Article III of the United States Constitution addresses the Judicial Branch of our form of government, defining the scope of, and limits to, the powers reserved for the Judiciary.  For years we have heard about “activist judges legislating from the bench” as the left dragged their every losing cause before the courts, seeking to impose by judicial fiat what they could not accomplish through the ballot.  Now that the left has seized power of the remaining branches of government, the courts may be the only remaining obstacle in their march toward socialist domination.  Nothing makes this more clear than the events surrounding bonuses paid by companies covered in the “Wall Street” bailout.

The Obama administration and Congress are determined to push through “clawback” legislation against AIG.  The legislation is targeted at those current and former employees of AIG who received bonus payments which Obama and Congress find offensive.  The legislation seems to be in direct violation of the Article I Section 9 paragraph 3 which provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

Congress is trying to slip past that bill of attainder provision by broadening the language to encompass bonuses paid by any company receiving bailout funds.  They contest that by not specifically naming AIG, the legislation does not target a limited populace and will pass Constitutional muster, a ploy that might just work.  However, even the dystopia on Capitol Hill is constrained by the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

While the clear intent the legislation is punishment, Congress had to find a way around all those pesky “due process” restrictions.  So they turned to that old Democrat standby, the tax code.  This is not a new tactic.  Their desire to redistribute wealth goes back to the post Civil War era with the federal income tax law of 1894.  This first attempt at soaking the rich was struck down by the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled a two percent federal flat tax on incomes over $4,000 unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759).  The Court relied on Article I Section 9 paragraph 4 of the original Constitution which stated: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Stung by that setback, the Democratic party actually made passage of an amendment a plank in their platform for the 1896 election cycle.  They succeeded in gaining passage in 1909, aided by conservatives who were caught up in an early form of “bi-partisanship”and mistakenly believed the amendment would fail in the States.  In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified giving Congress the power to lay direct taxes upon individuals.  It is within the framework this creature of the Democratic party that Congress now seeks its revenge.

Yet, there are still those darned contracts which allow bonuses in the first place.  There are three recognized ways to break an existing contract – declare bankruptcy, declare the other party breached the confines of the contract, or declare the contract was legally flawed from the outset.  Each of these requires adjudication in a court of law.  The beast in DC is not content.  Now, the administration is moving for legislation to force not only AIG, but other companies, including those not taking any bailout money, to change those contracts.  The in terrorem effect of these proposals being that companies will “voluntarily” re-write contracts or suffer further government intrusion on their operations.

Americans are finally wising up as Obama and his Congressional enablers rush to plunder our nation.  These are people who scrimped and saved to provide the necessities for their families.  They scrimped and saved even more so their sons and daughters could partake in music lessons, dance classes, summer camps, and other non-essential activities.  They willingly sacrificed for the benefit of those young hearts and minds they hold so dear.

Now, they see their hard earned dollars being grabbed up to support the high living of those who ran themselves into insurmountable debt.  The spendthrifts who bought new automobiles, 52” plasma screen televisions, jet skis, bass boats, vacation time shares – all by leveraging their homes at 110 percent with multiple ARMs – have their palms out.  They are begging Obama to protect them from foreclosure, and Americans are angry.  In ever increasing numbers, they are taking to the streets in protest.  These are not the typical radical protesters decrying America as the root of all the world's ills.  They are common, hardworking folks of all political stripes who simply say, “Enough!”

Apparently their grievances are resonating, and the moochers are howling.  One such example comes from a letter to the editor at the Arizona Republic.  'Pam' belittles those who pay their own way, and ask only that she do the same:

OK, we all get the point. All of you who lived your life the noble way and saved your money, paid with no credit and didn't overextend yourselves, you deserve congratulations.

Your amount of wisdom in early life is apparently as great as in your later life.

You have managed to defy the normal process of life - with age grows wisdom.

There will be a special place in heaven for your efforts.

I also think we should reward you with special gold stars attached to all future obituaries to highlight your special place in society.

I do not know Pam and, given her obvious disdain, have very little desire to make her acquaintance.  However, I do recognize envy when I see it.  Poor little Pam rails at those who demonstrated fiscal common sense, as if it is their fault she apparently did not.  I do not know Pam's financial situation, but I can hazard a guess.

While others traded down their cars, or kept the old beater running with regular maintenance, Pam may have opted for a new Lexus.  While others brown bagged bologna and cheese sandwiches, Pam may have lunched on Olive Garden delivery.  When others cut back to basic cable service to save a few bucks per month, Pam may have ordered the full HD package for her new home theater.  Now, when her tips as head manicurist at Zelda's Hair Care Salon and Tire Center no longer meet her readjusted mortgage, Pam choses to attack those people who played by the rules.

So, as other American taxpayers take to the streets trying to prevent Obama from enslaving the next several generations to an expanding government maw, Pam is lining up for another dose of Hopium.

Dennis P. O'Neil

J.M Powers at God and Country wrote about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's suggestion that drivers could be taxed on miles traveled.  LaHood calls his proposal, “...thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America.”

Powers rightly expressed concerns about how implementation of such a plan, with the government tracking our daily movements, has the possibility for very negative impact on personal privacy and freedoms.  In describing this chilling scenario, Powers asked, “What's next?”

If this is the way of the future as envisioned by Obama, what is next?

Obama's Administration will eventually have to come to grips with all the promises made by Liberals buying votes.  It is an extensive list – “New Deal”, “Great Society”, “Hope and Change” – all designed to grow continued dependency on governmental subsidy.  As more gather at the White House gate with their palms up, the piggy bank will soon empty.  The standard Liberal immediate fix will be to have the Fed printing presses churn out more money, leading to runaway hyper-inflation.

The biggest problem on the horizon will be an aging population queuing up for their Social Security, placing additional strain on the system.  Those who didn't buy into the Madoff style scheme of lifetime government pensions, and actually made plans for their own retirements, will be crushed when their nest eggs are destroyed as US currency plummets to the value of single-sheet bathroom tissue.  They will also be forced to line up for some of Barack's beneficence, causing total system collapse.

The Welfare program was approaching such a state, but was headed off by removing recipients from governmental dole.  Those able to work had to go to work.  A similar solution will not work for Social Security.  There will come a time where “thinking outside the box” is needed to thin the growing retirement rolls.  People can not grow younger to stay off Social Security.  The only sustainable alternative must dictate finding solutions that ensure fewer people reach that point in life.

Powers referred to the classic George Orwell novel, “1984”, as the model for LaHood's solution to falling gas tax revenues.  I fear that the “out of the box” thinkers may draw on a more recent hack novel for inspiration on solving a Social Security crisis – a story where maintenance of senior citizens was no longer a problem – Logan's Run by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson.

Obama came to the Valley of the Sun on Wednesday to pitch his $50 $75 B bailout for homebuyers who couldn’t afford the homes they bought when they bought them.  Greeting him on arrival were about 500 ordinary folks wanting to express their thoughts about the Generational Theft Act of 2009 Obama signed into law on Tuesday. (Wait, don’t get ahead, this is a BIG bill, you might need some time to read it.) 

The crowd continued to grow while awaiting Obama's standard fashionably late arrival.

Phoenix radio host, Bruce Jacbos, is organizing a “Mock” demonstration protesting the Economic Stimulus during Obama's visit to Mesa on Wednesday.  I have my sign ready.  I'll be the one asking for a yacht.

Dennis P. O'Neil

“That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes...”

That, in a proverbial nutshell, explains the intended relationship between the States and the Federal government. The Federal government exists because the States agreed to join together for their common benefit, yet still retain their identities within the whole. To this end, the framers of the Constitution intentionally limited the scope and power of the Federal government.

To insure continued personal freedom for the citizenry, and viability of separate State identities under this compact, they initiated a series of Constitutional amendments further defining the boundaries to power allocated this combined government. The first nine amendments addressed preserving and protecting individual liberties. The Tenth Amendment specifically limited intrusion by an overreaching government in those matters deemed under purview of the separate States: “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.”

The meaning and protections embodied therein have fallen by the wayside over the last several decades as Congress passed legislation after legislation designed to usurp State and individual rights. This consolidation of centralized power proceeded almost unnoticed, buried in bits and pieces amid thousands of pages generated daily on Capitol Hill under the guise of being for the common good. The New Hampshire resolution is a warning to the other States and Commonwealths:

“[T]hat to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States ... they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.”

Congress has forgotten, or ignored, its place in the structure of this nation – nothing more than a creation of the agreement between and among the States, now run amok, as outlined in the New Hampshire resolution.

“Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them.”

The New Hampshire resolution cautions against blind trust in the Federal government and issues a call for the other States to join in the fight to preserve their rights under the Constitution:

“[T]hat it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

The New Hampshire resolution gives a final warning about the consequences of allowing Federal government to remain unchecked and in violation of the Constitution that created it:

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.”

Has it come to this?

Some other States reclaiming sovereignty and demanding their Tenth Amendment protections:

State of Washington House Joint Memorial 4009 serves: “Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.”

State of Michigan House Concurrent Resolution No. 4 affirms: “Michigan's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment”

State of Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2024 demands: “That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

State of Montana House Bill No. 246 AKA the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act” challenge to imposition of Federal gun control laws

During his campaign for the Presidency, Obama made special note of the growth and innovation in technology.  He specifically identified as one related problem the dissemination of information.

We need to connect citizens with each other to engage them more fully and directly in solving the problems that face us. We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington and giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago.

Obama slammed the Bush Administration as “one of the most secretive, closed administrations in American history,” pledging in contrast his Presidency would “... use cutting-edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens.”

I heard the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, make a statement during the daily briefing yesterday, and decided it deserved some follow up.  Before committing to a written response, I tried to verify that I could quote him accurately.  As I have done on many occasions before, I went to the White House website to check the transcript.  There was no transcript for Tuesday's briefing.

In fact, despite the heading promising “timely and accurate information about the President's latest events and public statements,” there was no full transcript of any kind to be found.  Instead, the “transparent” Obama Administration had culled selected statements from earlier briefings – without even giving the actual questions posed to Gibbs.

This is a slap at Americans seeking unfiltered information.  The Bush Administration regularly made full transcripts available for review by anyone interested in confirming the President's positions on issues.  Apparently the Obama Administration has decided to withhold publishing full transcripts.

I did find an article by Mary Katharine Ham at The Weekly Standard about the sudden closure of this less than transparent veil by the very administration that promised transparency and openness.

Such was the White House scene, Thursday, for the signing of the Executive Order closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay.  However, instead of a befuddled Mel Brooks and pedantic Harvey Korman we had Barack Obama and White House counsel Greg Craig.

I watched in utter disbelief as the Occupant of the Oval Office had to stop mid-ceremony to ask Craig what they were going to do with the current detainees at Guantanamo.  Not surprisingly, no record of what transpired surfaced for easy review.  For those who missed it, here are partial transcripts courtesy of Rush Limbaugh:

“Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!”

The Occupant of the Oval Office then turned his attention to a second Executive Order reviewing detention policies for terrorists or other assorted miscreants captured on a battlefield.  Again, he seemed confused on what he was actually ordering, and turned to Craig to bail him out:

“Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!”

The Occupant of the Oval Office moved on to a third Executive Order limiting authorized interrogation methodologies to Barcaloungers and Bon Bons.  Work, work, work, work, work work.

It was quite a day as number 44 effectively undeclared war against those who have pledged their lives to destroying our nation.  The only thing missing were the letters 'PREZ' stenciled across the back of Obama's suit coat.  Somewhere in a cave along the Afghanistan border, Bin Laden was surely leading a hearty round of “Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!”

"The Somali pirates may be bandits and thugs, but they also are entrepreneurs making do in a place without a functioning government, laws or normal commerce."