Enumerated Powers Act (H.R.450, S.1319) Thursday, Aug 6 2009 

Enumerated Powers Act
One_AmericanPatriot@yahoo.com
August 6, 2009

I have recently been made aware of the proposed legislation that is H.R. 450 as put forth by Congressman John Shadegg (R, AZ). The short title is the “Enumerated Powers Act”, and the official title is, “To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws and for other purposes.

The title of this bill is a very good descriptor of its purpose, but here is a more detailed summary:

  • Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress.
  • Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
  • Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
  • Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.
  • Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.
  • Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.
  • Congress cannot waive these requirements.

I cannot think of a single (defensible) position that could possibly oppose this legislation – that is, if the foundation of the conversation is an agreement that the Constitution  is in fact the final authority on the Rule of Law.  

Make no mistake; the Constitution is in fact the thing that makes us uniquely, American. It is what our founders, fathers, grandfathers, brothers, sisters and friends have fought and died for. It empowers you as citizens, and guarantees your rights; all of them.

Sadly, today it is taken for granted – or worse, shunned altogether. Every single day we see more and more proposed legislation. Counting only actual bills that have been proposed (and only counting this Congress) there are 5,090 open bills.  Yes, that is right. There are FIVE THOUSAND and NINETY bills that are currently open in  THIS 111th  Congress (if you wish to count resolutions as well –  which are, after all, more things that must be considered – there are 6,345 open items in this Congress).

It may be a circular statement that follows, though it is very true (think about it); we do not need any new laws that are not legal. Of course we don’t need any existing laws that are not legal for that matter. Nor do we need a lot of redundant legislation. We need solutions to problems. Imposing new laws is by and large not the answer to anything. We have been digging that grave for ourselves for quite a long time now, and we are only succeeding in worsening our collective situation (and that is true under Republicans & Democrats alike). If anything we should be trying to erase past legislation that is impeding us today.

Unless and until we have the foundation right from whence we start, those solutions will never (ever) come, and partisan politics will only continue to worsen until in the end – it will rip us asunder.

The Congressional Oath of Office should take care of this point, and provide the Constitutional framework for all conversations regardless of party affiliation, but the very last thing that our representatives seem to be thinking about is foundational principals…most of them that is.

Democrat. Republican. Does it really matter when considering this point? If we agree on that basic principal that the Constitution is what makes us uniquely American (not party affiliation), and that it is the litmus test which all laws must pass muster before they are…legal (just to note for anyone that may not be aware; when the Supreme Court considers whether or not something is “legal”, they are weighing it against the Constitution…be it a lower court’s decision, or be it questionable legislation), then we must view this proposal as being not only logical – but as absolutely necessary.

A shockingly small number of Representatives and Senators agree. If your Senators and Representatives are not below, I urge you to contact them and let them know that you insist they not only co-sponsor this legislation, but that they champion it.

Sons of Liberty  

Senator Landrieu’s "Position" on Sotomayor Monday, Jul 13 2009 

Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) (202)224-5824
328 Hart Senate BuildingWashington, DC 20510
  
Senator Landrieu,    
 
You have not stated anything of substance in your response. You have insinuated that you support the nomination, but not actually come out and stated it flatly. You have written a paragraph about a subject without taking any position on it whatsoever that is readily apparent.The logic behind my stance was laid out fairly clearly in previous correspondence to you (dated July 11, 2009) and unless you can actually dismantle the case that I have made against her (Sotomayor) using the Constitution as the defining document from which to determine job qualification, then I will remain firmly rooted. Please be aware that any positive endorsement that you may give to Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor will in my mind constitute irrevocable grounds for my adamant campaigning against any future office you may seek.
 
That being said, I am not unreasonable and if I can be shown where I have made a legitimate error in process, I will readily and humbly adjust.
 
And Senator? I am not fool enough to believe that my viewpoint is the only one out there. Nor should you be. You must realize that you will inevitably lose some votes as a result of your position on issues, as for every outlook there is another that is totally different. So take a side & declare in no uncertain terms what your allegiances are.

As for me….. I will stand with the United States Constitution.

Semper Fidelis,
 
Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
One_AmericanPatriot@yahoo.com
 
From:constituent_reply@landrieu.senate.gov
Correspondence from Senator Landrieu

July 13, 2009 Dear Mr. Beall: Thank you for contacting my office regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. As you may know, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor on May 26, 2009. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the Nation. As a Senator, it is my duty to ensure that all members of this high court have a strong legal background, experience in handling a variety of legal issues, and a fairminded approach to judicial review. I take my responsibility for reviewing the qualifications of presidential nominees very seriously. You may be pleased to know that I have reviewed Judge Sotomayor’s record very carefully, interviewed her personally, and will continue to examine her writings to ensure that she will serve as a fair and impartial Justice. Currently, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled the nomination hearings for Judge Sotomayor for July 13, 2009. Please rest assured that I will continue to monitor the progress of this nomination and keep your views in mind when this comes before the full Senate for a vote. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern. Please also feel free to visit my website at http://landrieu.senate.gov for more information on legislative affairs. With warmest regards, I am Sincerely, A Mary L. Landrieu United States Senator MLL:aar

Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009

 

Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Sunday, Jul 12 2009 

Senator David Vitter (R, LA) (202) 224-4623
516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) (202)224-5824
328 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Sonya Sotomayor Senate Confirmation Hearings
SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO APPOINTMENT

Senators:

To date I have written you on three separate occasions regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice. And to date, I have yet to receive any sort of response as to your position on the matter. Please write today, and confirm your own opposition to this entire proceeding.

There really is no room for discussion on the matter, and to imply otherwise would be quite literally: insanity.

Albert Einstein is attributed with having said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Over and over again, Sonya Sotomayor has proven herself; she has proven herself to be unqualified for this nomination. Her statements are not isolated blurbs in passing, nor are her positions limited to theoretical ramblings. Her actions and judgments are testimonials to all that she says. For a fairly lengthy list of her positions in her own words, please view:http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-in-her-own-words/

I have spoken about your oath in the past Senators. Here is a reminder of your duty, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” This is not only your oath, it has been the oath of your predecessors dating back to 1864 and the Constitution itself says that you, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution”.

“The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. “
Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

The Supreme Court goes on to describe its own role in that system of checks and balances by saying, “The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.”
Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

  • What does Sotomayor have to say on the matter? “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know.” Source: Duke University panel discussion held in February 2005

“’EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW’These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”
Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf  

  • Sotomayor says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Source: Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.

We are , “A government of laws not men.” (Source: http://www.masshist.org/adams/quotes.cfm Letters of Novanglus, No. 7, [6 March 1775] Papers of John Adams, 2:314 The phrase seems to originate with James Harrington, Politicaster, 1659) In expounding on the Rule of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary explains that, “… sometimes called ‘the supremacy of law’, (it) provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application.”

  • “The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” Sonya Sotomayor. Source: Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.

Sonya Sotomayor herself removes all need for discussion. Sonya Sotomayor is purely, and simply, not a qualified nominee to the position of Supreme Court Justice. To even allow the confirmation hearings to move forward is irresponsible at best, and is a serious breach of your oath of office.

Sincerely,
Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA
One_AmericanPatriot@yahoo.com

CC:
Media, US Congressman Bill Cassidy (R, 6th Dist. LA) 202-225-3901

United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary
Leahy, Patrick J. (D, VT) , http://leahy.senate.gov/ (202) 224-4242
Kohl, Herb (D, WI),
http://kohl.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5653
Feinstein, Dianne (D, CA),
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-3841
Feingold, Russell D. (D, WI),
http://feingold.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5323
Schumer, Charles E. (D, NY),
http://schumer.senate.gov/ (202) 224-6542
Durbin, Richard J. (D, IL),
http://durbin.senate.gov/ (202) 224-2152
Cardin, Benjamin L. (D, MD),
http://cardin.senate.gov (202) 224-4524
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D, RI),
http://whitehouse.senate.gov/ (202) 224-2921
Wyden, Ron (D, OR),
http://wyden.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5244
Klobuchar, Amy (D, MN),
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/ (202) 224-3244
Kaufman, Edward E. (D, DE),
http://kaufman.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5042
Specter, Arlen (D, PA),
http://specter.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-4254
Sessions, Jeff (R, AL),
http://sessions.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-4124
Hatch, Orrin G. (R, UT),
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-5251
Grassley, Chuck (R, IA),
http://grassley.senate.gov/ (202) 224-3744
Kyl, Jon (R, AZ),
http://kyl.senate.gov/ (202) 224-4521
Graham, Lindsey (R, SC),
http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-5972
Cornyn, John (R, TX),
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-2934
Coburn, Tom (R, OK),
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-5754

"H.B. 387" Tuesday, Jun 9 2009 

To All Members of the Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice:

I am writing to you to voice my strong and ardent opposition to House Bill 387, as being a serious and significant impingement of my Second, and Fourth amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The language in this bill is inflammatory; the “statistics” cited therein are false; the logic of the whole, flawed at best.

The Bill’s sponsor Mr. Richmond (Cedric L, D.101) would have us not simply walk on the edge of a slippery slope, but to simply throw us headlong into a full blown police state.

As a resident, constituent and law abiding citizen, I insist that you all stand in solidarity against this blatant attempt to usurp the rights and freedoms which so many have given so much to protect and defend.

“Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.” John Adams

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” Samuel Adams

 “Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: ‘We the people.’ ‘We the people’ tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the people’ are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which ‘We the people’ tell the government what it is allowed to do. ‘We the people’ are free.” Ronald Regan

“The Constitution is not an instrument for government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
 

Sincerely,
Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA
One_AmericanPatriot@yahoo.com

Sonya Sotomayor Thursday, Jun 4 2009 

Sonya Sotomayor is the wrong person for Supreme Court Justice, and her nomination needs to be blocked.

The law is impartial, and justice is blind. These concepts form one of the cornerstones upon which our country was built. We are now, and always have been a nation of laws and not of men.

All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.

James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, “Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect.” George Mason agreed that judges “could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course.”

Sotomayor says:

· “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.
· “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.
· “The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.
· “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know.” Duke University panel discussion held in February 2005
· “The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value. Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A. Gordon, Returning Majesty To The Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35 (1996).

Sotomayor’s positions are purely & simply abhorrent to the bedrock upon which the United States of America was founded.

We are a nation of laws with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To quietly allow Sotomayor’s nomination would be tantamount to blind acceptance of rule without representation.