Arizona SB1070 – Real Change That Gives America Hope

April 25, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

On Friday, Governor Brewer, from Arizona, signed SB1070.  Instantly, the critics went ballistic.

President Obama used the swearing in ceremony of new citizens to criticize Arizona legislators saying, “Our failure to act responsibly, at the Federal level, will only open the door to irresponsibility by others, and that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

Brian Williams, on NBC Nightly News, said on Friday, “A central question in the news tonight, ‘is it legal, is it right, for a police officer to come up to you and ask you to produce I.D. if you’re suspected of entering the country illegally?  This is playing out tonight in the State of Arizona.”

Jose Diaz Balart of TeleMundo in Phoenix reports, “Late this afternoon, Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial Bill, the toughest State Law against illegal immigration in the country. With her signature, Arizona is in direct conflict with the White House…  The law makes illegal immigration a State crime and requires local police to check the status of anyone they believe is here illegally.”

Actually, if any of the critics had taken five minutes and read SB1070, instead of simply adopting liberal talking points, they would have found that, contrary to the ‘leftist’ talking points, Law Enforcement Officers may only inquire about an individual’s immigration status during “lawful contact”.  Additionally, any complaint of illegal immigration status, levied by one person against another and found to be frivolous, is punishable by monetary fines against the accuser.

Does potential questioning of an individual’s immigration status invite racial profiling?  It could, although the Bill contains specific language banning ‘racial profiling’.  Then again, most of those opposed to SB1070 support affirmative action which is based on racial profiling.  Why is it, that the practice is welcomed on one hand, and demonized on the other?

To solve for this, if Law Enforcement Officers adopts a ‘standard operating procedure’ of simply using the same line of questioning with every person, of whom they request identification, questioning legal immigration status becomes just another question.  No prejudice, no malice, no racial profiling.  Regardless, Governor Brewr is calling for additional training of Law Enforcement to ensure against racial profiling and to maintain respect of the peoples rights.

Of course, President Obama, who can never pass up on an opportunity for societal divisiveness, instructed the Justice Department to ‘closely monitor’ activities in Arizona for ‘Civil Rights Violations’.

Governor Brewer emphasized, “Racial Profiling is illegal.  It will not be tolerated in America, and it certainly will not be tolerated in Arizona.”

“This Bill,” Governor Brewer continued.  “The ‘Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act’, strengthens the laws of our State.  It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen, and everyone here, in our State lawfully, and it does so while ensuring that the Constitutional Rights of all, in Arizona remain solid, stable, and steadfast.”

Nonetheless, cries of the Bill being unconstitutional rang out from almost every protest.  Is this the same Constitution they were willing to throw under the carpet, as if hiding dust and debris from visitors, when backing the passage of the Healthcare Reform, or bailing out the financial, housing, and auto industries?

Why is it, every time legislation to protect our country and our citizens is passed, it is immediately deemed unconstitutional, yet laws and programs that clearly are not in accordance with the Constitution receive accolades?

So the question arises, is Arizona SB1070 constitutional?

We all know Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, states, “Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

However, Section 13 of SB1070 refers to the Bill’s ‘Short Title’ as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.  There is no reference in the title, nor anywhere in the Bill, to “Rule of Naturalization”.  That makes SB1070 a “Public Safety Law”, not an “Immigration Law”.

Upon reading the Bill, the language of the Bill does not even allow the State’s Legislature, Law Enforcement, or any member of the State’s Judiciary the Authority to determine any individuals ‘immigration status’.  Rather, all questions, regarding immigration status, are immediately deferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The last time I checked, ICE is a Federal Agency.

Arizona SB1070 does not even give the State the Authority to deport anyone.  Any person found to be in the country illegally, is to be transported to Federal Custody, and if said transportation includes removing an individual to a location outside the boundaries of the State, the State must first receive a Court Order to do so.

Clause 15, of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says, “Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

All enforcement activities in SB1070 defer to existing Federal laws.  One could argue that Law Enforcement is the ‘active duty branch’ of the ‘State Militia’, and that the constant flow of illegal immigrants could be considered a form of societal invasion.

Furthermore, Article VI, Clause 2, stipulates, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Law of the Land.”

Because SB1070 consistently defers to Federal Authorities, it should be deemed as being “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, where we have established Congress has a duty to create “Rules of Naturalization”.

Article VI, Clause 3, clarifies that, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

That means that, by passing SB1070 into law, the Arizona Legislature is actually executing their duties under the Constitution.  I am willing to bet you are wishing we could say that about Congress.  Instead, Congress is too busy taking over the financial industry, the auto industry, the housing industry, the healthcare industry, increasing taxes, passing laws that do not pass constitutional muster, and spending our way into oblivion, to actually perform the duties obligated to them by the Constitution.

In fact, we should applaud the Arizona Legislature.  Now residents, and those of us who are asked for our I.D. while visiting their great State, can announce with great pride,

I AM AN AMERICAN!

Advertisements

President Obama Violates Constitution

April 5, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

Although I disagree with President Obama’s policies, and his political agenda, until now, he has not violated the Constitution.  (The Stimulus and the Healthcare bills are definitely arguable) However, that has now changed.

During a scheduled recess of Congress, President Obama used the opportunity to make 15 recess appointments to administrative positions that would normally require Senate confirmation.

In a written statement, the President declared, “The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis,”

The President is quoted by FOX News as saying, “At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months,” he said. “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government.”

President Obama went on to note that former President George W. Bush made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, then claimed that the former President was not facing the same level of obstruction.

Does the President have the authority to make “recess appointments?

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution, we find that,

“…and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, goes on to state,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So let’s take the Constitution for what it actually says for once, instead of what some want it to say for their own political purpose, or as a method of promoting their personal agenda.

According to the Constitution, as quoted, “the President shall have the Power to fill up Vacancies THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING a Recess of the Senate,”

The Founders did not intend this sentence to serve as a method for the President to get around the authority of the Senate to provide “Advice and Consent” of Presidential Appointments.

The sentence was put in place for the President to make temporary appointment to key administrative positions when they become vacant during a recess of Congress.

The vacancies filled by Obama’s ‘recess appointments’, have existed since the President took Office.  They did not happen during the “Recess of Congress”.

The fact that the President does not like “partisan politics” holding up the advancement of his agenda, or that some may be doing so to “score political points”, has no bearing on the subject.  The President needs to get over it.

The fact is, there is NO provision in the Constitution for the President to override the authority or the responsibilities of the Senate.  That would have opened the door for a dictatorship, and that was one thing the Founders were attempting to avoid.

The idea of pointing out the errors of his predecessor does not make the action legal under the Constitution.  These appointments, made by President Obama, are a direct and blatant abuse of the Power of his Office, and a willful violation of the Constitution.

Is this an impeachable offense?

According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8,

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Accordingly, the President must take the ‘Oath of Office’ to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability.  President Obama has publicly reminded the nation, on several occasions, that he taught Constitutional Law at the University level in Illinois.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that the President should be fully aware of the intent of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

Article II, Section 4, states,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article VI, Clause 2, states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, as part of the Constitution, is Federal Law. Any action that willfully and purposefully violates the Constitution, by using the provision to usurp the Authority of the Senate, is a Federal Offense.

It is time for the Government to understand that the ‘Powers of Government’ do not lie solely in the three branches of Government.  The Constitution provides for the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches.

However, under the ninth and tenth amendments, the Constitution also provides for the Several States and the People to be active participants in shaping our Government and legislation

Therefore, it is part of our civic responsibility to monitor the actions of the individuals elected to Office, and take action when necessary.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X – 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.

It is time for the President to be introduced to the Power of the People.

The Constitution points out, in Article I, Section 1, Clause 5,

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article VI, Clause 3, states,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I am sending a letter, defining the points of this article, to my Representative in the House.  I am demanding, under the Authority of the Constitution, that my Representative formally begin the process of forcing the President to rescind his “Recess Appointments”.  If the President refuses to act accordingly, I am demanding that my Representative begin the process of impeachment for the willful and deliberate usurpation of the Authority of the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Please join me and do the same.

To receive a copy of the letter I wrote to my Representative, make a request in the comments box.  I will reply to all that I can.  Thank you.


Health Care Reform – Merry Christmas? Or, Welcome Comrades?

December 28, 2009

By David A. Black, Sr.

So, Senate Majority Leader,  Harry Reid succeeded in forcing his Health Care reform through the Senate on Christmas Eve.

Merry Christmas, America!

Almost immediately after the Bill passed, an entirely party-line vote of 60 – 39, I believe it was Senator Barrasso, of Wyoming who asked, why, if the Bill so good, did it require exemptions, or special deals, for Senators from at least 13 States.

Good question!

What kind of special deals were carved out of Sen. Reid’s Health Care Reform Act?

Nebraska received guaranteed funding to cover all additional costs for expansion of Medicare to low income individuals, thanks to Sen. Ben Nelson.

Louisiana received a $300 million payoff for Medicare benefits to Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed “Socialist”, from Vermont, gets a huge chunk of change for his “pet project”, the Community Health Centers Program.

Sen. Chris Dodd received funding for a new hospital in Connecticut in an attempt to help his re-election bid.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, Nevada, California, New York, and Illinois are all to receive funding for Medicare for low income individuals, some of the funds are delegated to go to illegal immigrants who now qualify for the TANF program (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) who were already in the country prior to the Welfare Act of 1996.

Apparently, Sen. Reid’s Health Care Reform Act was a first step toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform as well.  After all, if we are already paying for “illegal immigrants” under the Health Care Bill, we should find our way clear to legalizing these poor individuals, and make them official, productive members of society.

Wait, just a cotton-pickin minute!  If they have been here since before 1996, and are still on “temporary assistance”, how can anybody profess they are productive members of our society?  This dramatically contradicts the claim that not providing illegal immigrants with a pathway to citizenship is unfair because they already pay taxes, yet receive no benefit.  I guess the “shadows” are not as bad as we were led to believe.

OK, I digress.  The question is, where is this thing headed now?

It works like this.  The Senate Bill goes back to the House of Representatives, causing Speaker Pelosi to meet with Sen. Reid, behind closed doors of course, and find ways to manipulate the rest of their party to reconcile the two Bills, now passed by the separate houses of congress.

Chances are, the Democrats will force a Health Care Bill through by the end of January and present it to President Obama by the first week of February.  Then the Democrats can tout that a “Historical President” has mentored a “Historical Bill” through Congress.  What they will not tell us is that they are in fact making history.  Their Health Care Bill will make America, as we know it, history, in a relatively short time.

If bankrupting the country, in an attempt to usher in a socialistic agenda, is their goal, the Health Care Reform Bill is the ticket to their success.  Think about it!  California, New York, and Michigan, three of the most liberal States, are the leaders of the pack of States, already rushing toward bankruptcy, or at the very least, financial insolvency.

There you go!  We already have examples to follow.

I know, you probably think this is another “The Sky is Falling” episode from Chicken Little.  However, I would encourage you to consider the ten pillars of Communism, as stipulated by Karl Marx, in his book, A Communist Manifesto.

1.  The abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. America was built, in part, on pride of ownership of property.  Have we not witnessed the grabbing, hoarding, and assuming control of land (eminent domain), and uses thereof, by the government in recent history?

2.  A heavy progressive graduated income tax. This is a process of punishing success, or exceptionalism.  When is the last time you got a pay raise and actually received more net income?  Doesn’t happen under the modern U.S. Tax System.

3.  Abolition of rights of inheritance. Can you say “Death Tax”?  As it stands, the Government heavily taxes that which you inherit from the hard earned success of your parents, or grand-parents.  I have heard it said, “It costs more to die, than to be born”.  That is a significant statement for anybody that is a parent.  For those of you who are not parents, ask yours.

4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. All right.  I have no concrete evidence of this.  However, I wonder if the Secretary of Homeland Security announcing that Conservatives and ex-military personnel are potential terrorists would qualify as a precursor to a strategy of this magnitude.  Just a thought.  If you think about it, we did “encamp” those of Japanese descent, during World War II, under President Roosevelt.  He was a “Progressive Democrat” too.

5.  Centralization of credit in the banks of the State, by means of a National Bank, with State Capital, and an exclusive monopoly. OK.  This is a “no brainer”.  Think about the “Financial Bail-Outs”, and the fact that several of the banks that received TARP Funds were told NO when they attempted to pay back the money.

6.  Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. This is taking place as you read this article.  Liberal Democrats are chomping at the bit to enact the “Fairness Doctrine” to control what is said over the airwaves.  They are currently attempting to put control of the internet in the hands of the President and his Czars.  Of course, they are only considering our “cyber-safety”.  Needless to say, I know very well, the over burdensome regulations of transportation, which tightens its stranglehold on the throat of interstate commerce every year.  But that too, is done in the name of Safety.  Funny, how Public Safety in the eyes of legislators relegates to Government Revenues.

7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. The easy indicator here is a glance at the recent takeovers of the auto industry, and the unprecedented affiliation of the Government with the Labor Unions.  However, to fully understand this aspect of a potential Communist takeover, you must look beyond the surface of Government subsidization and Co-Ops in the farming industry, and think about the control exhibited in the Government’s ability to not only dictate who grows what, but how much, when, and to whom the crops must be sold.

8.  Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Again, I must refer to the Government / Labor Union affiliation.  How many favors are due to the Labor Unions in return for various forms of assistance to campaigning candidates?  The pay backs from campaign promises to the unions continue to mount at a cost, yet to be determined, to the American Tax Payers. And as to an “Industrial Army”, did not Candidate Obama mention a “Civillian Army”?

9.  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. Maybe you have noticed, or maybe it’s just my ill perception, that most of the emphasis of Government Programs deal with urbanizing America by moving people into the city and away from less accessible locales.

10.  Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. As a candidate for president, then Sen. Obama, pushed for Public Service Volunteers and involvement in Community Service.  I think those statements dovetailed nicely with the “soon-to-be” First Lady promoting the ideology of abandoning the “Corporate World”.  Apparently, there is some form of “Volunteer Act” being floated around Washington, D.C., to accommodate President Obama’s “Civillian Army“, that would require every graduate of the Public School System to various forms of Community Service.  How long before a program of this nature gives Congress the right to dictate who receives what form of education in order to fulfill the “Public Need”?  How long then, until the needs of the Labor Unions are disguised as “Public Needs”?

Just a series of thoughts.  But, I am willing to bet, you get the picture.  The passing of a Health Care Reform Act, that is opposed by more than 60 percent of Americans, and the indication that it is merely a disguised first step to something more sinister, is at the very least, a red flag, maybe even a Communist Red Flag.

I think it is time that even the most uninvolved American should sit up and pay attention to what our Government is up to, and start looking at the Majority of influence on our Government, and gain a clear understanding of where our current path will lead us.

Could this be the beginning of, Welcome Comrades?

Think about it.  You decide.