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,


The 2010 Census – An Endorsement of Socialism

March 22, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

The 2010 Census is officially under way.  The ad campaign, costing millions of dollars, for television, cable, and radio ads, and thousands of billboards, paid for by your hard-earned tax money, tells us all to stand and be counted.

Help your community get a fair share.”  They proclaim, urging people to fill out the Census Data Form and return it to the Government.

Get their fair share of what?  I had my fair share until the Government confiscated it through taxation, now they want to pretend to give a portion of it back.

According to a letter from the U.S. Census Bureau, “Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health offices, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.”

In all fairness, the members of the House and Senate are just doing their job.  The Constitution instructs Congress to collect a direct, heavy, progressive tax from every person in the country.  Then, they are to withhold a sizeable amount of the Gross National Product for financing the cost of running the Government.  Finally, Congress is to disperse the proportionately small amount of remaining money back to the people, disguised as ‘Investing in America’.  Any such investing in the ‘public good’ shall be at the sole discretion of Congress, based on the projected return value of those investments, as realized in the results of polls and elections.

Based on the questions contained in the 2010 Census Questionnaire, two out of ten deals with ethnicity, Congress seems quite concerned about ensuring proper funding of ethnic groups.  Rest assured then, so long as you are of the proper, favored ethnicity, Congress is doing their job and looking out for your best financial interest, in relation to ‘Public Investing’.

Pardon my sarcasm.  Actually, unlike most members of the House and Senate, I’ve read the Constitution.  Article 1, Section 2, later modified by Section 2, of the 14th amendment, calls for representation to be “apportioned among the several States”.  The same paragraph, later superseded by the 16th amendment, calls for the “apportionment of direct Taxes” as well; and thereby calls for a Census to have been performed within three years of the first Meeting of Congress, and every ten years thereafter.

Therefore, according to the Constitution, the Census was intended to be used only for the purpose of apportioning representation in the House, and apportioning direct Taxation among the several States.  There is no mention of using the Census as a means to justify congressional spending.

Think about it.  For the purpose of “apportioned representation” based on the total populations of the several States, does not call for Congress to have any idea of the ethnicity of the populace; they do not need any demographic data as a means to cater to any particular groups.

This means that Congress does not need to know who owns the house I live in, what the genders of any residence are, the actual age of residents, or if a resident has a secondary residence.

Instead, Congress is using the Census to get the American People to endorse the Socialistic practice of ‘redistributing wealth’.  They took away Constitutional apportionment of direct taxation with the 16th amendment, and perverted the use of the Census.

Now, we have a scenario where the government taxes the groups determined by the Census, to be the “haves”, to provide benefits to groups determined as the “have not’s”.  This is known simply as Socialism.

For the record, there are only five questions the Census could ask under the authority of the Constitution.

  1. Verify your address.
  2. How many people live at your address?
  3. How many people, living at your address, are of legal voting age?
  4. How many people, living at your address, are American Indians?
  5. What is your status of residency in the United States?  (Circle one)   Natural Born Citizen   Naturalized Citizen   Legal Resident   Other

As to the cost of the Census, the entire questionnaire, as authorized under the Constitution, would fit on a post card, the cheapest form of U.S. Mail correspondence and would be easily administered by, and reported through, local governments.

It is at this point, I must ask the obvious question; if we, The People, are going to allow the elected members of Government to pervert the intentions of our Founders and the meaning of our Constitution, to what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says, why should we have a Constitution?

Are we truly a nation of Free and Independent People?  Or, are we, The People going to allow the endorsement of Socialism, and idly watch it take root and grow into an uncontrollable despotic dictatorship?

National Health Care & the Constitution

October 4, 2009

Part 2 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Lately, we have heard an earful about Death Panels, nationalization of health care with forced participation, the Public Option, and using taxpayer’s money to pay for abortions and provide medical benefits for illegal immigrants.  With all of the recent debates over Health Care, our Political Representatives in Congress, along with our President, have forgotten the most important debate of all; or possibly, they are purposefully avoiding it.

In an effort to promote the beliefs represented by their ideology, they are forgetting, or ignoring, their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States of America.  Let me take a moment to remind them of the burden they have been elected to carry.

The Founders of this nation went to great lengths to limit the Powers and Authority of the Federal Government.  In doing so, they outlined the purpose of the Government in the Preamble of the Constitution, which states,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Sic)

NOTE: The key phrase is “promote the Welfare”, not provide for the Welfare.  The founders never intended for the Government to implement policies that encourage, or force, the citizens of our nation into a state of dependency on the Federal Government.  Rather, they designed a set of limitations by which to avoid “national dependency”, understanding that dependency of the People, on the Government, can only lead to tyranny.

I know!  The Liberal argument points to Article I, section 8, which states,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. (Sic)

NOTE: This section lays the responsibility to “provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States”, not provide the Welfare of the individual People of the United States.  Article I, section 8, refers to the responsibility of the Federal Government to the several States, in representing the United States to other nations, in the establishment of foreign policies, and the power to establish the means, within the limits of the Constitution, to pay for the country’s debts.

Then there is the pesky Bill of Rights.  The President’s proposal of a $1900 penalty for failing to comply with his wishes is a fine for violating a law.  This “penalty” means people will be found guilty of a crime without the benefit of a trial.  This violates our individual right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which states,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Sic)

We must stop allowing “leftist” politicians to misinterpret, thus purposefully molest the intent of the founders, and pervert the Constitution.  The Power and Authority to provide for the People is reserved to the individual States respectively, or to the People, under the protection of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which state,

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People. (Sic)

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. (Sic)

How many members of the U.S. Senate have abandoned their loyalties to their party, and exercised their responsibility to argue for the interests of the State they represent, and protect the Constitution of the United States of America by enforcing the limitations of Government mandated therein?

It is important to remember, the Constitution was implemented, by the Founders of this great nation, as a tool to limit the Powers and Authority of the Government, and to protect the rights of the People.  President Reagan understood this when he said, “We are a People with a government, not a Government with a people”.  Therefore, we must remain diligently cognizant of the attempts, by the Government, to usurp our rights, and stop them.  As President Lincoln once said, “We are the Masters of our Government and of our Constitution”.

Though I am tempted, albeit for a different reason, I will not say, “You lie!”

However, I will say, “Mr. President, you are wrong!  Again!”

Mr. President, I have already disputed your “undisputable facts”.  I have challenged that you and the Liberal Democrats in Congress are misrepresenting the facts.  I have also accused you and the Left of using a “protection racket” riddled with “fear tactics” to coerce America, into reconfiguring our health care system.

Now Mr. President, I dispute the fact that you, and your socialist-minded sycophants in Congress, possess the Power and Authority, under the limitations of the Constitution, to usurp the rights of the several States and the People.

I hereby defy the President, to present a sound argument that would give him, or Congress, the right to legislate a National Health Care Reform Act.

I, for one, deny and reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that would, in any way, “nationalize” our health care system or “socialize” our country.

Unlike the President, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Constitutional Professor.  I am however, a red-blooded American Citizen.  I am a student of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  I am proud of the Founders of our nation, the product of their labors, and their vision for America.  As such, I refuse to apologize for the exceptionalism of our nation, or willfully allow for the degradation of our traditions and values, or the destruction of our Freedom and Liberty.

If America allows the President, and his supporters in Congress, to succeed in nationalizing our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.

President Obama’s Commencement Address to Notre Dame

June 5, 2009

It has been about a week now, and I have listened to the traditional media praise President Obama’s commencement speech to the graduating class of 2009, at Notre Dame.  There has also been scathing criticism from other sources in the alternative media.  Now I will offer my humble opinion of his comments.

President Obama held true to form, wasting no occasion to trumpet his ideology.  Instead of maintaining a congratulatory attitude and speaking to a future of great aspirations, the President seized the opportunity to attempt to reinforce his political agenda.

The President opened with a few bits of humor, and then used a congratulatory sentence to lead into those subjects nearest and dearest to his heart.  He began by espousing his belief that we are at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world.  He claimed we are at a rare point in history where the size and scope of the challenges require a remaking of our world.  He declared that we should align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age, citing it as a privilege and a responsibility afforded to only a few generations.

I’m thinking, “Not bad so far.  He is laying out the future challenges for this graduating class as he sees it.”  Not so fast.  Would the real President Obama please stand up?  Then suddenly he emerged.

President Obama comingled American Values with Global Citizenship, asserting that the global economy has left millions behind, that greed and short-term thinking are rewarded at the expense of fairness, diligence, and an honest day’s work.  He argued that the strong, too often dominate the weak, and that those with wealth and power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.

There he goes, denouncing success as something detestable.  I wonder if he and Michelle gained their wealth and power by the same of poverty and injustice as he accuses others.  Painting a picture of humanity with such a broad brush is a grave mistake as not all nations share the morals, values, and standards as that of America.

The President professed that we should seek peace, while admitting there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm.  He expressed a desire to find a way to reconcile an ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief; and to find a way to live together as one human family.

I know the President considers himself as a “citizen of the world”, but this is beginning to sound a lot like a desire of a “One World Order”.

He conceded that no one person, religion, or nation can meet the challenges of global recession, violent extremism, the spread of nuclear weapons, or pandemic disease alone. He claimed these societal negativities do not discriminate or recognize borders.  He went on to avow that our very survival requires greater cooperation and understanding among all people, from all places, than ever before in history.

I dread to think that I am the only one that sees the only item in his laundry list that is truly unyielding to borders or discrimination is pandemic diseases.

President Obama used an encounter during his Senate Campaign to fly in the face of the Catholic Church, which is staunchly anti-abortion.  The President referred to a letter from a doctor who claimed he would have trouble voting for, then Candidate Obama, because of the wording on his web site.  The doctor ended his letter with a call for “fair-minded words”.

The President then demonstrated his willingness to alter his rhetoric in attempts to appear as though he is seeking common ground with those that oppose him.

Through this presentment, the President introduced a desire to “honor those who disagree with abortion”, and “draft a sensible conscience clause”, “grounded in clear ethics and sound science”.

President Obama had the audacity to address a college steeped in Catholicism, traditionally in strict opposition to abortion, and consider them in need of ethical grounding.  His comment clearly asserted that opposition to abortion involves the lack of clear ethics or sound science. Furthermore, I find it amazing that the audience cheered so vigorously for anyone presenting an opinion so contradictory to their own.

Hang in there Notre Dame.  I got your back, even if you will not stand your ethical ground; there are those of us who will.  As to the drafting of a “conscience clause”, forgive my dissention, but I relish my personal liberty and freedom, and therefore do not wish for the government to dictate my conscientiousness.

The President’s arrogance was on full display when, in the same speech he attempted to equate the resolve of man to the power of God declaring, “We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.”

The assumption that we truly have the power to save the planet from climate change is ludicrous.  After all, if I am not mistaken, the Christian belief teaches that God created the climate too.  Not to mention, that a brief study of geology reveals that the world has a rich and constant history of climate change, which I personally attribute to something beyond our capabilities, namely a divine plan.

I have a news flash for you.  Compared to God, man is created in his image, not equal to his power and ability.  I understand that we owe it to our posterity to try to protect our natural resources, but saving the world from its own climate, people please.  When they figure out how to create a clump of clay from gas, cover seventy-five percent of it with water and the rest with loose rocks, have it spin a thousand miles per hour of its own volition and not lose any of its contents, then we can talk.  Our purpose here is to enjoy the ride and try to make life better for those who follow; not so complicated.

The President did finally deliver a commencement for the later part of his speech, which I must admit, was quite inspiring for the graduating class.  He briefly mentioned potential futures for the attendees.  He inspired them to meet challenges head on, and to never shy away from voicing their opinions and beliefs.  He urged the graduates to become part of the future, encouraged them to allow their faith to guide them in their journey, and cautioned them to remain humble and to temper their passions.

I must also admit that I appreciated his advice to the young audience that they should be part of their community, join the common effort toward the common good, and learn from one another, that in doing so, all things are possible.

I assumed it would be smooth sailing to the finale when the President had to end his speech by throwing another monkey wrench into the works by incorrectly referencing the Constitution regarding America’s “journey towards a more perfect union”.

The issuance of this statement from someone who taught Constitutional Law causes me more than a little concern.  The preamble of the Constitution states, “…in Order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  There is no reference of a “journey toward”, nor could there be.  The Founders accomplished their mission of creating a more perfect union through the ratification of the Constitution.

It is my opinion that referencing a “journey toward” a more perfect union relegates the Constitution to a “living, breathing document”, subject to whimsical change, depending on which way the societal, or political, winds are blowing.  The Constitution of the United States is not a weak, spineless opinion; it is the centerpiece of the law of the land, an affirmation of the power of the people, and a detailing of the limitations of authority for our government.

Finally, I congratulate all of the graduating classes of 2009.  Your accomplishments are commendable, and I concur with the President when he said, “Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved”.  You have obtained a solid foundation on which to go out into the world and begin building your life.  Always remember, you did not succeed alone.  Each of you required support and encouragement in you scholastic ventures.  You will eventually learn, the greatest gift to receive, is the personal gratification you will experience in supporting and encouraging others in their ventures.  Because, like you, nobody accomplishes greatness alone.   Salute.