Sanctuary Cities v. Rule of Law Cities

Opinion at Large

I live in the People's Republic of Maryland. Goverrnor Martin O'Malley (D), has said that Maryland is a sanctuary state. I guess he wants to be re-elected using the illegal alien vote. I pray that Bob Ehrlich (R), former Governor and hopefully, the new Governor will straighten out my state. My hat is off to Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, who did what the federal government is inept to do their job and our laws. Well, Arizona has drawn a line in the sand. Since Arizona instituted a sound immigration law that is fair and anti-discriminating. Of course, ObieWonKenobi, Eric Holder, Janet Incompetano, El Presidente' Calderon and PJ Crowley all criticized a law that they never read. Unlike the healthcare law, it is only 16 pages! This is completely a smear campaign by the Obama Chicago Corruption machine. Obama and El Presidente' Calderon lam bashed the Arizona law, the democrats applauded and the President is once again, bashing America. Why? Simply put, our President is a smuck who hates America, the free markets, the Military, and everything good about America. He has a vision of a  western European socialist utopia. Unfortunately, that utopia doesn't exist, socialist countries like Greece are the reality. Not to mention, Italy, Spain, Ireland and the U.K. But, I digressed. Recently in the news, Arizona's law approval is by a 2-1 margin. Now, 17 states have announced they have plans to introduce similar laws. The city of Costa Mesa is now enforcing their immigration laws that are on the books. It doesn't matter how many sanctuary cities, counties and states who propose boycotts. The boycotts have failed miserably and I believe the administrations' interference and rhetoric has ignited a firestorm with conservatives and the Tea Party (American) movement. Why is the federal government interfering in a state's business. Because it doesn't fit Obama's narrative. He needs those illegal votes now, more than ever, because he doesn't have ACORN and has lost a majority of his voting base. It will be very interesting to see how the administration's reacts to this tidal wave of sediment against illegal aliens and amnesty. It doesn't help their (illegals) cause to come out so arrogant and confrontational. They are the ones who broke our laws, now, we have to fix this paramount problem. We will prevail in November and whoever the democrats were standing and applauding Calderon, will be unemployed at the end of the year. We must fight and stay true to our country, I said, our country, not theirs. Maybe, we should adopt Mexico's stringent immigration laws? Save our Sovereignty!     

Reading is fundamental:


Illegal is illegal:


Fifteen years in the country illegally, doesn't speak a word of english, has 10 kids and her and her husband are unemployed. Who is paying her bills now? The American taxpayer? What about assimilation into society? Never leaned any english, admits to breaking our laws, however, she claims she isn't a criminal? Oxymoron? Or just moronic? The government and media are complicit. Arizona is the line into the sand.

Subject: An American working in Mexico... (This puts a different perspective on immigration)



From the other side of the fence...

Received the following from Tom O'Malley, who was a Director with S.W. BELL in Mexico City:

"I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

"During that six months our Mexican and U.S. attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a 'FM3'. It was in addition to my U.S. passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same, except hers did not permit her to work.

"To apply for the FM3, I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies):

1. Birth certificate for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and

proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had

worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from the St. Louis Chief of Police indicating

that I had no arrest record in the U.S. and no outstanding

warrants and, was "a citizen in good standing".

7. "Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly

stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and

why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our

'I am the greatest person on Earth' letter. It was fun to write."

"All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations, and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side & Spanish on the right."

"Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours, accompanied by a Mexican attorney, touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times at each location, and we remember at least four locations where we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by U.S. Customs in Laredo, Texas. This meant we had rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid."

"We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law."

"We were required to get a Mexican driver's license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and fingerprint equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our U.S. license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was to never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside

window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back. "

"We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company's Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually."

"The FM3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees."

"Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens)

before our household goods were released to customs."

"It was a real adventure and if any of our Senators or Congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico."

"The Mexican government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their capitol or government offices, but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The U.S. Embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican military surrounds the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on U.S. or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas."

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on the illegals.

2 Comico:

MEXICO IS ANGRY !

Three cheers for Arizona

The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora , Mexico doesn't like it.

Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.

The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico .

It seems that many Mexican illegals are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, - made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money.

The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States .

Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.

The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales .

'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona .

Wrong!

The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico , and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico 's citizens.

It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.

Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona .

Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!

New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

* * * * * * * *

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language..

* * * * * * * *

3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.

* * * * * * * *

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

* * * * * * * *

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office

* * * * * * * *

6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

* * * * * * * *

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

* * * * * * * *

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

* * * * * * * *

9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

* * * * * * * *

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * *

Too strict ?



The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !
 
Quote du jour:
When I woke up this morning my girlfriend asked me, 'Did you sleep good?' I said 'No, I made a few mistakes.'

Steven Wright

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 48

These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other


From the New York Packet.


Friday, February 1, 1788.


Author: James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


IT WAS shown in the last paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other. I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained. It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.


After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others.


What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved. Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex. The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations. In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions. The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments. It is not unfrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative sphere. On the other side, the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat themselves. Nor is this all: as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people, and has in some constitutions full discretion, and in all a prevailing influence, over the pecuniary rewards of those who fill the other departments, a dependence is thus created in the latter, which gives still greater facility to encroachments of the former. I have appealed to our own experience for the truth of what I advance on this subject. Were it necessary to verify this experience by particular proofs, they might be multiplied without end. I might find a witness in every citizen who has shared in, or been attentive to, the course of public administrations. I might collect vouchers in abundance from the records and archives of every State in the Union. But as a more concise, and at the same time equally satisfactory, evidence, I will refer to the example of two States, attested by two unexceptionable authorities. The first example is that of Virginia, a State which, as we have seen, has expressly declared in its constitution, that the three great departments ought not to be intermixed. The authority in support of it is Mr. Jefferson, who, besides his other advantages for remarking the operation of the government, was himself the chief magistrate of it. In order to convey fully the ideas with which his experience had impressed him on this subject, it will be necessary to quote a passage of some length from his very interesting "Notes on the State of Virginia," p. 195. "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.


For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. BUT NO BARRIER WAS PROVIDED BETWEEN THESE SEVERAL POWERS. The judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, IN MANY instances, DECIDED RIGHTS which should have been left to JUDICIARY CONTROVERSY, and THE DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE, DURING THE WHOLE TIME OF THEIR SESSION, IS BECOMING HABITUAL AND FAMILIAR. "The other State which I shall take for an example is Pennsylvania; and the other authority, the Council of Censors, which assembled in the years 1783 and 1784. A part of the duty of this body, as marked out by the constitution, was "to inquire whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of government had performed their duty as guardians of the people, or assumed to themselves, or exercised, other or greater powers than they are entitled to by the constitution. " In the execution of this trust, the council were necessarily led to a comparison of both the legislative and executive proceedings, with the constitutional powers of these departments; and from the facts enumerated, and to the truth of most of which both sides in the council subscribed, it appears that the constitution had been flagrantly violated by the legislature in a variety of important instances. A great number of laws had been passed, violating, without any apparent necessity, the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people; although this is one of the precautions chiefly relied on by the constitution against improper acts of legislature. The constitutional trial by jury had been violated, and powers assumed which had not been delegated by the constitution.


Executive powers had been usurped. The salaries of the judges, which the constitution expressly requires to be fixed, had been occasionally varied; and cases belonging to the judiciary department frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination. Those who wish to see the several particulars falling under each of these heads, may consult the journals of the council, which are in print. Some of them, it will be found, may be imputable to peculiar circumstances connected with the war; but the greater part of them may be considered as the spontaneous shoots of an ill-constituted government. It appears, also, that the executive department had not been innocent of frequent breaches of the constitution. There are three observations, however, which ought to be made on this head: FIRST, a great proportion of the instances were either immediately produced by the necessities of the war, or recommended by Congress or the commander-in-chief; SECONDLY, in most of the other instances, they conformed either to the declared or the known sentiments of the legislative department; THIRDLY, the executive department of Pennsylvania is distinguished from that of the other States by the number of members composing it. In this respect, it has as much affinity to a legislative assembly as to an executive council. And being at once exempt from the restraint of an individual responsibility for the acts of the body, and deriving confidence from mutual example and joint influence, unauthorized measures would, of course, be more freely hazarded, than where the executive department is administered by a single hand, or by a few hands.


The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.


PUBLIUS.

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.nro.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
D.F. Branco
Tom O'Malley
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers

 

The Ultimate Sacrifice

Opinion at large

This morning, I had extreme, mixed emotions as I stood on the side of the road outside Frederick Christian Fellowship Church. Americans like myself came to pay their respects to the fallen hero, 21 year old Corporal Kurt Shea, USMC who was killed in Afghanistan on May 10th. The Church service was full and many of us showed up to, of course, pay our respects to a fallen hero and his family, however, we were there to screen the funeral procession from the Westboro Baptist Church protesters who didn't even show up. (thank goodness) I am a strong believer in the first amendment, however, these maggots are despicable. When families of fallen heroes want to honor their family member, Westboro protesters are holding signs stating that "God loves IED's." I'm glad they didn't show. As I stood there, I looked around trying to imagine how sad and somber the family felt. Unimaginably! The whole road was lined with American flags every 75-100 feet on both sides. People lined both sides of the road approximately 50 feet apart both sides all the way to the Cemetery. I felt so honored to be there paying my respects. I had tears in my eyes as the limos slowly made their way down the road. People waved gratefully and acknowledged the flag waving patriots. As I was leaving, I followed traffic down the road, I noticed hundreds of people closer to the Cemetery. Americans with their hand over their hearts and donning flags, paid their respects in droves. A company called Digging and Rigging had huge cranes extended high in the air displaying large American flags on Rt.15 at the entrance to Resthaven. I was really taken back. As a Father of a Marine who is deploying very soon, I was an emotional wreck. Most people who know me, knows I'm not normally like that. If I could go to Afghanistan in my Son's place, I would gladly. I want him to have the incredible life I have had. I assume every Father would do that, though.  Fast forward to 2pm. I am driving and listening to talk radio. I hear the President of the United States apologizing to the Mexican President for the Arizona immigration law. I went from sadness to rage. What in the hell does this man think he is doing? We are the world?

I can't wait for November. We need to make Obama a lame duck as soon as possible. He is destroying the country faster than anyone could have imagined. We have brave and heroic men and women defending our great nation and a putz for a leader President. I heard Obama snuck out of the White House one night and went to Burger King for a double cheese and fries. There was a statue of the Burger King figure. Wouldn't you know it, President Obama bowed to a ceramic statue. Thankfully, the teleprompter saw it and had the Secret Service intervene. To top it off, our State Department was receiving advice on human rights from CHINA! OMG! The ChiComms are so sensitive and understanding concerning human rights. This administration is so off kilter. This is what happens when we elect an incompetent, radical socialist. Does anyone have buyer's remorse? Next, the administration is criticizing the Arizona immigration law. Incidentally, Eric Holder, Janet Incompetano, President Obama and P.J. Crowley criticize a law they haven't read? You be the judge? I guess Arizona just acted stupidly. After watching last night's election coverage, ObieOneKenobi should be looking over his shoulder.
Hell, these are Marines. Men like them held Guadalcanal and took Iwo Jima. Bagdad ain't s**t.

Marine Major General John F. Kelly

Why America?


State Dept Spokesman P.J. Crowley:


Polarization May Be Our Best Hope

By Mona Charen


We’ve tried meeting in the “middle.” It didn’t work out very well for Republicans or for America.

Recent liberal laments about the increasing “polarization” of American political life are as predictable as the seasons. But pleas for centrism ring pretty hollow in light of recent history.

The Washington Post editorial board, after noting Sen. Robert Bennett’s loss in Utah and Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s primary challenge, asks: “Is there a way to push back against the movement toward partisanship and paralysis — to carve out some space for those who strive to work across party lines in the national interest? We can think of no more important question.”

Really? How about the question as to whether the trajectory of government spending will drag the United States into insolvency? How about the problem of a governing class unmoored from the Constitution?

Following up on the Post’s invitation to fret, William Galston and Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution propound that “Washington’s schism” is mostly a Republican problem. “What the Post’s editorial missed is that these developments have not produced two mirror-image political parties. We have, instead, asymmetrical polarization.”

Sounds contagious. What is it? “Put simply: More than 70 percent of Republicans in the electorate describe themselves as conservative or very conservative, while only 40 percent of rank-and-file Democrats call themselves liberal or very liberal.”

Two possible reasons for this spring to mind. 1) Many liberals, including some of those at the Washington Post, don’t think of themselves as liberals. They imagine that they occupy the sensible center whereas you, well, you are an extremist. 2) Even acknowledging that self-labeling can be problematic, there are nearly twice as many self-identified conservatives (40 percent according to a 2009 Gallup survey) as liberals (21 percent) in the U.S.

The Post regrets that this polarized electorate prevents “anything from getting done,” which is an odd complaint, given that, since the last election, we have witnessed an $800 billion stimulus bill, the federal acquisition of General Motors, a more than $1 trillion health-care bill, the multi-billion-dollar mortgage bailout, and the nation’s deliverance from the curse of salty food.

This call to a high-minded spirit of compromise was utterly absent in the winter of 2009, when it seemed that the Democrats would carry all before them. When newly inaugurated Barack Obama airily spurned Republicans who objected to aspects of the stimulus bill with the reply “I won,” the Post did not pull its chin about the problem of polarization. Nor did the great stewards of bipartisanship turn a hair when Speaker Pelosi declared, during the health-care debate, that “a bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes.”

The Post is expressing a slightly more refined version of the broader liberal assault on conservative activism. In this construct, massive rallies for Barack Obama are a sign of hope and human progress, but massive rallies against Obama’s health-care plan are evidence of “fringe sentiments” (Gov. Jennifer Granholm) or “fear” (Rep. Steve Driehaus), or are “un-American” (Rep. Steny Hoyer). When Michael Moore asked, during the Bush administration, “Dude: Where’s My Country,” that was social commentary. When tea partiers say similar things, they are proto-fascists.

But the greater weakness in the liberal cant about meeting somewhere in the middle is this: The great domestic question of our time is whether we can restrain and even reverse the catastrophic expansion of government debt before it is too late. And until just yesterday, Republicans were AWOL. Or, to put it another way, they were just where the great conciliators of the Washington Post claim they should be. They had abandoned limited government and were reconciled to tinkering with huge federal entitlements to make them slightly less bankrupting than they otherwise would be.

The advent of the Obama administration, with its pell-mell rush to transform us into Greece, is transforming the Republican party as well. Grassroots activists are reasserting the virtues of limited government, personal responsibility, and public accountability. Our best hope is that tea-party principles will prevail. Those are the very principles that can save us from Europe’s fate.

We’ve done what the Post recommends. We met in the “middle.” It didn’t work out very well for Republicans or for America.

2 Comico:

Council declares Costa Mesa a 'Rule of Law City'

BY CINDY CARCAMO and ELLYN PAK

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTERStory Highlights

COSTA MESA – The City Council made it clear Tuesday night that people who are in the country illegally are not welcome in their city.

A federal agent is assigned to the Costa Mesa jail to check the immigration status of arrestees. Mayor Allan Mansoor says more needs to be done to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Council members voted to pass a resolution declaring Costa Mesa a "Rule of Law City" at the behest of Mayor Allan Mansoor, who has long been known as a vocal opponent of illegal immigration.

"I have a lot of concerns with cities calling themselves sanctuary cities," Mansoor said before the vote. "It's important we state that we do not support illegal immigration."

Mansoor's proposal was met with comments from five public speakers, all of whom criticized it. Some said the declaration would paint the city in a bad light and polarize the community. Others called the resolution a political move by Mansoor in his bid for the state Assembly.

The council voted 4-0 in favor of the declaration. Council member Katrina Foley was absent.

Councilwoman Wendy Leece said she supported the resolution, stating that the city's relationship with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the city jail has helped reduce crime.

"This is just validating and reinstating the federal immigration law that we already follow," she said.

Before the vote, Counciman Eric Bever suggested expanding the declaration.

"I would suggest we are a rule of law city regarding all laws," Bever said.

Mansoor explained he wanted to make a specific point about illegal immigration.

Mansoor propelled himself and his city into the front lines of the immigration debate about five years ago with his stance against illegal immigration.

He made national headlines when he aligned himself with the Minuteman Project, targeted day laborers and pushed for a program that trained officers to perform some duties of federal immigration agents.

Ultimately, an ICE agent was placed at the city jail to check the immigration status of inmates who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

Mansoor said that Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law didn't play a part in his proposal and that action in his city is long overdue.

Mansoor and the city are known for leading the way in the county's fight against illegal immigration.

However, earlier this year, he came under fire by anti-illegal immigration activists after it was discovered that the city isn't using a 6-year-old federal program called E-Verify, which is intended to weed out employees who are working in the country illegally.

At the time, he said other issues had taken priority and that he hadn't gotten around to proposing E-Verify as mandatory for the city and its contractors.

About two months later, he announced a press conference where he said he sought more stringent policies, from requiring Costa Mesa businesses to verify a workers' immigration status to allowing police officers to check legal status and valid identification of unlicensed drivers, especially when ICE agents are not present at the jail.

"I want to bring something forward in the next couple of months to start looking at some new policies," Mansoor said. "I've done a lot of research on my own. And I'm going to bring it forward in a manner that's doable."

Quote du jour:
Um, when I said I served “in” Vietnam, I meant to say “during”
Richard Blumenthal, CT's Attorney General

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

 

Federalist No. 47

The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts


From the New York Packet.


Friday, February 1, 1788.


Author: James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


HAVING reviewed the general form of the proposed government and the general mass of power allotted to it, I proceed to examine the particular structure of this government, and the distribution of this mass of power among its constituent parts. One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct. In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts. No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded.


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind. Let us endeavor, in the first place, to ascertain his meaning on this point. The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As the latter have considered the work of the immortal bard as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged, so this great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty; and to have delivered, in the form of elementary truths, the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure, then, not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn. On the slightest view of the British Constitution, we must perceive that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other. The executive magistrate forms an integral part of the legislative authority. He alone has the prerogative of making treaties with foreign sovereigns, which, when made, have, under certain limitations, the force of legislative acts. All the members of the judiciary department are appointed by him, can be removed by him on the address of the two Houses of Parliament, and form, when he pleases to consult them, one of his constitutional councils. One branch of the legislative department forms also a great constitutional council to the executive chief, as, on another hand, it is the sole depositary of judicial power in cases of impeachment, and is invested with the supreme appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. The judges, again, are so far connected with the legislative department as often to attend and participate in its deliberations, though not admitted to a legislative vote. From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers," he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority. This, however, is not among the vices of that constitution. The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department. The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " Again: "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.


Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR. " Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author.


If we look into the constitutions of the several States, we find that, notwithstanding the emphatical and, in some instances, the unqualified terms in which this axiom has been laid down, there is not a single instance in which the several departments of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct. New Hampshire, whose constitution was the last formed, seems to have been fully aware of the impossibility and inexpediency of avoiding any mixture whatever of these departments, and has qualified the doctrine by declaring "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other AS THE NATURE OF A FREE GOVERNMENT WILL ADMIT; OR AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT CHAIN OF CONNECTION THAT BINDS THE WHOLE FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ONE INDISSOLUBLE BOND OF UNITY AND AMITY. " Her constitution accordingly mixes these departments in several respects. The Senate, which is a branch of the legislative department, is also a judicial tribunal for the trial of impeachments. The President, who is the head of the executive department, is the presiding member also of the Senate; and, besides an equal vote in all cases, has a casting vote in case of a tie. The executive head is himself eventually elective every year by the legislative department, and his council is every year chosen by and from the members of the same department. Several of the officers of state are also appointed by the legislature. And the members of the judiciary department are appointed by the executive department. The constitution of Massachusetts has observed a sufficient though less pointed caution, in expressing this fundamental article of liberty. It declares "that the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them. " This declaration corresponds precisely with the doctrine of Montesquieu, as it has been explained, and is not in a single point violated by the plan of the convention. It goes no farther than to prohibit any one of the entire departments from exercising the powers of another department. In the very Constitution to which it is prefixed, a partial mixture of powers has been admitted. The executive magistrate has a qualified negative on the legislative body, and the Senate, which is a part of the legislature, is a court of impeachment for members both of the executive and judiciary departments. The members of the judiciary department, again, are appointable by the executive department, and removable by the same authority on the address of the two legislative branches.


Lastly, a number of the officers of government are annually appointed by the legislative department. As the appointment to offices, particularly executive offices, is in its nature an executive function, the compilers of the Constitution have, in this last point at least, violated the rule established by themselves. I pass over the constitutions of Rhode Island and Connecticut, because they were formed prior to the Revolution, and even before the principle under examination had become an object of political attention. The constitution of New York contains no declaration on this subject; but appears very clearly to have been framed with an eye to the danger of improperly blending the different departments. It gives, nevertheless, to the executive magistrate, a partial control over the legislative department; and, what is more, gives a like control to the judiciary department; and even blends the executive and judiciary departments in the exercise of this control. In its council of appointment members of the legislative are associated with the executive authority, in the appointment of officers, both executive and judiciary. And its court for the trial of impeachments and correction of errors is to consist of one branch of the legislature and the principal members of the judiciary department. The constitution of New Jersey has blended the different powers of government more than any of the preceding. The governor, who is the executive magistrate, is appointed by the legislature; is chancellor and ordinary, or surrogate of the State; is a member of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and president, with a casting vote, of one of the legislative branches. The same legislative branch acts again as executive council of the governor, and with him constitutes the Court of Appeals. The members of the judiciary department are appointed by the legislative department and removable by one branch of it, on the impeachment of the other. According to the constitution of Pennsylvania, the president, who is the head of the executive department, is annually elected by a vote in which the legislative department predominates. In conjunction with an executive council, he appoints the members of the judiciary department, and forms a court of impeachment for trial of all officers, judiciary as well as executive. The judges of the Supreme Court and justices of the peace seem also to be removable by the legislature; and the executive power of pardoning in certain cases, to be referred to the same department. The members of the executive counoil are made EX-OFFICIO justices of peace throughout the State. In Delaware, the chief executive magistrate is annually elected by the legislative department. The speakers of the two legislative branches are vice-presidents in the executive department. The executive chief, with six others, appointed, three by each of the legislative branches constitutes the Supreme Court of Appeals; he is joined with the legislative department in the appointment of the other judges. Throughout the States, it appears that the members of the legislature may at the same time be justices of the peace; in this State, the members of one branch of it are EX-OFFICIO justices of the peace; as are also the members of the executive council. The principal officers of the executive department are appointed by the legislative; and one branch of the latter forms a court of impeachments. All officers may be removed on address of the legislature. Maryland has adopted the maxim in the most unqualified terms; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other. Her constitution, notwithstanding, makes the executive magistrate appointable by the legislative department; and the members of the judiciary by the executive department. The language of Virginia is still more pointed on this subject. Her constitution declares, "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct; so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other; nor shall any person exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time, except that the justices of county courts shall be eligible to either House of Assembly. " Yet we find not only this express exception, with respect to the members of the irferior courts, but that the chief magistrate, with his executive council, are appointable by the legislature; that two members of the latter are triennially displaced at the pleasure of the legislature; and that all the principal offices, both executive and judiciary, are filled by the same department. The executive prerogative of pardon, also, is in one case vested in the legislative department. The constitution of North Carolina, which declares "that the legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other," refers, at the same time, to the legislative department, the appointment not only of the executive chief, but all the principal officers within both that and the judiciary department. In South Carolina, the constitution makes the executive magistracy eligible by the legislative department.


It gives to the latter, also, the appointment of the members of the judiciary department, including even justices of the peace and sheriffs; and the appointment of officers in the executive department, down to captains in the army and navy of the State.


In the constitution of Georgia, where it is declared "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the other," we find that the executive department is to be filled by appointments of the legislature; and the executive prerogative of pardon to be finally exercised by the same authority. Even justices of the peace are to be appointed by the legislature. In citing these cases, in which the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments have not been kept totally separate and distinct, I wish not to be regarded as an advocate for the particular organizations of the several State governments. I am fully aware that among the many excellent principles which they exemplify, they carry strong marks of the haste, and still stronger of the inexperience, under which they were framed. It is but too obvious that in some instances the fundamental principle under consideration has been violated by too great a mixture, and even an actual consolidation, of the different powers; and that in no instance has a competent provision been made for maintaining in practice the separation delineated on paper. What I have wished to evince is, that the charge brought against the proposed Constitution, of violating the sacred maxim of free government, is warranted neither by the real meaning annexed to that maxim by its author, nor by the sense in which it has hitherto been understood in America. This interesting subject will be resumed in the ensuing paper.


PUBLIUS.



References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.nro,com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
Mona Charen
CINDY CARCAMO
 ELLYN PAK
Glenn McCoy (cartoon)
Orange County Register
Creator's Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.politico.com/

Supreme Court Injustice

 Opinion at Large

Who in the world is Elena Kagan? Well, other than Obama nominating her as Solicitor General last year. She is a Cambridge eletists who has never been a judge or sat to hear a case. Yes, that's right, Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul has more experience as a  judge than she does. She has been Dean of the Harvard Law School,  a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago and White House Counsel for Bill Clinton. I know Thurgood Marshall and many other Supreme Court justices were not judges prior to their SCOTUS appointments, however, I have more of a suspicion of a political activism motive with this choice. The rhetoric is just beginning with Kagan. Everyone knows the state run media will be in Obama's and Kagan's back pocket. There are rumors about her sexuality, is she a closet gay? I don't care except that the issue of gay marriage will be elevated to the forefront in the near future. Also, as I've researched Kagan, she is pro-choice, pro-Obamacare, pro-gay marriage, anti DADT, pro-late term abortion (Clinto era), pro-amnesty and simply put, PRO-OBAMA AGENDA. She also banned military recruiters from recruiting on the Harvard campus. I believe she will rubber stamp all of Obama's policies if presented. I feel ashamed for my country that Obama is  whoring out the Supreme Court to further his socialist agenda. She will merely be a political pawn for the Obama administration. "Change we can not believe in."I always thought that we should chose a Supreme Court justice who would interpret the Constitution and it's core values, not show any prejudice, and be methodical and logical in their appointment. We don't need a judicial activist sitting on the Supreme Court bench. I don't feel they should be well liked, friendly, show empathy, be fun, be a concensus builder or anything else other than a great Supreme Court justice.

President Obama, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination.

Justice Sotomayor was the first liberal justice Obama nominated, with Kagan likely to be nominated without the wussies republicans putting up to much of a fight, ObieWanKenobi will have started to shift the Supreme Court way to the left. When the UK seems to be realizing the woes of their liberal politics, the anointed one seems to be doubling down on his socialistic agenda. The great devisive one isn't as novice as we think. He has a master plan to turn this great country into a western European, socialist, bankrupt nation mirroring Greece and Portugal. No, No, Nanette... The American citizenry will rise up like the Icelandic volcano and I will be marching right next to everyone on Pennsylvania Avenue. I wonder if there is another Supreme Court justice decides to retire, Bill Ayers would be the nominee, then he can bomb himself? I appreciate everyday that I am alive on this earth, but, I can't wait for November! We won't forget.

Kagan acceptance:


Jeff Sessions on Kagan nomination:

It's all Greek to me:
Why are we bailing out Greece? Are we not prolonging the inevitable? The greeks do not want to change, they are a nanny state gone awry. It appears that the Greek population is extremely happy with living off of their government and bleeding the well dry. Well, it is dry. For the past two weeks, Greeks have been rioting against the hard decisions the Greek government has made to develop a comprehensive "business plan" to keep their country from defaulting and basically declaring bankruptcy. Would that start a "domino effect" with other European countries? Maybe, Portugal could follow suit. The World Monutary Fund (WMF) is helping Greece and Obama strong-armed Germany's Merkel to send money and bailout Greece. The United States is close to mimmicking Greece, yet, Barry sends taxpayer money like it is going out of style. We need to take care of the U.S. of A. Some time ago, Robin Williams, the famous comedian/actor wrote a statement on what we should do concerning our state of affairs. He said to withdraw funds and welfare to any country that did not help us with Iraq and Afghanistan. Build the fence and deal with the illegal alien problem. That's right, I said "illegal alien." They are such a burden on our social systems that we could solve many budgetary issues just by eliminating the illegal entitlement free ride. In retrospect, America and the European countries will have to learn to live within their means, just like the citizens do. If they don't, we will end up bankrupt and wondering how this happened to America.

Daft statement of the day: 
The decline of socialism in the country as "sad" for those who still hope to "change America."
Elena Kagan (Princeton undergraduate thesis)

2 Comico:

Not soon enough!

Green Piece:

Cap-and-Trade Is Back

By Brian Sussman


On Wednesday, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) plan to introduce legislation designed to inflate the cost of energy, strain family budgets, and decimate America's manufacturing sector -- all in the name of supposedly saving the climate.


Kerry and Lieberman have been revamping legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives last year. The House bill imposes oppressive limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and establishes a complex cap-and-trade scheme in which the federal government determines how much CO2 a business may emit. If a business exceeds its allowance, it may purchase additional "carbon credits" from an exchange, where the credits will be traded like a commodity. Rules for the exchange of carbon credits, including the trading of carbon derivatives, are addressed in the House bill, and my sources tell me that the Senate version will include these same stratagems.


In an e-mail sent to the media last week regarding their plans, Kerry and Lieberman said, "We can no longer wait to solve this problem which threatens our economy, our security and our environment."


My insiders also say the new Kerry-Lieberman proposal will keep the House bill's goal of attaining a 17-percent reduction of greenhouse gases (below their 2005 level) by 2020. Apparently the Senate bill will allow cap-and-trade to hit power companies first, and then within six years include the manufacturing sector.


The new bill apparently calls for more loan guarantees to build nuclear plants and grants U.S. coastal states a share of the revenue produced by any expansion of offshore oil and natural-gas drilling.


This is a bill that will cause all of us to suffer great loss.


Presently, 40 percent of CO2 emissions in the United States are derived from electricity generation, 35 percent from transportation, and 25 percent from business, industry, and natural gas to heat homes.


So where will the 17% cut come from, especially given that (according to U.S. census projections) there will be an additional 30 million people in the United States by 2020? If the cuts are distributed proportionately, the biggest blow will be to electricity production. Since 50 percent of our nation's electricity is derived from coal, that industry and its customers will be hit hardest. Coal plants are going to have to be shuttered. And what will replace that energy resource? Nothing.


We might counter that the House bill touts complex tax credits for wind and solar development. However, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, those two alternatives don't provide a watt of energy -- they're simply enhancements, not baseload providers. Additionally, the Kerry-Lieberman loan giveaway for the construction of nuclear plants -- which do not generate carbon emissions -- is simply a lure to entice gullible Republicans to bite, because the White House is not a fan of nuclear power.


Recall that during his January State of the Union address, Mr. Obama said that America needs to be "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."


In an apparent move to make good on his promise, two days after the speech, Bloomberg reported: "President Barack Obama, acting on a pledge to support nuclear power, will propose tripling guarantees for new reactors to more than $45 billion[.]"


However, the proposal was a ruse. Many forget that shortly after taking office Obama's first budget planned to cut off money for the Nevada nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain -- meaning that the $10 billion in taxpayer dollars spent since 1983 to ready Yucca for storing nuclear waste was a total loss. Yucca Mountain will officially be zeroed out in fiscal year 2011.


Meantime, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has announced the creation of a special panel to find a solution for storing nuclear waste.


Problem is, we already had a solution -- Yucca Mountain.


America has no nuclear option. And, as I have written here at American Thinker, the probability of additional drilling for domestic fossil fuels is low as well.


So where will the carbon cuts come from? They'll come from the American people, who will be forced to use less energy because of the higher costs imposed by cap-and-trade and a variety of new energy taxes.


Proving my point, last week members of Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, took part in the Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference. One of the better-attended seminars was entitled "Efficiency and Renewables." Presenters included Nancy Sutley, White House Council on Environmental Quality. According to the brochure promoting this session, "The cheapest, cleanest, and fastest emission reductions will come from the energy we never have to use at all. Cutting energy use also saves money on homeowners' electricity bills and reduces costs for business."


Translation: America does not need a plan for additional power plants to serve a growing population; instead, the people must use less power. Coercion through increased pricing will be a key prod in producing the societal behavior modification necessary to accomplish this goal.


By the way, Nancy Sutley is also the woman who announced the hiring of the radical Van Jones in March 2009, declaring: "Van Jones has been a strong voice for green jobs, and we look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the President's agenda of creating 21st-century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources. Jones will also help to shape and advance the administration's energy and climate initiatives with a specific interest in improvements and opportunities for vulnerable communities."


Further straining the family budget, a new set of fees and taxes will be imposed on all sectors of the economy that produce greenhouse gases. This will include transportation, farming, livestock production -- even restaurants that cook barbecued chicken and ribs over an open flame and bottling companies that sell fizzy drinks. To absorb the increased cost of doing business, companies large and small will be forced to raise their prices. Already pinched personal bank accounts will be further hammered, as virtually everything is going to cost more.


The Kerry-Lieberman bill is also a job-killer. To meet the demands of the new emissions limits, the few manufacturing businesses that remain in the United States will be further shipped overseas. This is a part of an elitist plan to redistribute America's wealth abroad. In other words, this legislation will purposefully execute the loss of well-paying domestic jobs, so that those in third world and underdeveloped nations have a chance to improve their standard of living -- at our expense.


Proving my point is the House version of this bill. If your manufacturing job is shipped overseas, you are eligible for three years of unemployment compensation at 70% of your pay, plus retraining and relocation expenses. The intent is to pacify your anger with a three-year paid vacation.


And another dirty little secret about the Democrats' need to pass cap-and-trade: It's a revenue-builder. According the Wall Street Journal, the cap-and-trade system could actually generate between roughly $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019.


This so-called energy bill is a punch to the gut that American does not need. And keep in mind, as I have conclusively proven through past missives at American Thinker, as well as in my book Climategate, that the temperature of the earth is not warming, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and without the greenhouse effect, planet Earth would be a big ball of ice.


To pass, cap-and-trade will need bipartisan support. Thus far only Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have spoken out in favor of supporting a mandatory cap on greenhouse gases.


However, other Senate Republicans who could cross over and support this bill are Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George LeMieux of Florida, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and the retiring George Voinovich of Ohio.


Brian Sussman is author of the new bestseller, "Climategate: a veteran meteorologist exposes the global warming scam," and host of the Morning Show on KSFO radio in San Francisco.

Attack of the 50 foot Pelosi:


Interesting lawsuit on Obama: Check out this lawsuit challenging Obama's citizenship. This suit is different from the other five thousand lawsuits.
Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 00 - Table of Contents - 2nd Amended Complaint
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm

Quote du jour:
"As good government is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the many to a few of the most wise and good."

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 46


The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared


From the New York Packet.


Tuesday, January 29, 1788.


Author: James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States.


I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States.


Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline. Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever.


It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens. If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered. The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other. It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage.


But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members. Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.


On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.


The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.


Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.


PUBLIUS.


References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.nronline.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
A.F. Branco
Brain Sussman
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers