Sunday, January 13, 2013

A Utopia for Conservatives?

Have you ever said to yourself that you wished you lived someplace where liberals didn't?  Or maybe you wished you lived in a place where you and your family would be safe in the event the excrement made physical contact with a hydro-electric powered oscillating air current distribution device.  Thanks to the patriots at The Citadel, you can now have both. 

The Citadel is proposing to build a planned community in northern Idaho that will house 3,500-7,000 American families.  According to their website, patriotic American families will voluntarily live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson's ideal of Rightful Liberty.  What is Rightful Liberty you ask?  It basically means that neighbors keep their noses out of other neighbors business, that neighbors live and let live.  Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and RINO's need not apply.

The good folks at the Citadel plan to purchase up to 3,000 acres for the planned community, which will be protected with walls and towers.  The Citadel has already purchased about 20 acres (the beach head) where they intend to build a modern firearms company (III Arms) to help fund the project.  Every able-bodied resident of the Citadel will be required to own and maintain an AR-15, five magazines and 1,000 rounds of ammo.  I know many of you are thinking this must be a Utopian dream and I would concur.

Once the mainstream liberal media catches wind of this project, I'm certain they will try to make comparisons to 'right-wing' anti-government wackos or some racist cult in a compound.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  But of course the Matt Lauer types of the MSM never let the truth get in the way of a good story.  The Citadel prohibits extremists and all prejudicial philosophies.  In fact, they don't even care what race you or your ancestors originate and they have no religious barriers.  Patriots are not defined by race or religion.  I myself might take issue with the religious barriers issue.  There are those that view government as a religion....but then again... they fall into the Marxist/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive camp, so I have no worries.
If you and your family are interested in such a wonderful concept, I would encourage you to check them out.  At the very least, you can purchase one of their AR-15's or 1911's before Obama and the liberals makes them illegal.  Let me know what you think.            

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Obama Cannot Create Laws Through Executive Order

Vice President Biden has said Obama may well impose new gun control laws with the stroke of a pen, thus avoiding a heated fight with Congress.  President Obama is not the first president to invoke Executive Orders and he won’t be the last.  U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since the 1780’s and usually they were issued to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. 

There is no Constitutional provision or statute per se that unequivocally permits executive orders, however, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution.  There were no rules governing the use of Executive Orders until 1952.  In 1952 the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it ATTEMPTED TO MAKE LAW, RATHER THAN CLARIFY OR ACT TO FURTHER A LAW PUT FORTH BY THE CONGRESS OR THE CONSTITUTION.

Before the Youngstown v. Sawyer Supreme Court ruling, some Presidents used EO’s with impunity.  FDR used an Executive Order (EO 9066) to grant authority to the military to forcibly intern Japanese-Americans for the duration of WWII.  Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution is a vesting clause, granting all the federal government's legislative authority to Congress.  The Vesting Clause establishes the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.  This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is only vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).

Article 1, Sec 1 should legally prevent President Obama from making new gun-control laws through Executive Order because the Constitution gives that authority to Congress.  The Tenth Amendment should also prevent the Obama regime from being able to force their new gun laws down the throats of the 50 states.  The Mack-Printz v. United States ruling in 1997 declared that the states or their political subdivisions “are not subject to federal direction.” The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. 

Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and Montana Sheriff Jay Printz sued the Clinton administration because of the unconstitutionality of certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.  The opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court in the Mack/Printz decision reestablished states rights granted to them by the Tenth Amendment.  Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, “…the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones.”  Scalia went on to state, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty” and that the states retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.”

Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” (The Federalist # 39).

I don’t want to predict what Obama will do through Executive Order, but if he tries to make new gun control laws with the stroke of a pen, we have precedent on our side to prevent it.  Of course that precedent doesn’t mean a thing unless we have some real patriots that are willing to take on the mighty Obama regime.    

Sphere: Related Content