonuses promised to these employees in their employment contracts is a violation of the contracts clause of Article 1, Section 10. And if the original intention ever was to only control salaries and bonuses of those bailed-out companies, the Federal Reserve’s recent announcement that all of the banks it regulates –and it regulates them all– would now be given salary guidelines, speaks volumes.

Unconfirmed Presidential Appointments
On the subject of Czars: President Obama now has almost three dozen of these policy analysts working in the White House. In the past, Congress has created about a dozen offices for the president with the top position held by a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee. Obama has tripled this number and none of his new czars have been confirmed by the Senate. This is beyond any constitutional executive powers; this is legislating by presidential fiat. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says: “He shall have power . . . and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.” Article 2 does allow that the Congress may vest the appointment power in the president alone, by law – but Congress has not done this in regard to the cadre of new czars appointed by this president.

About the separation of powers, British Philosopher John Locke (whose writings were widely read by our Founding Fathers) said: “The legislative branch cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” Allowing the executive to arbitrarily create White House offices, and appoint un-confirmed czars to make policy, clearly violates the principle of separation of powers. Additionally, the Obama Administration will not allow these czars to testify before congressional committees on policy matters, thwarting the legislative oversight function of Congress and violating the system of checks and balances.

Unconstitutional Congress
Congress and health care reform pose another constitutional problem for the current government. The bill recently passed in the House, and the one about to be passed in the Senate, have raised numerous questions about the reach of government and the constitutionality of health care reform. There is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to be taking over the health care system, forcing taxpayers to pay for the health care of others, and requiring individuals to have health care insurance – on pain of fines and incarceration. Various congressional leaders have been scrambling lately to explain from where this authority comes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), when asked about the constitutional authority for Obama’s health care reform proposal, responded: “Are you serious?” Her office later stated that the authority comes from the interstate commerce clause in Article 1, Section 8. This clause allows Congress to regulate only that commerce which crosses states’ borders. The intention of the Framers was that commerce between the states should be free from interference by state governments. According to Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, “Instead of serving as that shield against interference by the states, the commerce power has become a sword wielded by the federal government in pursuit of a boundless array of regulatory programs.”

Faced with a similar inquiry, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said: “In promoting the general welfare, the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress . . . Clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.” On the general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8, James Madison said: “With respect to the two words general welfare, 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 its creators . . . If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the question of constitutional authority for health care reform replied: “We have plenty of authority. I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.” Senator, call your office; there are some people who question that.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) may be one of the most honest politicians in Congress today. When asked by Fox News Legal Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano about the constitutional authority for forcing Americans to buy health care insurance, Representative Clyburn replied: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

The People’s Responsibility
Our Constitution has been under continuous attack and is being violated with impunity. So why does this happen? How can the Constitution allow this to happen? The better question is: why do the people allow it to happen? Someone has to stand up and defend the Constitution and if our elected officials are not going to do that, then the people must do it. According to Anthony Gregory of the Campaign for Liberty, “Constitutions alone cannot limit government. What matters ultimately is the Constitution in the hearts and minds of the people. So long as the American public supports unconstitutional actions, such actions will commence. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, as Jefferson noted. The Constitution spells out great limits on the government, but without the support of the people, the document loses its teeth.”

The Enumerated Powers Act has been introduced in Congress by Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) numerous times. The Act requires that: “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.” While this would not stop the Congress from passing unconstitutional laws, it would at least require a conversation about and consideration of that document we once revered in this country. It seems the time is right to finally get the Enumerated Powers Act enacted.