Glenn Beck: Article 5

Video: Glenn Beck: Article 5

Citizens for Self Governance’s Mark Meckler makes the case for a Convention of States 

Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States

Glenn Beck Declares ‘Convention of States’ Is the ‘Only Way Back’

Mark Levin: “We Don’t Live Under Barack Obama! We Live Under a Constitutional Republic!”

Book: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (Kindle)  -  Mark Levin talks about his new book with an expert panel on Hannity – The Liberty Amendments

Technorati Tags: Constitution,Founding Fathers,History,Politics,Survival,Beck,Freedom,States Rights,Levin,Article 5,Convention of States,We the People,Knowledge,Republic,Solutions,Get-Involved,Saving America

U.S. Supreme Court dumps AZ voter law

The Bugle: PHOENIX -- Saying federal law trumps state, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona cannot demand proof of citizenship from individuals who use a federal voter registration form.

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority rejected arguments by state Attorney General Tom Horne that Arizona is free to demand more than the federal form requires.

It mandates only that those registering to vote sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that they are citizens and eligible. But Horne argued that Arizona is free to reject those forms unless applicants also submit actual proof of citizenship, something mandated by a 2004 voter-approved law.

Monday's ruling specifically requires state and local election officials to accept -- and, more to the point -- to register those individuals who use the form prescribed by the National Voter Registration Act even if they provide no proof of citizenship.

But Horne insisted Monday the ruling was only a setback. He noted the court said Arizona can petition the federal Election Assistance Commission to alter its form to allow Arizona to add that proof-of-citizenship requirement.

But Nina Perales, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, pointed out Arizona made such a request in 2005 and was rejected by the four-member commission on a 2-2 vote.

ere is no reason to think Arizona would be successful on a second try, particularly because Arizona cannot point to a single instance of a non-citizen registering to vote or trying to register to vote using the federal form,' she told Capitol Media Services. "With no facts on its side, Arizona cannot carry its burden of providing that registrants should include additional paperwork with their applications.'

Secretary of State Ken Bennett acknowledged when the case was argued last year he has no evidence people who are not citizens are registering to vote, either now with the federal form or before the 2004 proof-of-citizenship requirement.

Horne, however, said he intends to try again.

But that is likely to prove fruitless: There are no commissioners as the U.S. Senate has yet to confirm any presidential appointees. Horne said, though, that could lead him back to the Supreme Court.

Monday's ruling does give Arizona a bit of wiggle room. The justices said the state can refuse to register even someone using the federal form -- but only if election officials have "information in their possession establishing the applicant's ineligibility.'

And nothing in Monday's ruling prohibits the state from requiring citizenship proof from those who use state-created forms to register.

Local election officials have said the vast majority of those who do register use that state form. That, however, now could change.

Perales said the decision provides a new tool for groups conducting registration drives to now sign up new voters using that federal form -- and without having to get applicants to submit one of the documents that Arizona considers acceptable. That includes an Arizona driver's license, passport or birth certificate.

The 2004 law requires both proof of citizenship to register and identification to cast a ballot at the polls. Foes challenged both.

The courts sided with the state on the ID at polling places requirement. Foes of the Arizona law never appealed that decision, and it was not an issue in Monday's ruling.
Horne, in his arguments to the high court, did not dispute the National Voting Rights Act requires states to "accept and use' the federal voter registration form. But he argued that does not conflict with Arizona law.

"Because only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, Proposition 200's evidence-of-citizenship requirement is consistent with the NVRA's express goals,' Horne argued to the high court. "Congress did not intend the NVRA to bar states from properly assessing whether an applicant who registers to vote is eligible to vote.'
And he said Arizona can add its own proof-of-citizenship requirements on top of everything required in the federal form.

Scalia dismissed that argument as nonsensical.

"For example, a government (decree) that 'civil servants shall accept government IOUs for payment of salaries' does not invite the response, 'sure, we'll accept IOUs -- if you pay us a 10 percent down payment in cash,' ' he wrote.

He also pointed out that the federal law says a state shall "ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election ... if the valid voter registration form is postmarked' by a certain deadline.

"Yet Arizona reads the phrase 'accept and use' ... as permitting it to reject a completed Federal Form if the applicant does not submit additional information required by state law,' Scalia wrote. "That reading cannot be squared with Arizona's obligation.'

The court said it was not disturbing the requirement that those who use the state-designed form -- the majority of those now registered to vote -- must provide proof of citizenship.

"States retain the flexibility to design and use their own registration forms,' Scalia wrote.

"But the Federal Form provides a backstop: No matter what procedural hurdles a state's own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.'

What states may not do, Scalia wrote, is demand that those who register using the Federal Form provide everything the state registration form requires.

"If that is so, the Federal Form ceases to perform any meaningful function, and would be a feeble means of increasing the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for federal office,' he wrote.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to determine the qualifications for voting in federal elections. And Thomas said that "necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.'

Gov. Jan Brewer, who was secretary of state -- and therefore chief election officer -- during much of the time the 2004 law was being challenge, brushed aside the significance of Monday's decision.

"From what I understand, (it's) a very narrow ruling,' she said, pointing out that Arizona remains free to require proof of citizenship in its own forms. Brewer said it will be up to Horne and Bennett to decide what to do now.

Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services

 

Technorati Tags: Arizona,immigration,law,voting,voter fraud,citizenship,Scalia,SCOTUS,Jan Brewer,Obamland,Federal law,State law,Constitution,elections,illegals,illegal Immigration,Supreme Court,non-citzens,Obamaland,NVRA,ID,states rights,Clarence Thomas

States’ refusal to establish exchanges could undo Obamacare

The Daily Caller:  The Obama administration is waiving the deadline for states to establish a health insurance exchange in accordance with Obamacare, reports The New York Times. But it should not be taken as a sign of deference to the states, or a willingness to be flexible; it should be taken as a sign of desperation.

The announcement is in fact an attempt by the administration to shore up the health care law’s inherent weaknesses and to cajole states into enacting a federal scheme. Contrary to what the feds now claim, the latest and most glaring weakness of Obamacare is that it was crafted to depend on states to establish health insurance exchanges. These exchanges are meant to be the vehicles for the distribution of tax credits and subsidies to buy qualified health insurance plans.

If a state refuses to set up an exchange, and so far 25 have refused,the federal government must step in and create one. However, the law does not authorize tax credits and subsidies to flow through federally created exchanges, only those created by states. An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule issued in May 2012 attempted to fix this problem — initially dismissed as a “drafting error” — by extending credits and subsidies to federal exchanges and so-called “partnership exchanges,” which a number of states have indicated they will adopt.

But the law’s plain meaning, and Congress’ intent, cannot be swept aside by a rule issued by the IRS. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is challenging the IRS in federal court over the rule and the case will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. It has huge implications. If federal exchanges cannot facilitate tax credits and subsidies, they also cannot be used to impose penalties on employers that fail to comply with the law’s “employer mandate” — a fine of $2,000 per employee per year. States that refuse to set up an exchange could therefore shield thousands of their residents and small businesses from onerous federal taxes and penalties.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has made this argument forcefully and in great detail, and it seems to be gaining ground. Cannon, along with Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, have authored what will likely be the definitive argument against the legality of the IRS rule in a forthcoming Health Matrix article.

They argue that once it became clear that a significant number of states were not going to set up exchanges, the IRS sought to fix the problem by regulatory decree. However, by stipulating that tax credits and subsidies would be available only through state-created exchanges, Congress sought to create an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges — because it could not simply order states to create them without overstepping constitutional boundaries. It seems that it did not occur to Obamacare’s authors that many states would simply refuse, or that offering tax credits and subsidies would not be sufficient inducement for them to comply. It was a gross miscalculation, and could mean the undoing of Obamacare.

Seen in this light, this week’s announcement by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius looks more like a plea to recalcitrant states to cooperate and set up exchanges so the feds won’t have to. Sebelius was supposed to determine by January 1 whether states were prepared to run an exchange, but she knew as far back as Nov. 15 that Texas, at least, would not establish one.

Waiving the deadline isn’t a deferential gesture by HHS to the states; it is the latest attempt by the federal government to deputize states into implementing federal policy, and a desperate attempt at that.

Texas and other states should remain steadfast in their resolve not to become tools for Washington, D.C. If the feds want Obamacare exchanges, let them set up those exchanges themselves. Americans would be much better off with weak federal exchanges than they would with the state-based exchanges Congress first envisioned in the law.

John Davidson is a policy analyst for the Center for Health Care Policy with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He may be reached at jdavidson@texaspolicy.com.  -  Cross-Posted at Ask Marion and at True Health Is True Wealth

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,healthcare,ObamaCare Exchanges,passive resistance,stand-up America,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare

Republican governors decide against setting up ObamaCare insurance markets

Fox News  -  True Health Is True Wealth:

Video: Rick Perry on Neil Cavuto… Not Setting up ObamaCare Insurance Markets

Several Republican governors, in what could be their last symbolic stand against ObamaCare, announced Friday that they will not set up a state-based marketplace for selling health insurance.

A total of 20 states have now decided not to implement their own exchanges -- which could also mean increased costs for the federal government.

The governors of Wisconsin and Ohio joined Texas Gov. Rick Perry and others in confirming that they will not establish so-called "health insurance exchanges," which are set to launch in January 2014. Under the federal health care overhaul, these exchanges will act as virtual markets where people and small businesses can shop for private coverage in a regulated environment. Many will also be eligible for government subsidies.

The governors' move does not stop those exchanges from being implemented. Rather, it kicks the project back to the federal government to run with regard to those states. While a number of states, largely those run by Democrats, will establish their own exchanges, Republicans who declined argued that it wasn't worth the cost and resources to set up a marketplace that would be under the thumb of the federal government anyway.

"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said the same, writing in a letter to Sebelius Friday that "no matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents." With that in mind, he wrote, the state has decided not to build its own system. Ohio Gov. John Kasich echoed that point of view.

Republican governors have been largely opposed to the health care law anyway. But for months, they were effectively waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn it or whether Obama would lose re-election and potentially leave an opening to repeal it. Neither of those things happened.

Walker was among those who stopped implementation last year on the hopes the law would be overturned either by the U.S. Supreme Court or Republicans following the November election.

Thursday evening, the Obama administration responded to a request for more time from Republican governors on the exchange question by granting states a month's extension, until Dec. 14.

A few states have signaled they want to partner with the federal government, as opposed to running it themselves or handing the reins to Washington. Those states would handle consumer issues and oversight of health plans in the exchanges, while the feds do the heavy lifting by enrolling individuals for coverage and determining who's eligible for government assistance. Among these states are Arkansas and North Carolina.

The number of partnership states could grow significantly, since the Obama administration has given states until next February to decide on that option.

Obama's election victory virtually guaranteed the survival of his health care law, which is eventually expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people through the exchanges and expanded Medicaid programs. It was the final hurdle, after the Supreme Court upheld a legal challenge from 26 states. In the aftermath of the election, some Republican state leaders say it's time to accept the law.

"I don't like it; I would not vote for it; I think it needs to be repealed. But it is the law," said Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, after announcing that his state wants to set up its own exchange. "If you default to the federal government, you forever give the keys to the state's health insurance market to the federal government."

Traditionally, states have regulated the private health insurance market.

But other Republican-led states say they don't have enough information to make a decision at this point and are clamoring for the Obama administration to release major regulations that have been bottled up for months.

"States are struggling with many unanswered questions and are not able to make comprehensive far-reaching decisions prudently," Govs. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wrote Obama earlier this week. They asked for a meeting with the president, as well as a postponement of the original Nov. 16 deadline.

Some of their main concerns are hidden costs of operating the exchanges and the sheer bureaucratic complexity of the new system. The Obama administration has steadfastly maintained it will not postpone the Jan. 1, 2014, launch date for the law's coverage expansion. Open enrollment for exchange plans will begin even sooner, Oct. 1, 2013.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related: 

Rick Perry: 'Another federal power grab'

Perry may not have last say on health care

Medical giant Stryker cuts 1,170 jobs, citing ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: Rick Perry,Republican Governors,ObamaCare,Obamaland,ObamaTax,health insurance exchanges,Bobby Jindal,states rights

Forum – Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

JoshuaPundit on Oct 29 2012 at 12:36 am - The Council Forum

Last week, the New York State Appeals Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling itself was based on a very narrow criteria, since there was a plaintiff that obviously suffered financial damages because of a spousal deduction she would otherwise have received on the estate tax on her deceased partner’s estate as a result. But with the Supreme Court set to rule on the Constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, this week the Council addresses the question: Is DOMA unconstitutional? How will the recent ruling affect coming Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage?:

The Independent Sentinel: I don’t want the federal government involved in this at all. I prefer it be a states rights issue. I feel the same way about abortion. I am opposed to big government and I am against changing the constitution for social issues.

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional but I think it should be found Constitutional on the basis of states rights and the right of people to choose.

I will become concerned about this issue if it begins to affect freedom of religion. Religions that only marry one man and one woman must be allowed to do so or I don’t think we can call ourselves free any longer.

I believe the only civil rights issue in this country is the abuse of African-Americans through slavery and decades of oppression. No other issue, not even an important social choice issue, should take away from that.

The Colossus of Rhodey: It seems the main problem the recent court ruling against DOMA has is with the law’s Section 3 which defines marriage *federally* as between a man and a woman. The ruling invoked “equal protection;” if the SCOTUS rules as the circuit court did, it will enshrine a right to collect benefits (from the feds) for legally married gay couples. BUT — it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the rest of DOMA would be stricken. The Act allows states to decide whether they want to recognize gay marriages (and those performed in other states), and a cursory reading of the Constitution’s Article IV shows that this part of the law *should be* constitutional re: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Clause notes that “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” In other words, those in favor of striking the entire law would have to demonstrate how Congress does *not* have the right to prescribe how its laws are enacted, or, in this case, why another state would *not* have the right to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

It will be difficult to guess what the SCOTUS will rule. If the states still get to decide the question of marriage, then could a gay couple still be able to collect federal benefits from a non-gay marriage state (if they were “married,” in a state which allowed such, but they didn’t actually *reside* in such a state)? If so, how and why? Or, can only those who were [gay] married in a state which allowed such unions be permitted to collect such benefits?

The Glittering Eye: There are two ways of answering that question. The answer in law is absolutely, positively not. But the practical answer is different. The practical answer is that whatever the currently sitting Supreme Court justices say is unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

I’m guessing that, considering that there’s a majority of sexual libertarians on the court,the present Court will strike down the DOMA.

The Noisy Room: Yes, DOMA is unconstitutional for the simple reason that its foundation premise, that government has any business moderating marriage, is fundamentally broken. DOMA falls into that broader fascist category of “good ideas enforced at gun point.” If a constitutional foundation can be found and established for the concept that government is somehow the appropriate arbiter of the act of marriage at all, then a case can be made for DOMA because to the degree that government brokers marriage, government must then define it. However, the constitution offers no support for what was at the time a cultural and religious construct which more modernly, has been annexed as one of the “proper functions” of government.

I don’t see any constitutional support for it and in fact, it plays into the concept that government can replace religion. And this is one of the greasier slopes on which one can embark. This goes further to a broader premise that government somehow owns “citizens,” or as the British prefer to call them, “subjects.” As the premise broadens, it encroaches on education (all your kids are belong to us) and “health and welfare.” We have to keep you healthy so you are productive, our revenue depends on it. This, then, “logically” flows into mandated morality, and while actual crime is a province of government, what you eat for breakfast, how you iron your shirts and with whom you spend your nights is not. See Atlas Shrugged.

So, although this is a blatant attempt to pander to the gay community by Obama, DOMA is not constitutional in my viewpoint. Marriage is a personal (or religious) act, not a government province.

Bookworm Room: Yes, I do believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not contemplate marriage at a federal level. For that reason, it is a matter that, technically speaking, should be left to the states. Having said that, let’s get to the modern wrinkles. When the Constitution was ratified, the Founders could not have imagined same-sex marriage. It did not exist at the time. Had the notion existed, the Founders might have chosen to address marriage in the Constitution for one very specific reason: The full faith and credit clause, which obligates each state to recognize the duly passed laws of the other states. The problem with laws that provide fundamentally different definitions of marriage (such as those allowing polygamy or same sex marriage) is that, as people move from one state to another, they may be legally married in State A, but not in State B. Any subsequent property, child custody, or third party contract disputes become a nightmare.

With new definitions of marriage never imagined by the Founders, the correct way to deal with the issue is through a Constitutional amendment. If I could draft the amendment, I would remove “marriage” from government control and leave it solely to religious institutions to “marry” people. Government should have power over “civil unions,” and that power should be exercised in whatever way is most beneficial to advance state goals of economic stability, generational property transfers, and the overall best situation for children. Civil unions could certainly encompass same sex couples. I would be loath to extend civil unions to polygamy, though, because of the problems with economic stability and generational property transfers. (England, which legally recognizes polygamous marriages from Muslim countries, demonstrates that, in a Western culture, it’s hard for a single man to support multiple women. These polygamous families end up using welfare disproportionately.)

I’m deeply concerned that, if same sex “marriage” becomes a constitutional right, we’ll have a major constitutional clash between church and state, one that makes the current fight over funding abortion look like a kindergarten party. Think of it: In the Catholic faith, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine what will happen to the First Amendment freedom of religion if it crashes headlong into some new amendment mandating gay “marriage.” If, however, the state passes an amendment recognizing civil unions, churches can continue to marry whomever their doctrine recognizes.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Technorati Tags: DOMA,New York,Defense of Marriage Act,unconstitutional,law,marriage,Watcher's Council,bloggers,blogosphere,watch the other hand,educate yourself,alternative media,news,news nuggets,US Constitution,same sex marriage,Founding Fathers,states rights,you be the judge,First Amendment

Hopefully Shades of the Future Verses the Past for Jobs, States’ Rights and America

Jan Brewer with Romney in Colorado to talk about jobs - Future

Remember Jan Brewer with Obama – Present/Past

Technorati Tags: Arizona,jobs,Jan Brewer,Mitt Romney,Obamaland,hope,America's Present vs Future,choices,Election 2012,2012 Election,photos,states rights,federal cooperation

Who The Hell Do These People Think They Are?

Imagine you wake up tomorrow and this is not a Constitutional Republic anymore. It is now a dictatorship. Whoops! Already accomplished. Then imagine that you wake up tomorrow and the President and our elites have given away part of the US. Then imagine it was your state and your state and Senators weren’t even consulted on it. In fact the deal was conducted in secret. Well, the nightmare is alive and well and being finalized for Alaska. But, before you go cursing ONLY Obama (as I do every damn chance I get), you better have a really hard look at Progressives on both sides of the aisle. This monstrous act of treason started under Bush Senior in 1990 and was ratified by our Senate in 1991. The only thing holding it back was that Russia had not signed the treaty. Obama is now looking to finish the diabolical deal.

From Drink Your Kool Aid:

On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

I can hear you saying that this is only about some tiny little islands and that they are closer to Russia than the US – why should we care? These islands are not tiny. And the true issue here is that they have a wealth of oil and resources on and around them. That’s the big deal. Plus, they’re ours – not Russia’s.

Why now, when this treaty has languished for 22 years? Well… Why not? It accomplishes a number of things for Obama. It takes a slap at the conservative state of Alaska and attempts to put her high-profile residents such as Sarah Palin and Joe Miller in their collective places. It caves to one of our biggest enemies, Russia, and weakens the US even more in their eyes. It gives precious energy resources away for nothing, thereby ensuring that energy prices will skyrocket even more in the US when that energy is needed. And who knows what other nefarious goals the deed accomplishes. Progressives are always figuring an angle and it never benefits US citizens – just the elite and powerful.

From WND:

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

More:

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

In May of 1881, US explorers spotted the Jeannette and Henrietta Islands and claimed them for the United States. According to numerous sources, including the group State Department Watch, seven Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State, no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them. And of course, the Russians are claiming them for their own. The fight over Alaskan land has been going on since the 1800s and the Russians are claiming and taking any land anywhere they can find it that has oil or gas.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. They are getting ready to finalize the deal. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side with no input from Alaska, her leaders or her residents. How is that Constitutional? And don’t cite the Treaty Clause to me. This oversteps the bounds of that section by a wide margin. Thus the need for secrecy and no transparency on the deal. The founding fathers never envisioned a sitting President and the State Department just giving away American sovereign land.

And as far as a milquetoast, spineless Senate is concerned – every one of them that ratified this in 1991 that is still in office should be shown the door that leads to a rail out of town with a spiffy new coat of tar and feathers. This treaty makes an excellent argument for abolishing the 17th Amendment and returning to the true Constitutional principle in which senators were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote. This is what you get when you bastardize and supersede Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Who the hell do these people think they are? I’ll tell you… They truly believe they are the elite and that they are above your station – you are the riffraff, the serfs that only exist to serve them. They are royalty and their moniker is Progressive. They are the ruling class and the truly, obscenely wealthy and powerful. For too long we have let them rule as they see fit rather than by the will of the people. Obama is just the culmination of decades of inattention to the evil infiltrating our government’s halls. Time to send them all packing.

The powers delegated 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, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.

James Madison – The Federalist

That’s who they think they are; your King, your Lords, your Nobility. They don’t care what happened in 1787, they still think they own you.

By Terresa Monroe Hamilton  -  The NoisyRoom

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012

Congress and the Department of Justice have failed us in allowing an un-Constitutionally qualified Barack Hussein Obama to be sworn in and remain in office. What’s even worse, is that Obama feels he is above the law – and he has been. Obama has committed many criminal and un-Constitutional activities.

The citizens of this country were not ready for our federal government to fail us regarding Obama’s usurpation of the White House. Ballot challenge deadlines were missed and state Secretaries of State used this as their excuse to not stop the confirmation of the 2008 election.

WE ARE READY NOW!!!!!!! This campaign against Obama and his handlers will prevail!

The OBAMA STATE BALLOT CHALLENGE 2012 is what is going to stop Obama from taking office again in 2012. Obama’s name on the ballot will be legally challenged in every state. The evidence of a forged birth certificate on whitehouse.gov and the evidence that he is using a Connecticut social security number that does not belong to him, will be submitted in each court. The problem from 2008 is that all of the state deadlines were missed because they are only typically a few days after the Party files their nominee’s name with the state. The deadlines will not be missed this time. Ballot challenge laws and procedures from each state will be posted here and a new website to come.

The Democrat party should try to save face and expose Obama and remove him from the 2012 ticket now and nominate someone else. Democrat party, the odds are not in your favor, remove Obama now to avoid further criminal implication in his identity fraud crimes. In addition to this, there is Obama’s involvement with Fast and Furious and pay to play bribery schemes from Solyndra and other “green” companies. This is just the short list.

Many citizens have volunteered to file lawsuits in their state, but we would like at least 5 people from each state to help with the lawsuits and the funding. Typically filing fees are around $350 with another $200 in other fees per state.

You do NOT need to be an attorney to file. If you would like to donate time or money please reply to this post and I will not publish the comments. A Paypal account for funding will be set up for donations in the near future. If you would like to send a check reply to this post and I will send you a business address.

The purpose of this project is to gather in one place the information needed to challenge Obamas name being placed on the ballot in each of the states, so that voters in each state know the process of how to challenge a candidates name being placed on the ballot.

For each state, there is a link for the Secretary of States office. If there is no additional information, it means that there is no information on that page regarding the process ( if any ) to challenge a candidates name before or after it is placed on the ballot ( both for the primaries and general election ). This is where you come in. We need people to contact their states Secretary of State
and find what the rules are for challenging a candidate ( for example, the number of days before or after a name is placed on the ballot when one can legally challenge ).

Once you have that information, send it to me at the Contact link above and it will be posted ( once verified ) so that others will know the process. Remember, all it takes is one state to challenge the ballot !!!

Click on any state below to receive more information on the law in your state.

Alabama

Alabama Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Beth.Chapman@sos.alabama.gov
Information

Alaska

State of Alaska Division of Elections

Contact Info: gail.fenumiai@alaska.gov

Arizona

Arizona Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Website Email Form
Information

Arkansas

Arkansas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: electionsemail@sos.arkansas.gov

California

California Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form
Information

Colorado

Colorado Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos.elections@sos.state.co.us

Connecticut

Connecticut Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: lead@ct.gov

Delaware

Commissioner of Elections

Contact Info: Office of the State Election Commissioner

Telephone: 302-739-4277

FAX: 302-739-6794

Florida

Florida Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us

Georgia

Georgia Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Website Email Form

Hawaii

Office of Elections
Contact Info: elections@hawaii.gov
Information

Idaho

Idaho Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov

Illinois

Illinois Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Indiana

Indiana Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: constituent@sos.IN.gov
Information

Iowa

Iowa Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@sos.state.ia.us
Information

Kansas

Kansas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@sos.ks.gov
Information

Kentucky

Kentucky Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Louisiana

No Information

Maine

Maine Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: cec.elections@maine.gov
Information

Maryland

Maryland Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: mdsos@sos.state.md.us

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth Office

Contact Info: cis@sec.state.ma.us

Michigan

Michigan Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Minnesota

Minnesota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections.dept@state.mn.us
Information

Mississippi

Mississippi Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Missouri

Missouri Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.mo.gov
Information

Montana

Montana Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: secretary@mt.gov
Information

Nebraska

Nebraska Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos.elect@nebraska.gov
Information

Nevada

Nevada Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sosmail@sos.nv.gov
Information

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Elections@sos.state.nh.us
Information

New Jersey

New Jersey Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Feedback@sos.state.nj.us
Information

New Mexico

New Mexico Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: diannaj.duran@state.nm.us

New York

New York Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

North Carolina

North Carolina Secretary of State Office

Contact Info : Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State

Phone:(919) 807-2005

Fax: 807-2020

North Dakota

North Dakota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: sos@nd.gov

Ohio

Ohio Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Oregon

Oregon Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections.sos@state.or.us
Information

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: RA-BCEL@pa.gov

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.ri.gov
Information

South Carolina

South Carolina Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

South Dakota

South Dakota Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@state.sd.us

Tennessee

Tennessee Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: tennessee.elections@tn.gov
Information

Texas

Texas Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.state.tx.us
Information

Utah

Utah Elections

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Vermont

Vermont Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: kscheele@sec.state.vt.us
Information

Virginia

Secretary of Commonwealth Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form
Information

Washington

Washington Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@sos.wa.gov
Information

West Virginia

West Virginia Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: Website Email Form

Wisconsin

Government Accountability Board

Contact Info:gab@wi.gov
Information

Wyoming

Wyoming Secretary of State Office

Contact Info: elections@state.wy.us

Note: When contacting the Secretary of State, you may get a response that he is a citizen of the United States ( as provided by the 14th Amendment ). We have seen that response before from various congressmen. Now, there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. It is very easy to illustrate by looking at the 14th Amendment itself.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

If you believe that this means these citizens of the United States are Article II natural-born US citizens then you could substitute the term citizens in the 14th Amendment with the term natural born citizens. Doing so gives this :

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

So, if the two terms citizens and natural born citizens are interchangeable then that would imply that naturalized citizens – those born overseas and later granted US citizenship – are eligible to become President of the United States. Even elementary school children know that is not possible and was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. Thus it is very clear that 14th Amendment citizens ARE NOT the same as natural born citizens. ( A natural born citizen is a 14th Amendment citizen, but a 14th Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen )

In addition, you have John Bingham – the author of the 14th Amendment- stating on the floor of the House in 1866:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

He is clearly indicating here what a natural born citizen is. A child born of two parents (plural) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty , i.e both parents have to be U S citizens ( not necessarily natural born citizens )

Source:  UnlawfulPresident.com  - h/t to Jean Stoner

Related:

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Eligibility Rulings Vanish From Net

Obama’s Choice: Dirty Oil (Keystone XL Oil Pipeline) or Clean Water and Land?

By Syver Alton Larsen and MJ

One big decision looms ominously on Obama’s horizon and he will not be able to blame anyone but himself for the consequences.  Obama must render the momentous verdict by November 1 to give or not to give approval for the historical Keystone XL Pipeline Project.  This pipeline will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels… tar sand oil which is vastly different from regular oil being ten times heavier than water and very corrosive.

Presidential permission is required because the 2,147-mile pipeline crosses the border between Canada and eight states of the United States.  The present route is scheduled to cross prime agriculture heartland, 19,000 square mile wetlands, and the world’s largest fresh water aquifer—the Ogallala. 

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads.

Originally proposed on February 9, 2005, it is still in the making.   It began supplying oil to Illinois and Missouri in 2010. Phase II of the project, launched in February 2011, would extend the pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska, to Cushing, Oklahoma — a pivotal crude oil refining and pipeline hub and then on to the Gulf of Mexico.

According to The New American, the new segment of this project is waiting for Obama’s approval, but the Keystone XL is facing fierce opposition from landowners and concerned citizens.

“Though the pipeline has been in operation for almost a year, a new segment of the project, the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion, also known as Keystone XL — which would originate in Hardisty, Alberta Canada, and run southeast through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, while incorporating Phase II of the pipeline to extend to Oklahoma markets and the Texas Gulf Coast ports of Houston and Port Arthur — is facing formidable hurdles. The Canadian government’s National Energy Board approved the expansion in 2010, but is awaiting final approval from the Obama administration”

According to the Nebraska Farmers Union, many landowners have been intimidated and threatened with the Right of Eminent Domain.  Does a foreign country owned business have that right?

In 2007, Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law Section 526 which disallows the U.S. purchase of tar sands oil.  Congressman Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Energy Committee, wrote to the Senate Commerce Committee in 2008, the law "applies to fuels derived from unconventional petroleum sources such as tar sands which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional sources." 

In the article it also states that the Canadian government and big oil are working  behind the scenes to get section 526 changed.

“Meanwhile, the Canadian government has been working behind the scenes to strike Section 526 from the books to clear the way for tar sands extraction. Using Freedom of Information requests, the Pembina Institute and Climate Action Network Canada uncovered a 2008 strategy memo by Canadian Embassy official Hélène Viau which urged U.S. oil lobbyists to send letters to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of State to show "concerns with regard to section 526 and argue that oil sands products should not be targeted by this provision," and to develop "a comprehensive oil sands advocacy strategy to focus on outreach to allies, influencers, legislators, etc."

And Big Oil lobbyists have taken Viau's suggestions to heart. Matt Fox, senior vice president of oil sands for ConocoPhillips warned U.S. legislators that Section 526 "could bring [oil sands] development to a screeching halt. You'd have to think twice about oil sands development if your intention was to deliver oil to the lower '48."

The debate regarding the Keystone XL involves the economic issues versus environmental issues. The final impact statement was released by the White House in August.

Video:  Why Oil Sands Pipeline Is Just Too Risky

Those who favor the pipeline list these benefits:

1. Making money for states tax revenues

2. Providing jobs

3. Advancing national security by less foreign oil dependence

Those who are against the pipeline submit:

1. Money cannot replace clean water and land

2. Jobs provided will be temporary

3. The U.S. already imports three-fourths of its oil from western sources

Quote from the Nebraska Senator Tony Fulton:

"I would be doing a bad job if I didn't step up and say that I have some concern about the proposed route of this pipeline. If that puts me on the same side as environmentalists, or folks that I don't typically see eye to eye with, so be it."

Narrator: Fulton wants TransCanada to re-route the pipeline. He is promoting legislation he hopes would give state government the power to force the company to by-pass the aquifer. He says building this pipeline without the Nebraska's input is a violation of state's rights. We ought to have some say as to how that pipeline makes its way through Nebraska. And at this point it has been President Obama, Secretary Clinton and TransCanada who have chosen this route.

Environmentalists site the Enbridge tragic tar sand oil leak in the Kalamazoo River occurring in July 2010, as an example of what will be repeated again.  Enbridge, competitor of TransCanada, says that there is no oil remaining in the river.  The EPA has estimated that over one million gallons of oil leaked into the Kalamazoo River and has still not been totally cleaned up.  Because the tar sand oil is heavier than water, it has sunk down into the river and the only way to remove it is through drudging. 

China has actively been investing in Canadian oil and many believe that the true intent of the oil pipeline is to make it easier to ship the oil from Texas ports to Asian markets.  The pipeline happens to follow part of the same route as the notorious North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) Super Highway.

The only thing Obama fears more than the Environmentalists are the Labor Unions.  The political reality is that Obama would risk losing the votes and campaign donations of ALL 1.8 million Nebraskans whose lives depend on the Ogallala for clean drinking water and even most of the Environmentalists, but he cannot afford to lose the support of ANY Labor Unions that want the pipeline built at any and all costs for the jobs and tax-base it will generate.

TransCanada has refused to reroute the Keystone from going over the Ogallala, so they are trying to save money with pipe line construction, and is choosing economic concerns over environmental concerns that relate to the aquifer. Does greed always win in this world? 

We will know for sure by November 1, which one Obama will choose… Dirty Oil or Clean Water and Land.

Related:

Obama Allies’ Interests Collide Over Keystone Pipeline

Alex Jones Round Table with Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, Michael Boldin & Brandon Smith 3/4

Video:  Alex Jones Round Table with Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, Michael Boldin & Brandon Smith - 3/4 

THE STATES STRIKE BACK: RISE OF THE REPUBLIC: 

In this special video presentation for Prison Planet.tv members filmed from the new Infowars television studio, Alex Jones hosts a round table discussion featuring Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center Michael Boldin, as well as activist and economic writer Brandon Smith of Alt-Market, to discuss the states' rights movement and how Americans need to organize now to take back power usurped in a myriad of different ways by the federal government.

Rhodes explains how history tells us that tyranny can never be enforced without the aid of uniformed military and police, highlighting the case of East Germany where troops were told to stand down and two days later the Berlin wall fell. Rhodes documents how the implementation of a totalitarian infrastructure in the United States has led to the President having supreme power to assassinate US citizens by declaring them "enemy combatants" and how this sets an ominous benchmark for the level of power that has been accumulated by the executive branch of government. The federal government, the Southern Policy Law Center and the ADL have all targeted Oath Keepers simply because the group attempts to re-affirm commitment to the bill of rights amongst active duty soldiers and law enforcement.

Michael Boldin invokes the words of the founding fathers who warned that federal power would always grow like a cancer unless the American people used the tool of nullification to strike at the root of such tyranny. Nullification is about rendering a particular law null and void, unenforceable within a state, explains Boldin, and it is the duty of American citizens to oversee this process to stymie federal power instantaneously, not wait until after an election or a legal battle. Boldin has led the effort to promote this ideal with the recent Nullify Now tour.

Brandon Smith joins to discuss the recent federal persecution and raid of the makers of the Liberty Dollar, who were labeled as domestic terrorists because they merely challenged the legitimacy of the federal reserve by encouraging Americans to use sound money. Smith talks about the necessity for communities to set up alternative forms of trade and barter in order to drastically reduce their exposure to dollar devaluation that otherwise threatens to completely eviscerate their economic livelihoods.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Video:  Alex Jones Round Table with Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, Michael Boldin & Brandon Smith 1/4

Video:  Alex Jones Round Table with Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, Michael Boldin & Brandon Smith 2/4

Video:  Alex Jones Round Table with Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, Michael Boldin & Brandon Smith 4/4

FYI:  A great belated Father’s Day Gift or for Independence Day:  The Freedom Documents

North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple Signs Obamacare Nullification Bill

Written by: TAC Daily Updates  -  from Rob Port at the SayAnything blog:

Apparently deciding that the risk of angering his constituents over a failure to act against Obamacare was worse than angering his Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem, who holds that the state cannot pass laws contradicting federal law, Governor Jack Dalrymple signed SB2309. (click here to read about the health care nullification act in N.D.)

The bill affirms that North Dakotans have the right to buy, or not buy, whatever health insurance they want. This law is statute. A previous bill that would have amended the constitution with similar language was defeated with a gang of 29 House Republicans voting with Democrats at the behest of Stenehjem to kill it.

This bill was discussed on Fox News recently by state nullification proponent Tom Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The new state law, if signed by Dalrymple, says the federal health insurance law can’t interfere with North Dakotans’ decision to buy health insurance or not buy health insurance,” wrote the editorial board of the Minot Daily News though the paper went on to say that the law “won’t make a difference” because state law “can’t override a federal law.”

This, of course, isn’t true. The states are under no obligation to abide by federal laws that are unconstitutional. And since that is the State of North Dakota’s official position on Obamacare in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the law, this law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is appropriate.

Kudos to Dalrymple for having the courage many other political leaders in this state do not.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Recently, Idaho’s Governor Otter signed an order refusing state compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). With this signature, North Dakota is now the first state in the country to pass into law the Health Care Nullification Act.

The Tenth Amendment Center has released the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, which directly nullifies the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on a state level. Click here to learn more about the bill. CLICK HERE to track the Nullification Act in states around the country.

Keep Praying!

Today's hearing of our lawsuit against ObamaCare is making national headlines. Many news organizations are reporting on the great significance of my oral argument and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's presentation that will be heard back-to-back by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

These lawsuits - one on behalf of private parties and one on behalf of a sovereign state - are the first lawsuits against ObamaCare to reach the appeals court level.

Because the three judges who will hear our case are selected from among the 14 sitting judges in the Fourth Circuit - four of whom are Obama appointees and three of whom are Clinton appointees - preparation for this case has been highly challenging. We cannot know who will be chosen to hear our case tomorrow, so we had to make sure we are very broadly prepared.

How important is our challenge to the constitutionality of ObamaCare? The panel of judges we will face is just one level below the United States Supreme Court. As you may recall, two lower court judges have already declared ObamaCare to be unconstitutional, while certain liberal judges have sided with the so-called healthcare "reform" act.

We are well prepared and calling for continual prayer!

As I wrote on Friday, I'm excitedly anticipating just how powerful the prayers of tens of thousands of Believers will actually be!

I know each of the 76,593 patriotic men and women who signed our Amici Book want our nation to be delivered from the devastation of ObamaCare before it is too late.

Above all, I know God is hearing these prayers and that He Is answering!

I am emphatically asking that you pray for my entire team and me in the remaining hours before I stand before the panel of federal judges to defend the liberties of all Americans against this outrageous law.

Your prayers mean a great deal to me and our Liberty Counsel Litigation Team and they are also crucially important to all Americans who recognize this blatant socialist takeover of our medical industry for exactly what it is!

Please pray! God bless you!

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

Http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=41367&CID=310&RID=23710767

The Death of “Common Sense”

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who Has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape…  He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. ( And some never knew he existed! )

Source:  Anonymous

Posted:  Ask Marion – Knowledge Creates Power

Obama May Grab for Guns

President Obama voiced his support for an anti-gun treaty with such wide ranging implications that it could ban everything from assembling guns in kits to repackaging spent shells.

Click here for video.

The treaty was signed by former President Clinton, but never approved by Congress. It has gained approval in 29 other countries. Obama put his weight behind it during his whirlwind tour abroad late last month.

Yesterday’s passage of legislation that revoked the longstanding ban on guns in national parks proved that this treaty would probably fall by the wayside once more, said Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America. But the fact that Obama voiced his support for it speaks volumes about the President’s view of the Second Amendment, after his famous claim to not “take away guns” from law-abiding Americans.

The treaty would “pretty clearly would require, without a whole lot of extrapolation, a regulation of all firearms in the United States,” said Pratt.

Called the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials,” the legislation’s bans are multitudinous:

The manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials: a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place: or c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacture.

These sweeping regulations could affect everything from BB guns to toy guns, and could even prevent the individual re-loading of guns by the owners themselves. It could potentially require matching insignia on bullets and shells, meaning that re-use of cases would be illegal – a practice that is more common during a recession.

The regulations could also affect gun clubs, by banning “association or conspiracy” with illegal gun activities. So if an NRA member commits an offense, clubs or advocacy groups could be liable.

The treaty could even call for action against the dealer who sold an offender a weapon. If Mexico calls for the extradition of a gun dealers, the U.S. would be obligated to resolve it by “other means of peaceful settlement” that are yet undefined.

In addition to a Presidential signature, sixty-eight out of 100 Senate members are needed in order for an international treaty to be approved in the United States. But the move to overturn the National Parks gun ban gained 67 signatures, meaning passing further gun restrictions is unlikely, said Provost.

“You have [Senators] who you’re just really surprised are voting pro-gun,” he said.

by Jillian Bandes

-------------

Senate Approves Coburn Gun Amendment…in Credit Card Bill

The Senate on Tuesday night easily passed an amendment to credit card reform legislation that would allow concealed weapons in national parks. The vote was 67 to 29.

The question now is this: Will a controversial gun proposal attached to popular underlying legislation be the poison pill that sinks that larger bill? That’s been the case with legislation allowing the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress, to which the Senate attached language scrapping many of Washington’s strict gun control laws. As a result of that gun amendment, the DC-vote bill remains stalled in the House months after it passed the upper chamber.

Now, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the chief sponsor of the credit card reform bill, is wondering whether the same might be the fate of his credit card proposal. “My concern is about what the underlying bill — what happens to it,” Dodd said on the chamber floor just before the vote. “I hate to see us lose this opportunity to make a difference with credit card reform.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who sponsored the concealed weapons bill, said he supports many of Dodd’s credit card provisions, and didn’t have in mind to offer his amendment just for the purpose of killing the larger bill. “I don’t want to see it fail on this,” Coburn said. “But nor do I want to see the Second Amendment trampled on.”

So much for an easy, clean, must-pass credit card reform bill.

By MIKE LILLIS 5/12/09 6:44 PM – The Washington Independent

 

------

Bill allowing loaded weapons in national parks sent to Obama

 

WASHINGTON -- Here's a list of stuff the typical American family can legally carry into national parks this summer: sleeping bag, toothbrush, change of underwear ... loaded guns.

Thanks to a 279-147 vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives, visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be able to carry weapons there if they abide by state weapons laws.

The bill is on its way to President Barack Obama, who faces a dilemma: Gun rights advocates attached the provision to a sweeping overhaul of the credit card industry, an initiative Obama strongly supports, so he has little choice but to let the gun section become law.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only that Obama "looks forward" to signing the bill "as quickly as possible," and didn't mention the gun provision.

Gun control advocates howled Wednesday, but to little effect. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., protested that "the bill has been hijacked," and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., maintained, "American taxpayers ought to be incensed."

Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, predicted that the measure would provoke problems at the parks.

"Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Nonetheless, the gun measure, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier this month, had strong bipartisan support. In the House, 105 Democrats, most from Southern, Western and rural states, joined 174 Republicans in backing the measure.

Two Republicans, Reps. Michael Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois, and 145 Democrats voted no.

"This is one of those issues that breaks down regionally," explained Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

President Ronald Reagan first required guns to be stored or inoperable in national parks 25 years ago, but last December, just before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned that rule.

That began a game of legal Ping-Pong. In March, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the Bush rule, and the Obama administration said it wouldn't appeal.

That action spurred Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to include the gun rule in the credit card bill. It wound up winning by an unexpectedly lopsided vote.

Coburn and his backers said that they didn't want, nor did they expect, people to be in danger of random shooters in national parks.

"It's really common sense," he said. "This is not about guns. What I want is gun rights. I want our constitutional rights to be protected."

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the measure was also a matter of self-defense.

"The real issue is that law-abiding Americans will no longer be treated as criminals" when they carry weapons, he said.

National Rifle Association officials argued that weapons are needed for protection in parks that are becoming increasingly dangerous. Asked why police couldn't handle criminal activity, Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs, said, "At that moment when you're confronted by a criminal, it's between you and the criminal. Law enforcement cannot be there in position at any time."

Gun control groups said a new kind of danger would be lurking once the ban was overturned.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He added that Obama "should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."

Brady group spokesman David Vice suggested that Democrats were overreacting to gun rights advocates. Democrats still have bitter memories of losing congressional races in more conservative areas in the 1990s after being tagged as soft on guns.

Vice suggested that last year's results, in which Democrats won their biggest congressional majorities since the early 1990s, are evidence that those districts recognize the need for some limits on guns.

"We're trying to change that perception," he said, "but it's been difficult."

BY DAVID LIGHTMAN - MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

(McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Margaret Talev contributed to this report.)

Coburn who introduced this provision says it is more an issue of State’s Rights and Individual Freedom than a gun issue…

 

Related Articles and Resources:

• RESISTING O'S WORLD - STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS
• Australian Gun Law Update
• Columbine Remembered -- What a great speech!
• Obama Perpetuates The '90 Percent Of Mexico's Weapons Come From The U.S....
• Only About 10% of Weapons Used By Mexican Drug Cartels Come From America Says Former Drug Czar William Bennett
• Gun-Free Zones Are a Magnet for Attacks Like the Tragedy In Binghamton
• Preserve the Second Amendment
• National Rifle Association politics and legislation: http://www.nraila.org/
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycampaign.org/
• House roll call vote on gun measure: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll277.xml 
• Michael Farris - United Nation’s Convention on Rights of a Child Material
• Parentalrights press conference

Source:  Daily Thought Pad

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power