Category Archives: The Constitution

The Daily Beast Plays Thought Enforcer Regarding Nullification

Per Tom Woods:

The Daily Beast, like its neoconservative counterparts at the Free Beacon, is a thought-control site that aims to ferret out unapproved opinions. We are supposed to confine ourselves to the McCain/Obama box where the Daily Beast is comfortable. Anyone with opinions outside that box is by definition an “extremist,” and probably kind of crazy. Why else would someone hold an opinion that can’t be found anywhere in the whole three inches separating McCain from Obama?

So I actually laughed out loud when I read this classic thought-control headline: “Exclusive: GOP Senate Candidate Caught Saying States Can Nullify Laws.” (Thanks to Per Bylund for sending the link.)

So wait a minute! You mean someone asked a fundamental question? She must be destroyed, citizen!

Here is the comment I posted at the Daily Beast:

Ummm … the only problem with this article is that states CAN nullify laws. What the “mainstream” thought enforcers here need to ask is did the Framers intend nullification to be an option, and the bulk of the historical evidence suggest that they did. See Tom Woods’ book on the subject.

Raw Story Goes on PC Witch Hunt Against Michael Peroutka

For those who don’t know, Michael Peroutka won the Republican primary for a seat on the Anne Arundel County, Maryland City Counsel.

Now the PC Gestapo is up in arms. What amazes me about some of these stories is how out in the open they are. Anyone who is at all familiar with dissident right and third party politics should know very well where Michael Peroutka is coming from. Obviously these lefty PC thumb breakers don’t follow the other side except maybe what the SPLC says about them, so they act like they have stumbled upon some scandalous revelation. So Peroutka is a young earth creationist? Yeah. So Peroutka uses the Bible to evaluate laws. Yeah. So Peroutka was (is?) a board member of the League of the South and thinks secession is a legal and constitutional remedy. Yeah. The guy is not a phantom. He is a past Constitution Party nominee for President and his association with the League is well documented. Ever heard of the internet and YouTube Mr. Raw Story investigative reporter? Wow, you’ve really managed a scope here. I don’t follow all the ins and outs of far left politics in America, but if someone said lefty X once said nice things about Trotsky or Margaret Sanger or something, I wouldn’t be shocked. That’s what far lefties do. (As opposed to far rightists who scandalously say nice things about the Founders.)

Here is another breathless Raw Story article about Peroutka. This one is about a supposedly scandalous video of Peroutka addressing the League of the South, that was “uncovered” by a professor at Grove City College, a supposedly conservative Christian school. We have discussed this professor before. He seems to specialize in PC thought policing. If someone wants to write a real investigative report, maybe they can write one “exposing” Professor Throckmorton as the PC water carrier that he is despite teaching at a college known for it’s conservative and Christian beliefs, particularly its refusal, like Hillsdale College, to accept any federal funds. Does the Professor not realize that the PC forces he shills for hate all things Christian and conservative, and surely think Grove City is a bastion of racist, sexist, Christianist oppression?

Anyway, back to Peroutka. According to the second Raw Story article, it says Peroutka is a former board member of the League of the South. If this is true, it is news to me but I don’t necessarily doubt it. As for Peroutka saying he does not support Southern secession, this may be technically true, but I doubt it is the whole story. Unless Peroutka has had a complete change of heart, which I seriously doubt and would be very unfortunate if true, I know he believes in the right to secession and he believes Lincoln was wrong to invade the duly seceded South. What he may have said is that he doesn’t support Southern secession at this time and wants to give reforming the US a college try before resorting to it. This would be consistent with the belief of a lot of constitutionalists.

As for Perotka and race, the League has always been implicitly white as is conservatism in America as is constitutionalism as is the Tea Party, etc. but has recently become more explicitly white. That Peroutka specifically endorsed this new direction or was even aware of this change, I doubt. Peroutka has always used colorblind conservative language. In fact, I remember seeing a column he wrote fairly recently that used typical colorblind conservative language and thought to myself that there might be some League members who would object to the language. (With a lttle Google digging, here is a recent article he wrote dated July 15 that looks like an attempt to ward off his critics. It is essentially the same column as this one dated Jan 20 that I recalled. It seems to be inspired by the MLK holiday.)

So if the Raw Story PC storm trooper is really shocked that a former Constitution Party Presidential nominee and well known sympathizer of the League of the South has beliefs that are outside those of the tame “mainstream right,” then perhaps he needs to familiarize himself with the outside the mainstream right before he writes about it. Again, I’m not tuned into all the inner workings of the far left, but I would expect people of that persuasion to have beliefs and associations that are outside the mainstream left, so if I wrote an article about one of them I wouldn’t pretend to be shocked by such revelations or act as if such revelations only need to be trotted out in order to discredit someone. But of course, I’m intellectually honest, unlike PC hacks writing click bait hatchet jobs for liberal websites and PC peddling professors who “uncover” things in plain sight.

Constitution Party Response to the 2014 State of the Union Address

Dear Fellow Constitionists,

Over the past few months the Constitution Party, with your help, has made inroads on several fronts – a new website, a new newsletter format, social media and internet advertising, ballot access battles in several states, and many more behind-the-scenes efforts by tireless patriot volunteers across the nation. We are making tremendous strides towards helping states build and improve their websites, improving our media relations, growing our social media outreach, too many ways to be listed in this brief email.

We are actively engaged in building a strong political opposition to the current two-party duopoly that is rapidly descending into a chaotic tyranny, as is evident from President Obama’s recent State of the Union address to Congress, the nation, and the world.

President Obama laid down the gauntlet at his first cabinet meeting of the year when he said, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

Click here to hear Darrell Castle (2008 Vice-presidential candidate) and Cynthia Davis (four-term Missouri State Legislator) present the Constitution Party Response to the State of the Union.

Our goal is simple: we want to re-establish the American Constitutional Republic, according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers.

Forget everything you have known about or experienced under the tutelage of the current two major parties. The Constitution Party is not your granddaddy’s political party. It is not your father’s political party. It probably isn’t the political party you first supported. The Constitution Party is committed to putting Principles before Party. Which principles? The principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the 1787 Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Find out about our basic Seven Principles on the national website.

The Constitution Party does not play Super Bowl politics. The Constitution and the impact it has on the American people, indeed the world, is not a simple football game between two opposing teams, whose strategy is to win the victory at all costs. Scoring a constitutionally-correct touchdown means standing up against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and saying “No, that is not within the authority granted to my office by the federal Constitution (or state Constitution, etc.). I will not do it.”

The Constitution Party is committed to putting forth constitutionally-committed candidates. Congressmen, the President, the Courts, elected and appointed officials at all levels of government have lost the vision of what constitutes a representative republic based on the Constitution. It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty.

We need you to make real change happen in America.

We need your time, your volunteerism. We are a grassroots, from the heart, organization. 99.9% of us take no pay for the work we do to build the Constitution Party. We do not rely on lobbyists or Daddy Warbucks. We are fighting against a corrupt system, which has no desire to support a political party that will not give those in charge the power, glory, and gain they seek. We need volunteers at all levels. Visit the State Parties page of our website to contact your state leaders or area chairman. Roll up your sleeves, it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it and that somebody is you.

We need your financial support. It doesn’t matter how small or how often, just donate. Only you can provide the resources necessary to fight for ballot access in several states. Only you can give us the resources to expand our advertising outreach. Only you can choose to invest in a political party with the will to make the hard decisions necessary to restore Liberty. Only you can make a donation today!

We need your Vote. We need your commitment to vote for, or become, a constitutionally-committed candidate. No one else is going to do it for you. Stop wasting your vote on candidates who continue to support party over principle. If you don’t vote or run, then who? Contact your State Party or area chairman to find out more.

Explore our website and our commitment to the Constitution, then decide for yourselves if you are willing to take the next step and become an active participant the great struggle for Liberty, both for ourselves and our future generations.

Sincerely,

Karen Murray
National Communications Director

Editor’s Note: All the links in this letter are not intact due to formatting issues, but the link to the actual response is working.

Originally posted, in slightly different form, at Independent Political Report.

Tom Woods Calls Out Mark Levin

Mark Levin has been ranting against nullification on his radio program recently. I don’t listen to Levin, but my understanding is that this has been prompted by the attempts of several states to nullify ObamaCare. I don’t know if Levin addresses this directly or not, but I also highly suspect that he is upset with the nullification crowd because a lot of the same people and groups are warning against his Constitutional Convention proposal. (That debate deserves another thread.) Now Tom Woods, one of the people Levin has called names, has challenged Levin to a debate:

This is strong stuff, although I wish Woods had left out the money component. The money gives Levin an excuse to weasel out, not that I think he would have accepted the challenge anyway.

FYI, this is not the first time Woods and Levin have tangled. See here and here.

Michael Cushman Has Engaged Me and CHT at Southern Nationalist Network

For those who don’t follow these matters, there has been an ongoing feud between what I am calling the “New Direction Caucus” in the League of the South and some of us who have been alarmed by some things about this New Direction. I have been planning to address the issue here, but haven’t had the time recently, but I now see that Michael Cushman, who is the clear leader of this New Direction Caucus, has engaged me by name at his website. This is a good thing. These issues need to be debated openly. I will work on a reply. For now I will let the Cushman’s article stand on its own. Please read the article, read my comments, and then read the entire comment section of the post where my comments were taken from to understand the argument.

I don’t want to go into a lot of details about what the debate is about, since I plan a separate post (several really) on the issue, but briefly at issue is whether the US was conceived as a deliberate Enlightenment egalitarian experiment from its inception. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think it is fair to say that Cushman believes it was. I say it wasn’t. (There is more to the problem with the New Direction Caucus than just this. There are a suite of interrelated issues and attitudes, but more on that later.)

I think my position stands on its own if you read the comment section. I don’t have any issue with the way Cushman characterizes my position. In fact, oddly, he doesn’t really attempt to counter my position. He doesn’t attempt to demonstrate that my history is faulty and his is accurate. He simply states his alternative. He seems to be primarily motivated by the fact that he believes that his conceptualization is more useful, not more accurate. He calls it a position of strength. But it’s not a position of strength if it’s wrong.

Please read the links and then give me your thoughts.

Domestic drones can detect if citizens are armed

This story vividly illustrates how DC’s aggressive foreign policy boomerangs back on citizens at home:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.

The Pentagon learned how to use these remote-controlled murder machines to control hostile populations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So – how long until these Predator drones (you gotta love the name) are re-armed with Hellfire missiles? All to protect us from “terrorists,” of course.

Burn the Constitution!

An openly Marxist magazine calls for scuttling the Constitution. Marxists know their projects require the heavy hand of omnipotent government if they’re ever to be implemented. And the whole point of the Constitution (and further reinforced by the Bill of Rights) was to LIMIT the power of the central government.

We are entering the Era of Interesting Times.

Those silly secessionists

If you scroll down to the comments section of the numerous articles on the secession petitions, you’ll encounter much snark and attitude toward those of us who want to reclaim self-government. We’re ignorant, we’re racist, we’re treasonous – why, our motivations are CLEARLY anything OTHER THAN the motivations we state for supporting secession, which is to stop an out-of-control central government.

After all, who in his right mind would want to secede from an authoritarian regime that’s busily constructing a vast, secret infrastructure for the purpose of conducting citizen surveillance?

This regime, by the way, now has the power to arrest and detain American citizens as long as it wants. Who says the central government has that power? For one, there’s the Obama administration itself:

“The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”

Yes, let’s make sure some government employee with a law degree assures us the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed before we trash the law of the land. All in the name of “national security,” of course. What will Obama’s supporters say when Team Obama unleashes that power to crush dissent?

And I wonder what those supporters will do when he starts to reward his supporters in the name of promoting racial equality? It’s coming:

If your organization has a policy or practice that doesn’t benefit minorities equally, watch out: The Obama administration could sue you for racial discrimination under a dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional.

President Obama intends to close “persistent gaps” between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.

His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on “disparate impact” complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.

Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.

What will Obama’s young white supporters think when they’re unfairly denied jobs? It’s going to happen – there’s no other way to make racial quotas work. Any racial imbalances in the workplace that reflect those of the school system – you have heard of the black-white performance gap, haven’t you? – will result in swift, harsh action.

Who remembers Obama’s gaffe last March, when, during a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Medvedev, he unknowingly whispered into a live microphone, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”?

You don’t remember that? Well, you’re about to find out just how flexible Obama can be now that he’s armed with a mandate as well as new, unconstitutional powers to impose his radical agenda.

Let’s see how silly secession appears then.

The “American System” is Un-American

Obama’s “You didn’t build that” comment has ignited quite a debate, and has brought to the forefront the term “American System.” James Pinkerton covers the debate well here, although I don’t agree totally with his take.

Those of us who have been involved in the renewed debate over the virtues of Lincoln are well aware of the term “American System” as one of the chief criticism of Lincoln by his new antagonists is that he essentially remained a Henry Clay style Whig intent on advancing Clay’s “American Sytem,” which is why he couldn’t let the South leave. (I would date this “renewed” debate to the publication of Thomas DiLorenzo’s first Lincoln book because this was one of DiLorenzo’s main themes.) So I was a bit surprised that this terminology seemed new to so many people, but I guess if you haven’t been following the Lincoln debate it could be.

Of course for conservatives and constitutionalist, the “American Sytem” is un-American. (It is probably more accurate albeit less alliterative to call it un-Constitutional rather than un-American because violating the Constitution has unfortunately been a feature of American reality from nearly the beginning.) According to the Constitution there should be virtually no federal infrastructure. Roads and bridges are a state and local concern.

(Of course there is always the issue of what was intended and authorized by the term “post roads” in the Constitution, but the defenders of the interstate highway system did not even try to justify it on the basis of “post roads,” but rather on national defense grounds.)

Obamacare Reaction Links

There is too much reaction to the Obamacare ruling to cover it all so I’m just going to start this links thread. I will be adding many more links as time goes on. I encourage our readers to add interesting links in the comment section, and my fellow bloggers to add links to the post.

Was Roberts bullied into changing his vote? I don’t know if he was “bullied,” but the decision sure does look like it took politics into consideration.

There is much discussion on what Roberts legal mental gymnastics means for the Commerce Clause. See Slate.

Professor Knippenberg at First Things.

From Michael Peroutka’s website.

James Antle on “John Roberts’ Betrayal

Here is Antle’s Obamacare Wrap-up.

Rod Dreher doesn’t get what conservatives are so upset about. I don’t get why The American Conservative doesn’t change it’s name.

And speaking of the misnamed American Conservative, Scott McConnell thinks the SCOTUS decision was just dandy.

More Antle.

And still more Antle.

Doug Bandow: Did Romney surrender?

Pat Buchanan on the scoundrel Roberts.

Many more to come…

National Constitution Party Response to Obamacare Ruling

The Supreme Court Has Spoken

by Darrell L. Castle

The Supreme Court has announced its ruling in regard to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly known as Obamacare. My purpose in this article is to point out that those of us in the Constitution Party endeavor to return America to the rule of law as expressed in the US Constitution. That’s why we carry the name Constitution Party. We also seek to restore a concept fundamental to Western Civilization and that is the understanding between government and citizens that the law applies equally to all. The question for us then is where do we go from here in furtherance of our goals.

 From a negative standpoint calling Obamacare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is like calling a new intercontinental ballistic missile the Peacekeeper. The system this act purports to establish is certainly not affordable, at least not by those who will actually pay for it, and it doesn’t offer much patient protection either. The majority opinion takes some interesting twists and turns to arrive at who will pay. For example how do you justify a fine for being unwilling to buy health insurance—just redefine the fine into a tax and everything is OK.

In arriving at its justification for placing its stamp of approval on Obamacare the majority stated “It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income but choose to go without health insurance.” “Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.” From that statement, one can conclude that it will be those among the 50 per cent who actually pay income taxes and who choose not to buy the insurance, that will be paying the fine, or tax. This twisted logic appears to be a legal fiction created by the Court to escape the failure of the Commerce Clause to expand enough to cover Obamacare.

Continue reading

The Constitution Party of Georgia’s Response to the Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling

Taking a Stand for Freedom

Atlanta, GA – June 28th, 2012- “Not if we have anything to say about it!” said Ricardo Davis, Chairman of the Constitution Party of Georgia. That’s Davis’ reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that has stunned and angered many Americans – that the widely unpopular legislation known as Obamacare is constitutional. “Our nation has taken another step downward in our devolution toward socialism,” Davis said, adding that he is “saddened” by the ruling.

Even more stunning perhaps is that the majority opinion of the 5-4 ruling was written by a member of the court who had been expected to vote against President Obama’s signature health care bill: Chief Justice John Roberts. In it, the court upheld Obamacare’s most controversial provision, the so-called individual mandate, which forces most taxpayers to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The court ruled the mandate is a tax, falls within the powers of Congress and therefore is constitutional. By ruling the mandate is a tax the court sidestepped the controversial issue of whether Congress could impose it under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

But Davis praised the four dissenters on the high court, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who unexpectedly voted with conservatives Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Their opinion, Davis said, “really brought the salient constitutional issues squarely into view.”

Continue reading