DOMA Section Deamed Unconstitutional

I have made no secret of the fact that I am against gay marriage, so it may come as a surprise to some that I am happy with this ruling.  I have also made no secret of the fact that I am a huge supporter of the tenth amendment and the rights of states.

Marriage is not the issue of the federal government.  It never has been and will remain that way unless a constitutional amendment on the issue is passed.  While I would like to see that amendment, the chances of it passing at this point in time is basically nill.  Due to that, I have to support this ruling.  Marriage is a state issue and I have never been able to wrap my brain around how a legal marriage could not be recognized by the federal government.

Even Justice Alito acknowledges in his dissent that the constitution doesn't speak on the issue:

no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.

If no provision speaks to the issue and Americans fully expect our government to treat people equally under the law, what is the justification for the federal government to decide which legally married couple they give benefits to and which couples they don't?

As a limited government. constitutional conservative,  I couldn't find a justifiable reason for that particular section of DOMA being upheld.  This doesn't change my views of gay marriage.  I am against it.  But marriage is state issue, not a federal one.   This is an issue that must be fought on the state level.  If states are going to legalize gay marriage, the federal government has no right to overrule that.  Limited government means just that, limiting the power of the federal government.

The main section of DOMA has not been overturned, a state like Connecticut that has legalized gay marriage has no right to force a state like Virginia to recognize that marriage.  As it should be.

Huckabee's Candidate Forum

I just watched the re-run of the forum and I enjoyed it.  States rights is a big issue for me, so the answers that they gave were of great interest to me.  


Rick Santorum stuck up of for the Patriot Act.  He says that it doesn't affect our civil rights.  Huh?  Ok, I don't make many oversees calls and when I do the people I speak to are not well known terrorists.  But to say that the federal government should have this type of power is scary to me.  


Rick Perry is a 10th amendment purist.  I really appreciate that and that makes me want to vote for him.  That is until he opens his mouth about executive orders.  Very troubling.  He seems to think he can solve problems in this fashion.  Does he really believe that he should be outlawing legally passed laws by executive orders?  If so, I find that very troubling.  How is that different than what Obama is doing with the EPA?  This is no different than Romney saying he would give waivers to Obamacare.  Obamacare will not go away unless it is repealed.  That is the only answer.  Is he willing to sign a repeal?  If not, I don't know why any conservative would vote for him.  


Michele Bachmann dodged questions and is championing a national solution to tort reform.  I want tort reform. But she is willing to bypass the states in order to do it.  Uh, no.  Tort reform is a state issue and the federal government has no role in it at all.  It is hypocrisy for her talk about the constitution then make a statement like that.  Her answer on the EPA was confusing.  She seems to be championing legislation for individual instances of issues between the states.  Huh?  How would that work?  She isn't going to win any fans with her performance last night.  


Mitt Romney did his usual by standing by Romneycare.  He didn't mention the facts that insurance premiums have risen for them.  He didn't mention that hospitals in the state are going broke because of the mandates.  He didn't mention that half of the uninsured are still uninsured.  He also talked about NCLB.  Huh?  No Child Left Behind is yet another federal boondoggle.  Just because it was done by a republican president doesn't make it right.  


Newt Gingrich handled it well.  I think he got some of the toughest questions.  Which, as one of the front runners, that was fair.  I really liked his point of the how the president can lead without passing legislation that forces states to do things.  Wouldn't that be refreshing?  


Ron Paul seems to believe that terrorism needs to be handled as criminal matter.  I suppose there is an argument for that, but I am not fully on board with it.  I did really like his answer on getting rid of unconstitutional mandates, such as medicare and social security.  He is 100% correct, it cannot be done in one fell swoop.  It has be done in steps to make it easier for the people who have become far too dependent on them.  We can't just get rid of things quickly.  This is going to be a process that is going to take time.  


I enjoyed the format.  I think we learned a few things about the world views of the candidates when it comes to the constitution and the rights of the states.  If you are looking purely on the issues of states rights, Rick Perry came out on top with the big exception of the executive orders.  

Child Abuse & States Rights

I have spoken out about Coach Joe Pa's and Mike McQueary's  lack of morality by not contacting the police themselves about Coach Sandusky's depravity towards children.  I feel that it should be felony to not report someone you witness abusing a child.  Apparently in most states it is a misdemeanor, including in Pennsylvania.  That is something that is tragic.  People should be writing letters to the state legislators and pushing them to make the laws against this stronger.  So in walks Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.  He is introducing legislation in the U.S. Senate to require all states to beef up their laws and make the failure to report a felony.  One may say that is a good thing.  But it isn't.  


This is yet one more example of the federal government usurping the rights of states.  Child abuse is not a federal issue.  This is an issue that is better dealt with on the local and state levels.  No where in the constitution does the federal government have the right to dictate to states what type of punishments they should be doling out for criminal acts.  The law will be forced on the states.  How do they get around the lack of jurisdiction?  They do it with money.  The legislation will hold back social services money that is granted to the states by the federal government.  Another words Medicaid and schip payments.  All the little things that the federal government pass laws and force the states to give it's citizens without any regards to the budgets of the states.  In order to help states pay for these little goodies that they force upon them, they give them federal tax dollars to help offset the costs.  


The federal government forced the drinking age to be raised in this same fashion.  They had no constitutional ability to mandate a federal drinking age, but they forced the states to raise the age by holding back money if they didn't comply.  In the mid 80's every state across the country raised their legal drinking age to 21.  It didn't matter that states may have felt that 18, 19, or 20 was something that was good for their citizens.  


It does not matter that the law may be a good thing.  It is the way that the federal government is bribing states with large amounts of money to force their will upon them.  Write a letter to your Senators and explain to them being against this bill doesn't make you pro child abuse.  It makes you pro tenth amendment.  


Stand up to the likes of Senator Menedez and his belief that the federal government has the right to bribe states into following their will.  This isn't about child abuse or drunk driving.  This is about rights of the states.  The federal government has no place in state laws.  If you feel that your state should make the failure to report a felony, contact your governor and state senator.

10th Ammendment and HealthCare - CBO Report

Hey Speaker, this is why people are asking if this bill is unconstitutional. 

In addition, the bill would preempt state and local laws that conflict with or are in addition to new federal standards established by the bill. Those preemptions would limit the application of state and local laws, but CBO estimates that they would not impose significant costs.


As conditions of federal assistance (and thus not mandates as defined in UMRA), the bill also would require state and local governments to offer health insurance to their employees and would require “maintenance of effort” payments associated with high-risk pools. New requirements in the Medicaid program also would result in an increase in state spending.

page 9 of the CBO estimate

AG Holder showing his true colors

The Obama administration continues to prove that it has an agenda that is not based on bringing this country together, but furthering the racial divides. A small town in North Carolina voted and approved a move that would remove party affiliations from the ballots of all local elections. The Justice Department has decided to weigh in and decided that this act violates the voter’s rights act.



“The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.”


What exactly are saying? Is it that White people are so racist that they would never vote for a black candidate unless they are a democrat? If I recall correctly, there are black republicans who have been voted into office in this country. Michael Steele held the second highest office in the state of Maryland. JC Watts Jr. was a congressman from Oklahoma. There is talk he will be running for office again in the near future. Or are they saying black people are too stupid to figure who they want to vote for unless they have a D at the end of their name? Either way, it is condescending and disrespectful. This coming from the same Justice Department that has elected not to prosecute to the Black Panthers for their actions of voter intimidation in Philadelphia during the election this past November. I would think that standing outside a polling booth with a jimmy stick is far worse than taking away party affiliations.


Kinston is a small town of about 23,000 people and about 15,000 of them are black. This was a ballot vote during the last presidential election. It couldn’t have passed if the black community didn’t go along with it. When you live in a town that small, you are very aware of the person who is running. While you may not know them personally, chances are you know someone who does.


I find it unbelievable that black people in this country don’t realize that the government is much further behind in race relations than that of the average person. The fact that racism exists cannot and should not be ignored, but it is not nearly what it was a few short decades ago. Why is it that black people don’t realize that the proof is mounting that democrat leadership in this country seems to be much more willing to allow people of color to be treated that they don’t have a brain and are not capable of deciding for themselves what is and what is not in their best interests.


The greatest irony of this story is that no one in this town seems to remember the last time a republican won a major seat. Hmm, maybe this has more to do with the fact that someone that has more “republican” views could win an election if they didn’t have an R at end of their name. Either way the justice department needs to butt out of local politics and allow this town to do what is in their best interests and the best interests of the people that actually live there and have to live with the decisions that are made at the local level.

States Rights and the 10th Amendment

The debate is starting to heat up in regards to the rights to the individual states. The 10th amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These issues are becoming front and center for a variety of reasons. The stimulus package provisions being one example of this. The stimulus package states that payment for the work done on the projects must be done on scale union wages. The State of California is on the brink of insolvency, so this provision is problematic to them. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has written a letter to President Obama in regards to this provision and requesting an exemption.
Montana has passed a law exempting the state from federal laws restricting guns. All guns and ammunition made in the state that is sold within the state will be stamped Made in Montana, and will fall under only the jurisdiction of the state. This law is due to take effect on October 10, 2009. The basis of the law is that the 10th Amendment is for inter-state commerce, not intra-state commerce.
Leo Berman, Texas State Representative, is introducing a bill that will clarify that Texas is a Sovereign state and that they’re not required to follow any federal law that is not mandated under the U.S. Constitution. He believes that the bill will pass.
In Utah, the Patrick Henry Caucus has been formed. Patrick Henry famously said “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death.” The caucus has been formed to ensure the sovereignty of states rights. They are hoping to set up the same type of organization in all 50 states.
The federal government may find that they are over-playing their hand. The legislators and governors across the country are starting to question the control the federal government is trying to exert, and how they are using money to do it.
This is nothing new; the feds have been doing this for quite sometime. The drinking age being one very good example of this. Under the constitution, the federal government has no right to set a minimum drinking age. In order to get all 50 states to raise the age to 21 they were withholding money for road projects. All 50 states capitulated and raised the age to 21. While I feel that this is a good law, it is how it came about that is disturbing. The federal government keeps usurping on the rights of the states that was given to them by the constitution.
This is an issue that we will be hearing more of as time goes by. The chances of the gun control lobby not bringing the Montana law to court is next to nil. I would venture to say this will be falling to the Supreme Court to decide within the next five years.