Category Archives: Constitution

Y’ say y’ want a Revolution?

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." [courtesy Bing Images]

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” John F. Kennedy
[courtesy Bing Images]

800,000 government employees were furloughed on Tuesday, October 1st.  The media are all a-twitter with reports on the Obamacare/Government-shutdown controversy.

At first, the controversy seemed to be just another “drama” staged by the drama-queens we’ve elected to Congress.  For example, The Washington Times published “House rejects restoration of funds during shutdown for veterans, parks” which declared in part:


“With the government shutdown closing national monuments and sending federal office workers home, House Republicans changed tactics Tuesday and tried to pass individual spending bills that they said would restore money to high-profile programs such as veterans affairs, national parks and the Smithsonian Institution.

“But House Democrats, backed by a presidential veto threat, blocked the bills, saying that while they supported the spending, it was unfair for Republicans to make them pick and choose from popular programs.”


Politics in Congress has become so polarized that the Republican and Democrat parties seem like spouses in a particularly bad marriage.  Neither “spouse” can figure out how to please the other.  Both insist that, even if he or she gets what they want, something is still wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , ,

Can Obama . . . Or Can He Not . . . Unilaterally Declare War on Syria?

The Nobel Peace Prize winner . . . with his own Death List.  [courtesy Google Images]

The Nobel Peace Prize winner . . . with his own Death List. [courtesy Google Images]

President Obama has declared that, under the Constitution, he has the unilateral power to declare war on Syria.  But Obama has also declared that he’s going to wait on a vote from Congress to authorize his attack on Syria.  These statements are contradictory.  At least one of the statements is false and arguably treasonous.

If, under the Constitution, the President has the unilateral power to declare war, but he nevertheless waits for “authorization” from Congress, the President is surrendering constitutional power from the Executive Branch to the Legislative branch. That surrender of powers is arguably treason to the Constitution.

If, under the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, then President Obama’s claim that he can unilaterally declare war is a lie, and more, an unconstitutional attempt by the President to usurp powers intended only for Congress. That usurpation of powers is arguably treason to the Constitution.

Whether or not our government attacks Syria is an interesting question.  But whether Obama has the unilateral power to declare war without congressional authorization is a vital question of constitutional law.

Over the next few days or weeks, we’ll hear a media hullabaloo about whether the US. government should or should not, will or will not, attack Syria. But the real issue won’t be the attack on Syria so much as the attack on the Constitution. We’re going to learn if Congress will permit Obama to act unilaterally and in violation of the war-making power granted by the Constitution–or if Congress will put Obama “in his place” as subject to the Constitution and not allow him to become an overt dictator.

If Obama can’t or won’t unilaterally declare war on Syria, he will probably set a precedent to prevent him from unilaterally declaring war on other countries–including Iran.

Here’s a short video on the issue:

video   00:04:30


Tags: , , , ,

Good Americans Distrust Government—And they are the Majority

English: * Title = Gilbert Stuart's Portrait o...

“Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant or a fearful master.” George Washington (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I postulate that being a good American means living in harmony with the spirit of The Constitution of the United States.  If that’s true, should we ever trust government?

Absolutely not.

The reason we have three, separate and independent branches of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) is to keep those governmental branches fighting among themselves and thereby prevent the emergence of a single, dictatorial government that worked for its own interests rather than those of the people.  The mandate for three branches of government (separation of powers) is evidence that the Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

The reason we have “checks and balances” in the Constitution is to protect the people from the federal government.  The Founders didn’t trust the feds.

The reason we have the 1st Amendment right to free speech is to allow us to expose government corruption.

According to the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” the reason we have the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted under the Constitution to the officers, officials and employees of the federal government.

Insofar as the Constitution was intended to allow for only a “limited” government, that Constitution was intended to protect against government’s inevitable and insatiable appetite for more power, more taxes and less freedom.  The Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , ,

Supreme Court Justice Scalia: “The Constitution is Dead, Dead, Dead”

English: Supreme Court Associate Justice Anton...

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia testifies before the House Judiciary Committee’s Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on Capitol Hill May 20, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently spoke at the Southern Methodist University (SMU) law school.  During his speech, he said that the federal Constitution is “not a living document:  It’s dead, dead, dead.”

That statement stirred some controversy.  I’ve received several email from readers who cite Scalia’s comments as proof that “even the Supreme Court now admits that the Constitution is dead and of no force or effect!

These readers don’t understand that Scalia is exactly right.  It’s unfortunate that the debate over the reading of the Constitution has fallen into a “living Constitution” vs. “dead Constitution” dichotomy.  It’s hard to fight for a “dead Constitution”.  But that’s the fight we should wage.

Those who argue that the Constitution is a “living” document, argue that the meaning of the Constitution changes or evolves with time and context.  The people who favor the “living Constitution” concept are those who want rule by man (themselves) rather than rule by law (the Constitution).  Under the pretext that the Constitution is a “living” document, the Constitution can mean anything anyone in a position of power says it means at any time.  It can mean one thing today, another thing tomorrow and a third thing next week.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on January 30, 2013 in Constitution, Definitions, Treason, Values


Tags: , , , , ,

Government Corporations

There was a time when I and most other legal reform advocates assumed that all “corporate government” was bad.  Over time, I came to see that–as much as despise and distrust corporations–corporate government is at least a necessity and, properly conceived, a possible benefit for the People.

The fundamental question is not “Am I dealing with a governmental corporation?” but rather “Who owns–and therefore benefits from–the governmental corporation I’m dealing with?  Am I presumed to be one of the beneficiaries of that corporation or merely one of its customers or even employees?”   I.e., “Is the governmental corporation I’m dealing with a “public” corporation that is owned by all the People and therefore works for the best interests of the “public”/People–or is it a “privatized” corporation that’s owned by some private individuals and works for the best interests of those private individuals rather than for the best interests of the “People” in general?

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on June 17, 2012 in Constitution, Corporations


Tags: , , , ,

Constitutional Elections Summit

November 4: Barack Obama elected President

November 4: Barack Obama elected President (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On May 26th, A.D. 2012, Rudy and Erin Davis hosted a Constitutional Elections Summit at the Fair Park Bible Fellowship Church at Dallas, within The State of Texas.  I was one of the seven speakers.  Several of the speakers (Orly Taitz, Pastor David Manning, etc.) enjoy national recognition.

The Summit’s primary purpose was to explore the constitutionality of Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Although the subject matter might seem primarily “political,” the Summit was every bit as spiritual as an old-time, tent Revival.  The quality of the speakers and the variety of subject matter (“Man or Other Animals,” Imprecatory Prayer; “Birther” issues) made this “Summit” an event of truly national significance.  Unfortunately, only about 70 people attended the Summit.  We’d hoped for more.  But all the speeches were video’d and those videos are already up on the internet and beginning to attract attention.  I am hopeful that these videos (below) receive widespread attention.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Summer's End. Lexington Green, 11 September 20...

Image via Wikipedia

This video (below) is four years old.  You may’ve already seen it.  But this video makes such an extraordinarily powerful presentation in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, that it deserves to be reviewed and recalled from time to time.

Texas state representative, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, whose parents were killed by an insane gunman while her gun was out in the car, gives moving and bold testimony about one reason that the second amendment protects our God-given right to keep and bear arms.
I would add (as I did for 60 Minutes, Coast to Coast, Follow the Money, etc.) that the reason for the 2nd Amendment (as with all ten Amendments known as the “Bill of Rights”) was to protect the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.

Tags: , ,