Glenn Beck & Judge Napolitano: States have power establish religion?

On Glenn Beck's program Friday, Feb. 26, 2010 Judge Napolitano was asked by Glenn Beck to confirm that a state - Massachusetts was identified - had established a "religion."

Transcript of portion of You Tube video for Friday February 26, 2010 Glenn Beck Program exchange between Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano

Net the Truth Online

Video Part 5 at 1:24 Glenn Beck ... John Hancock, the signature guy up in Massachusetts... if you read that Constitution, did they not have a state religion in Mass. How did they have a state religion in Massachusetts?

Judge Napolitano they did. They could because there was no federal objection to a state religion the constitution banned a national religion

Link to 7 part video (blackkettle.wordpress) for the 'glenn Beck' program for Friday February 26, 2010

http://blackkettle.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/watch-this-video-in-a-new-window-glenn-beck-show-february-26-2010-pt-1-of-7/

We will return to this astonishing implication and pronouncement by Beck and Napolitano.

Beck's follow-up implied states rights today mean California, you want to be Progressive, go ahead and be Progressive.

The implications of Beck highlighing California are astonishing as anyone who follows that state's doings knows full well the state of California has enabled the citizens to make law via its initiative and referendum process.

So by Beck referencing California and indicating if California wants to be Progressive, and act Progressive, California could go ahead and implement laws which are "Progressive."

Neither clarified as found in documentation that after 1776 and the Declaration of Independence, states adopted individual Constitutions. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts adopted a 'support of religion tax.'

The Beck and Napolitano exchange with its implications in the wording left the impression states today would have the power to establish a religion, and a host of other powers via - again implied - the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - and certainly implied with Beck's follow-up comments about California and an independence to be Progressive if California so chose.

We puzzled over the particular phrasing both Beck and Napolitano used during theri exchange as we searched for information about Massachusetts.

But what if those "Progressive" California laws interfered with the guaranteed unalienable rights afforded to us and protected via the United States Constitution?

While Beck phrases his remarks referencing "that Constitution" which could mean the Massachusetts Constitution, in his response to Beck, Napolitano makes reference to "the Constitution."

Napolitano didn't say the state of Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, rather the reference appeared to be to the national federal Constitution because he says the Constitution banned establishment of a 'national religion.'

The U.S. Constitution was adopted as Judge Napolitano is aware in 1789...

Massachusetts ratified its Constitution for Massachusetts 1780.

Further, Napolitano says "the Constitution" banned a national religion. Napolitano didn't say the Articles of Confederation he said the Constitution.

Again, the implication during the exchange appeared to be the Constitution of the United States banned establishment of a national religion.

But the U.S. Constitution was not in play until its ratification in 1789.

Although technically, the Articles of Confederation can be considered a Constitution for the confederation of states after the Declaration of Independence, the Articles are not referenced as such during those historical times and certainly not referenced as such after the adoption in Convention and ratification of the U.S. Constitution 1787-1789.

This morning, March 2, 2010, Judge Napolitano appeared on the Fox 'n Friends to talk about the second Amendment gun rights case before the Supreme Court which will determine states powers and individual rights in regard to the United States Constitution Second Amendment.

Supreme Court Weighs Chicago's Strict Gun Ban
Justices Hear Second Amendment Case: Right to Have Gun at Home?
By ARIANE de VOGUE
WASHINGTON, March 2, 2010

...For nearly 30 years, Chicago has banned possession of handguns and automatic weapons inside city limits, one of the most stringent gun laws in the country.

McDonald's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court comes a year and a half after the Court stunned gun-control advocates in another case, declaring for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual's right to own a gun in his or her home.

But that ruling -- District of Columbia v. Heller -- struck down only the Washington, D.C., gun ban.

McDonald is asking the justices to have the Heller ruling applied in cities and states across the country.

"It makes me feel like the city cares more for the thugs than they do me, and I'm the one paying taxes," McDonald said of being barred from owning a gun in his own house.

The National Rifle Association agrees. "The Heller case had only to do with federal enclaves," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said. "This has to do with whether the freedom applies to every American in every city and town all over our country."

In 1982, Chicago imposed the strict gun ordinance to help combat rampant gang and firearm violence that plagued the city.

In court papers, lawyers for the city of Chicago pointed out that 402 of the 412 firearm homicides occurred with the use of handguns in 2008.

"Handguns are used to kill in the United States more than all other weapons, firearms and otherwise, combined," Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara S. Georges wrote.

She argued that the Court should leave it up to the states and cities to regulate handguns.

"The genius of our federal system ordinarily leaves this type of social problem to be worked out by state and local governments, without a nationally imposed solution excluding one choice or the other," Georges wrote.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hears-chicago-gun-ban-case/story?id=9780703

At issue of course is whether the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to the 'states' or was as a reporter indicated on MSNBC applied only to the federal government, including the Second Amendment.

Earlier on Fox 'n Friends Judge Napolitano left no doubt and indicated the U.S. Constitution protects the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment for the individual to bear arms.

Napolitano rattled off the First Amendment protections as well clearly identifying these for the guaranteed protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution.

He made no mention of states rights to do what they basically desire to do with regard to establishing a religion, banning guns, Progressive-styled laws, etc.

We can't help but wonder what powers does Judge Napolitano believe the states have and/or should be enabled to have via the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well.

In other words, if an expressed right of an individual is not named in the United States Constitution as he appears to believe Second Amendment rights are and do apply to the individual, is there no guarantee of an unnamed or unenumerated right?

How far can a state go with its Tenth Amendment Powers before such powers revert to the people?

Finally, what consideration is given to the Fourteenth Amendment?

We cant help but continue to wonder about Judge Napolitano and his support for a Second Constitutional Convention call by the required amount of states some 34 would have to make the call invoking an Article V Convention.

for all we know, Napolitano and others as conservative and religious minded may want a return to prayer in the public schools. It just isn't good enough that individuals can get together currently and form their own home-schooling or private schools which can include just such prayer. There's still a push to get prayer in the public schools as well. And Intelligent Design is another subject some want in public schools and universities. Again, it's not enough that private schools and universities are not prevented from teaching the existence such in private classes.

What do Beck and Napolitano really want amid all the super-talk of limited government?

Limited government only for the federal, national government?

Limited government for the states too?

How about local government?

The Supreme Court case should hopefully at least come to some resolution about the Bill of Rights by way of the Chicago hearing and ruling.

If the Second Amendment applies to the states, and as Judge Napolitano at least appeared to allow the First Amendment does as well, then there should be no further controversy about prayer in public schools, gun ownership on the part of individuals, abrogation of freedom of speech rights, etc.

Hopefully, the Court might make some comment about unenumerated individual rights as those are possessed by and unalienable from the individual.

Including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all the latter implies. Of course, without the individual infringing on others' rights in the exercise of one's own rights.

Net the Truth Online

Library of Congress

Note date of 1780 and adoption by Massachusetts of the 'general religious tax'... pre-dates adoption of United States Constitution by delegates in Convention and ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the states...

Library of Congress

The Church State Debate: Massachusetts

...After independence the American states were obliged to write constitutions establishing how each would be governed. In no place was the process more difficult than in Massachusetts. For three years, from 1778 to 1780, the political energies of the state were absorbed in drafting a charter of government that the voters would accept. A constitution prepared in 1778 was decisively defeated in a public referendum. A new convention convened in 1779 to make another attempt at writing an acceptable draft.

One of the most contentious issues was whether the state would support religion financially.

Advocating such a policy--on the grounds that religion was necessary for public happiness, prosperity, and order--were the ministers and most members of the Congregational Church, which had been established, and hence had received public financial support, during the colonial period. The Baptists, who had grown strong since the Great Awakening, tenaciously adhered to their ancient conviction that churches should receive no support from the state. They believed that the Divine Truth, having been freely received, should be freely given by Gospel ministers.

The Constitutional Convention chose to act as nursing fathers of the church and included in the draft constitution submitted to the voters the famous Article Three, which authorized a general religious tax to be directed to the church of a taxpayers' choice. Despite substantial doubt that Article Three had been approved by the required two thirds of the voters, in 1780 Massachusetts authorities declared it and the rest of the state constitution to have been duly adopted.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

Thomas Jefferson

52. Freedom of Religion

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

Thomas Jefferson

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

"Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New London Methodists, 1809. ME 16:332


http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

Florida Attorney General Opposes Individual Health Care Insurance Mandate

February 25, 2010en Español Print Version
Media Contact: Sandi Copes
Phone: (850) 245-0150 (850) 245-0150


Florida Attorney General: Individual Mandate Discussed During Health Care Summit is Unconstitutional


TALLAHASSEE, FL – Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum today released the following response to reports that during today’s Health Care Summit, President Obama advocated for an individual mandate requiring every person to be have health care coverage or otherwise pay a fee or tax:

“After conducting a legal review of the individual mandate, it is very clear to me this mandate violates the U.S. Constitution because Congress cannot penalize people for doing nothing at all. This is a tax on living, and if the individual mandate is in the final bill signed by the President, I will file a lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Florida to protect our Constitutional rights.”

The Attorney General previously stated in a legal memo submitted to Congressional leadership that the U.S. Constitution establishes a limited federal government that protects the freedom of individuals and the rights of states, and the individual mandate in the health care legislation is contrary to that Constitutional principle because it penalizes inactivity.


http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/6B0AD9E97B58FB54852576D500767269

The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate for Health Insurance
Posted by NEJM • January 13th, 2010 • Printer-friendly
Jack M. Balkin, J.D., Ph.D.

Once President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress have passed a health care reform bill, conservative groups are likely to challenge parts of it as unconstitutional, arguing that it oversteps Congress’s powers. A key target will be the individual mandate, which is designed to coax uninsured persons into purchasing insurance.

The term “individual mandate” is misleading for two reasons. First, the law would not actually require all individuals to purchase insurance. The mandate would not apply to dependents, persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan.

Second, it is not actually a mandate. It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax” — a tax on transactions or events — or a “penalty tax” — a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan.

Congress has the power to pass legislation that falls within any of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. There are two obvious sources of congressional power. The first, described in the General Welfare Clause, is the 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.” The second, laid out in the Commerce Clause, is the power “to regulate commerce . . . among the several states.”

The individual mandate is a tax. Does it serve the general welfare? The constitutional test is whether Congress could reasonably conclude that its taxing and spending programs promote the general welfare of the country.1 This test is easily satisfied. The new health care reform bill insures more people and prevents them from being denied insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions. Successful reform requires that uninsured persons — most of whom are younger and healthier than average — join the national risk pool; this will help to lower the costs of health insurance premiums nationally.

Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment.

Because the textual argument for Congress’s authority under the General Welfare Clause is obvious and powerful, opponents have tried to argue that the tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct” tax. Under the Constitution, “direct” taxes must be apportioned to state population. That is, if State A has twice as many people as State B, the amount of revenue collected from State A must be twice that collected from State B. Like most federal taxes, the individual mandate is not apportioned to state population.

The classic examples of direct taxes are taxes on real estate and capitation or “head” taxes on the general population, under which people are taxed no matter what they do. In one of the Supreme Court’s first cases, Hylton v. United States, Justice William Paterson held that if there is any doubt, taxes should be classified as indirect rather than direct.2

The individual mandate is not a direct tax. The House’s version is a tax on income. Under the Sixteenth Amendment, income taxes do not have to be apportioned, regardless of the source of the income. The Senate’s version is an excise or penalty tax. It is neither a tax on real estate nor a general tax on individuals. It is a tax on events: individuals who are not exempted are taxed for each month they do not pay premiums to a qualified plan.

If the individual mandate falls within Congress’s power to tax and spend, no other constitutional authority is necessary. However, Congress also has the power to impose the tax under the Commerce Clause. The test in this case is whether Congress could reasonably conclude that the economic activity it regulates has a substantial effect on interstate commerce when all individual instances of the regulated activity are added together. The Supreme Court says that economic activities include buying and selling, borrowing money, agriculture, services, manufacturing, and consumption.

Even if an activity is local and not economic, Congress can regulate it if it reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to make its regulation of commerce effective.3 (Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to make all regulations that are “necessary and proper” for carrying out its enumerated powers.)

In 1942, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate wheat grown for home consumption as part of a general regulation of farm production.4 People who grew wheat at home substituted it for wheat products they would otherwise purchase in the market; cumulatively, this practice had a substantial effect on interstate farm prices. Similarly, in 2005, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that Congress could regulate marijuana grown for home consumption as part of a general ban on controlled substances, because Congress reasonably concluded that people would substitute homegrown marijuana for other marijuana purchased in black markets.3

The individual mandate taxes people who do not buy health insurance. Critics charge that these people are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies. All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Moreover, like people who substitute homegrown marijuana or wheat for purchased crops, the cumulative effect of uninsured people’s behavior undermines Congress’s regulation — in this case, its regulation of health insurance markets. Because Congress believes that national health care reform won’t succeed unless these people are brought into national risk pools, it can regulate their activities in order to make its general regulation of health insurance effective.

One final argument against the individual mandate is that it violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing the government to take property without just compensation. “Takings” occur when the government seizes property from particular individuals; a familiar example is a local government’s taking of land by eminent domain. Ordinary income taxes and excise taxes that are levied on a large population and that regulate people’s behavior by taxing their income or consumption choices are not considered takings under the Constitution. The individual mandate is just such a tax — not a taking.

Although opponents will challenge the individual mandate in court, constitutional challenges are unlikely to succeed. The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the issue unless a federal court of appeals strikes the tax down. In that unlikely event, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the tax, at least if it follows existing law. To strike down the individual mandate, it would have to reject decades of precedents. It is very unlikely that there are five votes on the current Court for staging such a constitutional revolution.

Financial and other disclosures provided by the author are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

Source Information

From Yale Law School, New Haven, CT.

This article (10.1056/NEJMp1000087) was published on January 13, 2010, at NEJM.org.

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764

Republicans Calling Democrats on Bringing Down Costs Tomorrow

Fortunately, we only had time to watch the opening 15 minutes of the so-called health care summit.

What was striking, one of the Republicans Coburn, said we could cut costs tomorrow by tackling the 15 percent of fraud, waste, and abuse in government-run health care program called Medicare!

We enjoyed that one. 'Tomorrow,' tomorrow - ok the ball's in the Democratic hands - have to add the ic or we're accused of being ah 'partisan' - and what did Pelosi and Reid say - and President Obama? Uh we have our bill here's what it contains we deal with that.

What they didn't say is how, and when? We have to read 2,700 pages of legalese and very likely inconsistencies to determine those answers?

As we've said before, we're opposed to the 'individual mandate' to purchase health care insurance and thus will not be supporting any portion of the legislation no matter what it purports to do.



Net the Truth Online

Looks like a decent report...

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2010/02/25/obama-and-republicans-meet-for-health-care-summit/

Audio-Taped Meeting Minutes Evidence in Civil Rights Case?

Clip

Zimmerlink sues fellow Fayette commissioners By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW Friday, February 19, 2010

A Fayette County commissioner has filed a federal lawsuit alleging her fellow commissioners have put the muzzle on her right to speak freely, all in retaliation for her consistent criticism of the pair.

In the civil rights lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, Angela Zimmerlink, a Republican, named fellow commissioners and Democrats Vincent Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky as defendants.

Through her attorney, Jordan Lee Strassburger of Strassburger McKenna Gutnick and Gefsky of Pittsburgh, Zimmerlink alleges the Democratic commissioners have used their majority status to stop her from effectively expressing her opinion on various matters...

She alleges Vicites and Zapotosky violated the state's Sunshine Act by taking official actions in private, by holding improper executive sessions, and by manipulating meeting minutes to "misstate and mischaracterize" events that occurred at the meetings....

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_667976.html

Might we suggest that somebody - the local District Attorney, perhaps - right quick obtain all copies of the official audio-taped Meeting Minutes of the county of Fayette? And perhaps any hearings of the county's autonomous Zoning Hearing Board?

Among the charges filed in the federal Civil Rights case by Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink is one alleging the alteration of Meeting Minutes.

Are these the written Meeting Minutes, Minutes of the Board of Fayette Commissioners, only? Or does the allegation include original audio-taped Meeting Minutes of the board? And are the Minutes of the Fayette Zoning Hearing Board included in the charge of alteration?

If the allegation doesn't apply to the audio-taped Meeting Minutes, a comparison of those could be made to determine what portions of written meeting minutes were altered so as to ""misstate and mischaracterize" events that occurred at the meetings..."

We believe this is a tremendously important Civil Rights case in that an elected public official is bringing it against two other elected public officials.

It really calls to our attention the numerous times we'd have liked to file a federal lawsuit for civil rights violation in regard to the county's voter registration listing. Scheduled for a five-year review, by resolution passed July 24, 2008, the voter list will remain virtually as-is for those interim-years. Inactive voters have been identified.

Has the name of any ineligible voter been removed since May 8, 2008 when the board authorized the Election Bureau Director to not only submit a plan for a Purge, but to begin something along the lines of mailings because there was a known deadline for completion of the Purge (3-months out from a federal election)?

Or have any names of ineligible - not just inactive - voters even been scheduled for review in the 5-year SURE Purge adopted unanimously during a July 26, 2008 meeting?

Names of ineligibles would be those of the still registered, but deceased, and those of voters who have moved out of the precinct, district, and/or county, and/or state?

Is it not a violation of our eligible voters' voting rights and civil rights to free expression as well by having a known, known, inaccurate voter registry for potential use of names of ineligibles, potentially swaying the outcome of an election by even one or two votes in a close local election?

Looking at only the "inactives" also won't produce an accurate voting registry down the line since it is known - absolutely known - that names of deceased and names without signatures on the voter registration cards/digital image/precinct poll books - remain among the voters listed as "active?"

Where is that federal civil rights lawsuit by any sitting county commissioner (also member of the county Voter Registration Commission and Election Board) from as far back as 1996?

Better yet, where are Meeting Minutes of the board of county commissioners wherein the board rescinded the Election Bureau Director's - at the time, Laurie Lint - plan for beginning the process of "a Purge" as authorized by a former directive by the board of commissioners back on May 8, 2008?

Minutes are published online, and we have yet to find an action - prior to July 2008's resolution to conduct the 5-year SURE Purge program - which rescinds the former May 8, 2008 directive to begin the "purge."

The deadline date for the Purge completion was known on May 8, 2008, yet the board doesn't rescind it prior to its July action?

Commissioner Meeting Minutes 2008-2011

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/cwp/view.asp?a=2269&q=594513

Jan. 24, 2008

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/january_24_2008.pdf

Feb. 6, 2008

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/february_6_2008.pdf

Feb. 28, 2008

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/february_28_2008.pdf

March 27, 2008

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/march_27_2008.pdf

Notice of Election Board Meeting scheduled for Friday, March 28, 2008 but no subsequent Minutes of the Meeting available online

Commissioner Zimmerlink informed the public of an Election Board Meeting tomorrow at 9 am and urged public attendance.

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/march_27_2008.pdf

Meanwhile, the May 8, 2008 directive for the Purge remains online, at least.

May 8, 2008

Election Bureau
Moved by Commissioner Vicites and seconded by Commissioner Zimmerlink to develop a plan to purge voter records

Commissioner Zapotosky Aye
Commissioner Vicites Aye
Commissioner Zimmerlink Aye

Motion passed unanimously

Laurie Lint Director of Election Bureau states she will try to have the records ready for the next
Commissioners meeting. Commissioner Zapotosky informed Mrs. Lint that we have 90 days. The
Federal Law requires us to have the records done 90 days prior to the next Election. Commissioner
Zimmerlink questioned the Director if she will have a plan ready in June. She replied she had to
check on that. Commissioner Vicites informed Mrs. Lint she needs to get started on records as soon as
possible. He added that we have many people that will never vote again for different reasons for
example some may be deceased. He said we need to clean those up to make sure they are as accurate
as possible.
Commissioner Zimmerlink stated that prior to 2004, a voter purge was done on a smaller scale and in
2006, and another purge was done in conjunction with mailing 21,000 new voter machine information
affecting 30,000 voters. The Director confirmed this and Commissioner Zimmerlink said the County
has since discussed another purge
Commissioner Vicites asked Mrs. Lint to get all information for this process, which would be the cost,
and where we would be seeking the funds. He added that 10,000 voters have not voted since the 2003
election, so there are still individuals on there that should not be. On the Federal Level they use to
have to vote every 2 years, if they did not they would automatically be taken off the roll. They dropped
that when they did the Motor Voter Law in 1996

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/may_8_2008.pdf

June 3, 2008

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/june_3_2008.pdf

Voter purge, which had been approved May 8, 2008 prior to June 26, 2008 had been mentioned during citizen comment.

June 26, 2008

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/june_26_2008.pdf

No subsequent motion was made to rescind authorization for a plan to be produced to conduct the purge, by the Election Bureau Director, and for the purge to move forward, can be found for meetings which occurred prior to June 26, 2008 specifically May 8, 2008, and no such motions to rescind the authorization for the purge can be found in minutes after June 26, 2008.

Yet during the July 24, 2008 meeting, the commissioners unanimously adopt a 5-Year SURE Purge authorization.

Election Bureau
Laurie Lint Director of the Election Bureau stated the funds that were allocated from the sell of the Eslates cannot be used for the purge Commissioner Vicites said he did not think the DOS understood our request about using certain funds
Commissioner Zapotosky said that August 8, 2008 is the deadline for the purging to be completed.

He also stated that the County Manager Warren Hughes said funds could be transferred from the Material & supply line, at approximately $25,000 if needed.

Moved by Commissioner Zimmerlink and seconded by Commissioner Zapotosky to direct the
Election Bureau to do a 5yr Sure purge in the time allotted by the Election code & to transfer funds internally from the General Fund subject to approval / review of the County Controller & Financial Consultant

Commissioner Zapotosky Aye
Commissioner Vicites Aye
Commissioner Zimmerlink Aye
Motion passed unanimously

http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/fayette/lib/fayette/commminutes2008/july_24_cc_meeting.pdf

What needs investigated is the former authorized Purge to have been completed by August 8, 2008 when and for what reasons was there a 'delay' in beginning the mailings for the determination of identifying "inactive" voters, and when was a motion made to rescind the authorization for the Purge prior to the July 24, 2008 meeting?

Might we also encourage every citizen and every citizen who is elected to public office who has anything to say start a blog. Just let someone anyone try or try and succeed to curtail one's free speech rights on the Internet. Just let them try.

At public meetings, citizens can be limited in time during public comment, but not in comment, even if slanderous comments are made, it is the citizen's right to say whatever the citizen desires, short of issuing physcial threats to do bodily harm.

As for the Zimmerlink lawsuit, we just can't totally buy that her ability to speak freely on any issue during the public meetings has been infringed upon by the two majority commissioners.

Disagreement among them will occur, and there will be times when things get heated, people talking over each other, but has Commissioner Zimmerlink been gaveled into silence by the Chairman? Has her time to speak been lessened by both commissioners so that Commissioner Zimmerlink has 5 minutes while other commissioners have unlimited time?

As to violations of the PA Sunshine Law, we have to ask, as we have before with school board members making similar allegations of violations, where is the locally filed paperwork that would cause local court action to determine if the violation occurred?

Has Commissioner Zimmerlink filed one over the past 6-years in office when making similar allegations publicly of a Republican commissioner and the Democrat commissioner? What about over the past couple of years?

We'd of course support that effort. In good conscience we just don't see the benefit of a federal Civil Rights lawsuit because Commissioner Zimmerlink thinks she's somehow been prevented at meetings from her free speech rights.

It seems to us, Commissioner Zimmerlink has another advantage to get her message out if the meetings become overly long because Commissioner Zimmerlink might have more to say than can be fit into a 4-hour long meeting.

Hold a town hall style meeting. Hold a forum on issues where you invite whomever you want to invite. Where? Anywhere. Even if you have to pay out of your own pocket for space at the 9/11 Building where the commissioners' regular meetings are held, pay for such if you believe you need to get your message out.

Finally, we're serious about the audio-tapes being compared to the written meeting minutes. It's a very serious allegation to state Minutes of meetings have been altered to convey something differently than has happened.

That's one reason we've gone on so long about the May 2008 authorized beginning of a process to purge the county voters' rolls of ineligible voters and wonder where was the motion to rescind or delay that process?

Minutes matter. Actions matter. And to date we can find no action by the board of county commissioners which rescinded the May 8, 2008 authorization to conduct the beginnings of a purge to have been completed by August 8, 2008.

Just in time for the Presidential Election of 2008 to begin, at least in Fayette, with some semblance of an accurate voters' registration list.

Net the Truth Online

Zimmerlink sues fellow Fayette commissioners By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW Friday, February 19, 2010

A Fayette County commissioner has filed a federal lawsuit alleging her fellow commissioners have put the muzzle on her right to speak freely, all in retaliation for her consistent criticism of the pair.


In the civil rights lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, Angela Zimmerlink, a Republican, named fellow commissioners and Democrats Vincent Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky as defendants.


Through her attorney, Jordan Lee Strassburger of Strassburger McKenna Gutnick and Gefsky of Pittsburgh, Zimmerlink alleges the Democratic commissioners have used their majority status to stop her from effectively expressing her opinion on various matters.


"Defendant commissioners have acted unlawfully and intentionally in conspiracy with one another to interfere with Zimmerlink's ability to perform her duties as commissioner, including her ability to speak out effectively on issues of public concern," wrote Strassburger in the complaint.


Contacted yesterday, Vicites and Zapotosky described the lawsuit as frivolous, politically motivated and aimed at setting up Zimmerlink for re-election in 2011.


"This is a desperate attempt to muddy the names of Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites and our efforts to move Fayette forward," Zapotosky said. "Her ideas are welcomed, but instead we get insults and propaganda. Instead, we get a frivolous lawsuit that has no merit whatsoever."


In the six-page lawsuit, Zimmerlink alleges the two commissioners are working in concert against her because she "has been a persistent and outspoken critic" of the pair's alleged "policies relating to operating behind closed doors."


As examples, Zimmerlink notes she has expressed her opposition to matters such as the retention of Felice Associates of Greensburg to handle human resources; the use of federal stimulus dollars to build a bus shelter; the county's handling of surplus funds; the granting of pay increases to tax collectors; and her alleged exclusion from various meetings.


She alleges Vicites and Zapotosky violated the state's Sunshine Act by taking official actions in private, by holding improper executive sessions, and by manipulating meeting minutes to "misstate and mischaracterize" events that occurred at the meetings. In addition, she alleges the two commissioners took official action without allowing her to participate and conspired with a Dunbar family in the filing of a federal lawsuit against her that resulted in a $150,000 settlement.


"All of the foregoing, unlawful actions by defendant commissioners have been undertaken in retaliation against Zimmerlink for exercising her rights of free speech, political activity and political dissent," wrote Strassburger.

Vicites and Zapotosky yesterday denied Zimmerlink's allegations. Both said she has been afforded the opportunity to express her opinions on county matters. They said she was invited to various informational meetings but did not attend. They said deliberations and decisions were made later, during public meetings attended by all three commissioners.


Vicites said the lawsuit will only further hamper Fayette's ability to shake its reputation for political infighting.


"It's another black eye for Fayette County," Vicites said. "It just brings up all of the negative things about Fayette County that were brought up from the past decade, with the fighting among commissioners, and the lawsuits."


Vicites said the lawsuit will prove costly to taxpayers because they will foot the bill to defend it. Zapotosky characterized it as "a desperate act leading into a 2011 election." He described it as in direct opposition to the duties of an elected official.


"I think Angela Zimmerlink needs to take a hard look at what public service is," Zapotosky said. "It's working together, not working apart. My job is to solve problems, not create them. She seems to believe her job is to create problems, not solve them."


Zimmerlink is seeking an unspecified amount in punitive damages, as well as in compensatory or nominal damages, and attorneys' fees. In addition, she wants a judge to declare that the two commissioners violated her civil rights and that future such violations be prohibited.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_667976.html

Con: Private Citizen Summons July 2010 Con-Con

Can't say we wouldn't want to attend the private citizen's Constitutional Convention. Just to disabuse him of the notion our nation was founded as a democracy.

So not. The United States was founded as a republic, a nation of laws, if you can keep it.

Net the Truth Online

Private citizen, Thomas Sulcer, wants to hold a Second Constitutional Convention in July 2010 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Intelligent critique of America
Reviewed by Thomas W. Sulcer, 2009-07-13

My guess is that the American political process is broken. It can't fix itself. The ONLY possible solution, in my view, is repairing the Constitution.

Therefore, as a private citizen, I am summoning a Second Constitutional Convention to meet in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, beginning July 4th, 2010, to craft a revised Constitution, based on the old one, which (1) restores citizenship as a meaningful relation between people and the state, and between people, with specific responsibilities and privileges spelled out by the new Constitution (2) prevents tyranny, terrorism, and crime using a general principle of exposure (explained in my book) (3) restores the federal structure so states can regulate their respective economies (4) reduces partisanship (5) fixes the flawed foreign policy architecture (currently too much power is invested with one overburdened official, the president; I propose an alternative) (6) restores a balance of power between branches of government (currently the executive has too much power) (7) de-politicizes the judiciary (8) explores whether a parliamentary system might be better for America and (9) restores democracy. Further, there is a long list of problems with the current Constitution cited by scholars such as Sanford Levinson (e.g. small states are over-represented in the Senate.) Amendments won't suffice. I don't think we can count on an enlightened president to solve the problem, because part of the problem is excessive presidential power. I do not see Americans as citizens with sufficient awareness or power to act, but my calls to enlightened elites have been ignored, so I see a Convention as highly unlikely. Therefore, my unfortunate prediction is that America is sinking into second-rate weirdness, unable to protect itself against serious terrorism, financial meltdowns, gridlock, partisanship, apathy, government corruption, tyranny, needless war, and the best that we can hope for is that the deterioration happens gradually rather than suddenly.

Thomas W. Sulcer
author of "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon/Kindle)
soon free electronically via Google Books and Project Gutenberg

http://www.whydemocracy.com/deals/product/the-death-of-why-the-decline-of-questioning-and-the-future-of-democracy-bk-currents-paperback-1576755851

Wayne Allyn Root: Washington Parties are the Problem

On Fox 'n Friends. Vote everyone out, veto them all, kick them out, says Root.

Tamara Holden, Democrat strategist didn't know what to do to reign in the government's spending. Health and Human Services has a such and so budget, but a so and so income that isn't enough.

She failed to finish her thought, where's to cut, nowhere.

Root, former Libertarian candidate for Vice President, got it right.

Cutting the spending by Congress and the President is the answer, dramatically cutting the spending.

He didn't say it but start with each and every unconstitutional non-obligatory spending such as any that goes to fund the United Nations and any foreign country ergo that country's government if it has one. Then begin domestically with funding so many duplicative programs and get rid of the Department of Education and all the Czars.

Root highlighted the route to change in Washington is the VETO Project.

Vote Everyone of Them, OUT.

Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly.

Our warning stands as with most we hear nowadays, however. Be wary of any and all, Judge Napolitano and maybe Glenn Beck as he hasn't recanted support, and maybe Root proposing a Second Constitutional Convention.

The U.S. Constitution is not structurally flawed or unsound. Our form of government, a republic, is based on the concept the United States is a nation of laws with representative system of governance.

If we can keep it.

With a 2nd Con-Con, there is no guarantee delegates will hold to any limitations placed on them, and no guarantee delegates like our Framers, won't replace the document that has stood the test of time.

We need to replace the kind of elected people who break their oath of office even once.

VETO - OK but should we find Root supports a 2nd Con-Con we'll consider his effort, a con.

Net the Truth Online

Searching

Thomas W. Sulcer Review

The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts by Wayne Allyn Root


...Wayne Allyn Root's critique of America is tough and intelligent. Government employee unions have gone wild. They're a privileged bunch. "Why do public employees ... deserve higher compensation than private sector employees?" he asks. He's critical of California's big government, big taxes, special interests. I delight in his plain-writing ability: "No politician in the US at any level of office should serve more than two to three terms. Period." He writes with a plain, no-nonsense, easy-to-grasp style which people instantly get. If he speaks like he writes, he'll be a strong contender.

He grasps the fundamental importance of states' rights. He believes "competition among the states for business and residents (will) likely becomes fierce". This means freedom for us -- fifty ongoing political experiments vying for our approval -- and this is one part of my solution to prevent tyranny and terrorism (see my book below).

If elected president, Wayne Allyn Root would impound funds (Jefferson did this, Nixon too) and return unused monies to the people. I approve. He argues "most government spending today is in violation of Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution". His hero is Barry Goldwater, a tough free-thinking Arizona Republican from the sixties. He'd stop all unfunded mandates. He'd abolish the alphabet soup of government agencies and -- what's particularly ballsy -- he lists the agencies by name over two pages. Perhaps 70 agencies in all (sorry, I didn't count) including Amtrak, Ginnie Mae, the IRS. I agree with him that employees of these mostly useless agencies do very little to help us, work 9am-5pm while private-sector Americans sometimes work 12 and 14 hour days. The Internal Revenue Service with it's 70,000+ page tax control is a behemoth of outrageousness in my view (great alternative: "FairTax"). I'd go further: I'd abolish the US Post Office. Wayne Allyn Root would abolish the Federal Reserve System, noting that there's nothing in the Constitution allowing a central bank. He's right. He writes: "When we're done, the US government will be so small that it will be a one-line listing in the white pages of your local telephone directory." I love it.

Wayne Allyn Root would legalize gambling from coast to coast, and in this respect, I'm somewhat more cautious. He believes gambling revenues would bring in huge revenue, which is probably correct. He writes: "That's $50 billion -- with a B." But I see gambling as a negative regressive tax, a non-productive activity, a statistical trick to extract money from fools; yet, at the same time, I'm highly in favor of freedom of people to do what they want. My preference is each state to regulate gambling as they choose. But generally I like the idea of his "Nevada Model" being extended from coast to coast.

He'd legalize medical marijuana. I believe all drugs should be legalized (again, part of a terrorism prevention strategy) because it undermines the incentive of criminal enterprises to supply these drugs. I think an intelligent compromise is to restrict drug use to specific times and places, and to penalize violence, not vice. Wayne Allyn Root correctly notes that there are huge swaths of the government which owe their livelihood to the dubious activity of trying to enforce drug laws.

As a government reformer, he thinks big. To solve the problem of lobbying controlling congress, he's expand its size to 3000 members, with a ratio of one congressperson for every 100,000 voters, and make being a congressperson a part-time job, with limits of two six-year terms. It would be much harder to bribe such a huge body, he argues. While I think suggestions like these demand more thinking, particularly by an enlightened body such as a Second Constitutional Convention, I applaud Wayne Allyn Root for directing his attention to this problem. He wants a return to "true citizen legislators" who could possibly meet by video-conferencing. He'd rethink voting, perhaps with a "ranked choice voting" method which is fairer to underdog third-party candidates. He favors federal referendums, eliminating earmarks ("Period." he writes), banishing corporate welfare, decreasing foreign aid, allowing any immigrant to move here who agrees to buy a $250K+ house ("That solves our foreclosure problem", he writes; what a smart solution), presidential vetoes, a balanced budget amendment, spending freezes (first day in office, he says, he'd freeze spending), encourage renewable energy, restoring the power of parents regarding matters of educating their children.

He draws a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama. Barack Obama was a law student, law professor, lawyer, community activist, career politician; in contrast, Wayne Allyn Root has been a small business owner, founded a business, created jobs, risked his own money, paid other peoples' health insurance and payroll taxes, faced endless government regulations which interfere with all businesses.

Summing up: a great book by a savvy up-and-coming politician, perhaps the next Ron Paul or Ross Perot or Barry Goldwater, energetic, quotable, sharp. Wayne Allyn Root -- you have my vote. Last, I believe Wayne Allyn Root is sharp enough to be a delegate to the Second Constitutional Convention in July 2010, and I invite him to be a delegate, and I hope he decides to attend.

Thomas W. Sulcer
author of "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon/Kindle)
soon free electronically via Project Gutenberg and Google Books
free copies to Amazon review readers savvy enough to figure out my email address and write me :)
...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A10GD6NA45PXEA?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Hardball: Justice Scalia: No Right State to Secede

Chris Matthews

references Justice Scalia comment to a scriptwriter "no right of a state to secede."

Net the Truth Online

Antonin Scalia: No right to secede
By Robert Barnes
Is there a right to secede from the Union, or did the Civil War settle that?

Certain Tea Partiers have raised the possibility of getting out while the getting's good, setting off a round of debate on legal blogs. The more cerebral theorists at the smart legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy question whether such a right exists.

Enter a New York personal injury lawyer, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The lawyer, Eric Turkewitz, says his brother Dan, a screenwriter, put just such a question to all of the Supreme Court justices in 2006 -- he was working on an idea about Maine leaving the U.S.and a big showdown at the Supreme Court -- and Scalia responded. His answer was no:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/antonin-scalia-no-right-to-sec.html?wprss=44

Beware 34 States Call for 2nd Constitutional Convention

Joel Hirschhorn, author of Delusional Democracy, is asked by Pgh Now host, Chris Moore, whether he supports an Article V Constitutional Convention as a way to get what he envisions is necessary to get an array of measures passed which will not be done by Congressionally-proposed amendments.

Chris Moore Program

http://www.kdkaradio.com/pages/5664021.php

Yes, he supports it and has several proposals in the works. His website is: Friends of the Article V Convention.

When we heard his name mentioned and the subtitle of his book, Fixing the Republic without Over-Throwing the Government, we knew immediately he'd want the Article V Convention.

The key wording in the subtitle is "without over-throwing the government."

But that is exactly what an Article V Convention could do - overthrow the government, peacefully and without a shot being fired. Our republican form of government guaranteed to the states could be replaced with some other form of government guaranteed to the states, or no guarantee.

Another entirely new and different Constitution of the United States could be proposed by the delegates to the convention. Based on the first Constitutional Convention, called to revise the Articles of Confederation, the second could not only do likewise, replace the Constitution, not merely revise, or amend, delegates could also propose a different method of ratification.

The author ended his commentary with a statement that appeared inaccurate: Congress calls the Convention. A caller found reason to disagree in that the required amount of states make the call, once the number is reached the convention should be automatically convened.

The author changed the wording in his reply just enough to satisfy. He said Congress convenes the Convention once the required amount of states call for the convention.

It was a picky and technical point and we understand why the author wanted the overall point he was making to resound.

Congress must convene the convention upon the last required state making the convention call.

Hirschhorn believes there are a requisite amount of states who've already made the application for a call for a convention, and Congress must call or convene the convention, immediately.

There may still be room however even given the wording of the Constitution for debate as to who actually calls the convention together.

The Congress,... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

The following site covers some ground worth reading but beware it is wiki.

http://wiki.lessig.org/Talk:Article_V_Convention

Though the U.S. Constitution Article V is worded as such, we'd go with Congress... on Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall convoke a Convention for proposing Amendments...

as the more appropriate interpretation. We don't think the Article V means Congress has any role whatsoever in an Article V Convention called as such by the two-thirds of the several states.

This exclusive right to call a Convention by the states is exlusive to the states via Article V. And that is why the debate surrounding a convention call when the last required state submits its application for a call is so important.

As important is the theory that the Congress can limit the convention by any legislation or regulations.

Stanford Law School Professor Gerald Gunther testimony to Judiciary Committee

... statutory or Congressional limitation of a convention is "profoundly unconstitutional" and it is "snake oil to tell the country that Congress can limit or bind the convention..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19851022&id=ChsiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=paYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3371,495738

We've warned of the dangers of a Second Constitutional Convention for years. We've posted material in the blog and in our sidebar for your information.

Hirschhorn wants a Constitutional Convention for a number of proposals. On the Pittsburgh Now program, he noted he didn't believe elections were effective in combating the entrenched two party system and its corruption. Campaign contributions are out of whack. So let's have a second Constitutional Convention.

We've also been watching Judge Napolitano. Please review our posts and sidebar material.

We made a post on freedomwatch as a.k.a. Dare Berringer

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/209966-danger-of-a-second-constitutional-convention

also see

Numerous links

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-X-FedConC.html

Also see our latest post regarding a private citizen's (Thomas W. Sulcer) call for a Second Constitutional Convention which apparently has been an effort for some years now.

Con: Private Citizen Summons July 2010 Con-Con

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2010/02/con-private-citizen-summons-july-2010.html

By the way, what a brilliant idea to sell or give away copies of your own book. Invite everybody to this Second Constitutional Convention and provide copies of your book for sale or review!

What a motivator to get the thing done, even if you have to publish it yourself.

When this talk arises seemingly far more now with the advent of the Tea Party (whose origins we've commented upon in other posts) we let our fingers fly to search for as much more information as possible than we've already provided about the dangers of a Second Constitutional Convention.

We highlight Greenley's piece elsewhere, and do so again, clipping those sections as well which reference other John Birch Society/The New American offerings... It's not a plug to buy, buy, buy, it's informational.

Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement
Written by Larry Greenley
Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:49

...A con-con would be convened by Congress in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, if 34 or more state legislatures petition Congress to call such a convention “for proposing amendments.” The dangerous aspect of a con-con is that there’s no way for the state legislatures to ensure that the constitutional convention would restrict itself to consideration of the specific amendment(s) that the state legislatures have based their con-con calls on. Therefore, a constitutional convention could consider and approve a wide range of amendments, never contemplated by the state legislatures who started the whole process. Whichever amendments approved by the constitutional convention that were ratified by three-fourths of the states would become part of the Constitution. Thus, given the huge influence on public opinion exerted by the biased media and political elites, the con-con process could very well result in radical changes in our Constitution which were never intended by the state legislators who called the con-con in the first place.

Here’s “Beware of Article V,” a video the John Birch Society produced in 1999 to help state legislators to understand the high risk to our Constitution involved in petitioning Congress for a con-con. It’s also valuable for informing concerned citizens about this issue. I highly recommend readers of this article take the 36 minutes required to view it or at the very least sample it.


http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820

Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement
Written by Larry Greenley
Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:49

...The staff and members of the John Birch Society, as well as the large number of state legislators of both parties that our members have worked with over the past 20 years, are very familiar with how seemingly attractive the concept of a con-con can be until further study reveals the high degree of risk involved.

The “Beware of Article V” video embedded near the top of this article has been our most effective resource for convincing state legislators against petitioning Congress for a con-con. We recommend that you show and/or give the “Beware of Article V” video (free to view online; DVD available to buy online) to the organizers of tea party events in your area. It is especially important to help them understand the dangers of a con-con as they are planning for speakers and action agendas for the July 4th tea parties...

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820

We've been following Glenn Beck on the matter as he has yet to publicly announce he absolutely would not support a Second Constitutional Convention.

Years back, Patrick J. Buchanan also supported a convention in one of his books. We confronted him when asking a question during a press conference for one of his runs for the Republican nomination for President. He responded he had recently met with the Phyllis Schlafly organization and retreated from his position. We asked another question which was reported on in a Tribune-Review piece at the time.

Net the Truth Online

Joel S. Hirschhorn at November 22, 2009 Article V Convention: No Reason to Fear Liberals (or Conservatives)

November 22, 2009
Article V Convention: No Reason to Fear Liberals (or Conservatives)
In my many efforts to educate Americans about their constitutional right to have an Article V convention I have regularly encountered the fear that liberals would control the convention and produce awful results. Let me carefully make the case why this fear is completely unjustified and why patriotic Americans that are not constitutional hypocrites should support the nonpartisan effort of Friends of the Article V Convention.

An Article V convention is too important to oppose. If you love and respect the Constitution, then the honorable thing to do is support our efforts to make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the first convention. After all, the Founders and Framers knew that inevitably Americans would lose trust in their creation of a strong central, federal government. So they gave us the convention option and, with one exception, gave the power to run the convention to the states. That one exception was that they required Congress call or convene the convention once the one and only specified requirement in Article V was satisfied. With some 750 applications from all 50 states, that two-thirds of states requirement has long been met. Members of Congress have disobeyed the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it...

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006780.html

Please review the site and read the posting by Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2009 04:00 PM

Note, we don't condone Daugherty's support of a 34 state call for a Convention, no matter if the required states get together on one major amendment or call for the Convention. The convention delegates can not be guaranteed to remain limited to any one amendment. therein is the danger.

Nonetheless, Daugherty's position is interesting and we'd recommend him to Chris Moore, host of Pittsburgh Now to present his positions on the issue.

Net the Truth Online

clip

Comment #291307
Let me carefully make the case why this fear is completely unjustified and why patriotic Americans that are not constitutional hypocrites should support the nonpartisan effort of Friends of the Article V Convention.
As opposed to the patriotic Americans who are constitutional hypocrites?

To be a hypocrite, you must say one thing, but through your actions indicate something else.

I have said, consistently, that I believe the constitution calls for thirty four or more states to agree in concert for the convention to go forward.

An Article V convention is too important to oppose. If you love and respect the Constitution, then the honorable thing to do is support our efforts to make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the first convention.
Too important to oppose? Everybody believes that about something. I believe healthcare reform is too important to oppose. Even so, a bill must go through Congress’s rules, and be passed constitutionally.

It is poor argumentation, then, when speaking about an Article Five Convention, where agreement of two-thirds of the states is called for, prior to the calling of the convention, to say that we must do this because you think it’s too important to oppose. That doesn’t enter into it.

I love and respect the constitution, and disagree with your interpretation, which in turn compels me to strongly disagree with your argument.

I believe Congress already obeys the Constitution in this, so it need not be asked to do any more.

After all, the Founders and Framers knew that inevitably Americans would lose trust in their creation of a strong central, federal government.
Care to show me where that is written? Truth is, some never trusted it at all. And some trusted it above all other things. The variation was regional, and one thing the framers and founders were on guard against was one group of states revising the agreement to favor themselves. The constitution was a compromise between different regions, with different land areas and different populations. The Framers did a lot of balancing out of such interests.

I believe the high thresholds, as Hamilton would later say, would require such efforts at Amendment or at a Constitutional convention be aimed at the general interest, not merely the interest of a few states. It would have been awful hard of this threshold to have any teeth, if we did things Joel’s way, since there were so few states to start with. I don’t think the federalists, the folks who favored the adoption of this document, intended for the amendment process to be a happenstance occurence of addition.

Everywhere else where they ask for a threshold, they’re asking for a considerable consensus before a power is granted, or put into action. This was required for a veto override, and it’s required for the twin brother of the convention clause. Why, with similar language, is such a real consensus not required for the convention method? After all, the states will have to attend this darn thing, they might as well be in better than majority agreement that it’s necessary, or otherwise it’s not going to move things anywhere anyways.

So they gave us the convention option and, with one exception, gave the power to run the convention to the states. That one exception was that they required Congress call or convene the convention once the one and only specified requirement in Article V was satisfied. With some 750 applications from all 50 states, that two-thirds of states requirement has long been met. Members of Congress have disobeyed the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it.
Yeah, I remember looking at your applications and finding recissions (in other words, people saying “disregard the convention calls”), duplications, among other things.

Funny thing, this build up. It could only happen if it never occured to any state that its rights were being trampled on. Maybe they, too, believe that the threshold has to more or less be met together, by the willing agreement of States in common purpose. You’re tilting at windmills for an ungrateful set of damsels in distress.


http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006780.html

See the John Birch Society information

Phyllis Schlafly

Tom DeWeese site report follows

Thursday, January 15, 2009
BEWARE OF CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION---THE WORST NIGHTMARE OF OUR REPUBLIC By Fred Kelly Grant

Apparently, another attempt will be made in this session of the Ohio legislature to secure a legislative call for a constitutional convention, purportedly to seek a balanced budget amendment. If you live in Ohio, use every means of communication at the disposal of you, your family, your friends, and those you hardly know, to urge members of your legislature to drive a stake through the heart of this menace to the Republic.

In December, 2008, an effort was turned away in the Ohio House by well prepared, wise witnesses who pointed out the dangers of such a convention. If the legislature, by some strange turn of events, should this time passsuch "call", then do as Frazier once warned a fleeing suitor of Rebecca on Cheers, "Run, run, as fast as you can" and seek cover from the fall out. In all the years of our history, including the threat to the Republic posed by the Civil War, has there been such a pernicious weapon to be launched atour Constitutional form of government.

There are some myths that are posed by those who seek a constitutional convention. They can, and must be dispelled, by those who can still read and understand.

First, if enough legislatures call for a constitutional convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, the nature of the convention will be limited to that amendment. Balderdash. That is an absurd conclusion. History itself shows that the conclusion is delusional. When the members arrived in Philadelphia in the 1780s, they arrived for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, not for the purpose of drafting a constitution. The delegates were there with instructions to find a cure for the currency problems which plagued commerce among the states, to find a way to fund a standing army, to find a way make uniform rules of interstate commerce, and to find a way to lay a tax on the states---all without creating a stronger central government. In my early days, I spent hundreds of hours toiling through the journals of the congress which drafted and enacted the Articles of Confederation, in order to write an Honors Program Paper "The Genesis of the Articles of Confederation" as, what I thought would be, the culmination of my constitutional history specialty at the College of Idaho. But, no,that led only to another Paper detailing the drafting of the Constitution asa substitute for the Articles of Confederation.

So, I am not guessing and I am not quoting some other scholar when I say toyou that the first Constitutional Convention in this country ran roughshodover the limited purpose for which it had been called. If anyone tells youthat a constitutional convention can be restricted by its "call", ask him orher to explain to you why the first Convention veered completely and totallyaway from the reason for which it was called, and from the directions the states gave the delegates. If he or she attempts to explain it, ask him or her whether they have read the journals. Ask him or her to explain why the delegates boarded up the hall so that passersby could not hear the deliberations. Boarded up the hall in the miserable heat of Philadelphia, boarded up a room which is virtually stifling on a summer day even today. The delegates were sworn to secrecy, and no one outside the hall knew what was being conceived inside until the deed was done. Keep in mind also that once the contents of the Constitution were known, ratification was not an easy task. There was not a great swell of desire for a strong central government; just as at the time of the Revolution there was not a sweeping desire for independence throughout the colonies.

So, our first and only constitutional convention proved that delegates to a constitutional convention are not bound by any directives given to them by a state. They are free as a bird to amend the basic document in any way theywant. They could, today, do the same to our Constitution as the delegates in the first convention did to the Articles of Confederation.

Second, the proponents claim that the Congress has ignored the call for a convention because their convoluted counting of various calls through the years add up to sufficient number to require convening a convention. Core to this argument is their belief that a state cannot rescind a call once made.That claim is also without merit in the law.

The question of whether a state can rescind a call is a matter for the state to decide. In Idaho, for example, the Attorney General in careful and circumspect manner has rendered the opinion that the legislature can rescind what a prior legislature has done, just as it can repeal an act passed by a prior legislature. If this were not the case, a legislature which rendered a call for a constitutional convention would be binding every successor legislature to that call. So, the first legislature would be rendering the legislative authority of future legislatures void as to any matter related to a constitutional convention. Such power is not allowed under Idaho law, just as it is not allowed under federal law. One Congress cannot bind a successor, rendering it without authority over any particular question of legislative authority.

So, every state which has rescinded any call for a constitutional convention made by a prior legislature has negated the impact of that call, and the Congress cannot lawfully consider a state call if the state has rescinded it. No court will decide otherwise, because such decision would allow today's legislature to forever fix the law on an individual subject. Fortunately for those of us who fully believe in the Constitutional Republic which we enjoy, the Congress knows that to be the law.

Third, the proponents seem to believe that we need a constitutional convention to save our Republican form of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I read the rhetoric in support of a constitutional convention to "save our form of government", I, like Alice believe that things get "curiouser and curiouser" as I live longer and longer. In all reality, can there be anyone who really believes that a convention made up of delegates chosen by God knows what method in each state will strengthen our form of government?...

http://tomdeweese.blogspot.com/2009/01/beware-of-calls-for-constitutional.html

Another warning 2 States Away From Constitutional Convention Call

http://www.rense.com/general84/consttit.htm

No Guns Carry During Emergency Declaration

No guns allowed, declares city, it's a 'snow emergency'
Hidden state laws ban firearm sales, even possession, during crises

Residents of King, N.C., were startled earlier this month when a declared snow emergency triggered a law forbidding the possession of firearms in public.

Furthermore, North Carolina isn't the only state where authorities can ban gun sales, or even possession, upon declaration of "emergency," even though what constitutes an "emergency" might be deemed questionable.

According to North Carolina statute 14-288.7, when a municipality declares a state of emergency in which "public safety authorities are unable to … afford adequate protection for lives or property" – such as during the recent East Coast record snowfall – "it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon."

In other words, when the cops can't get through on the roads, the citizens can't take guns off their own property.

"This has to be the most ridiculous event of the century!" protested a commenter on the website of Winston-Salem's WXII-TV, which reported the ban. "This is the ultimate denial of liberties for the most asinine reason ... bad weather!"

But King Police Chief Paula May told the station that when the City Council and county authorities declared the emergency, regardless of the reason, state law took over.

"By law, statute 14-288.7 automatically went into effect," May told WXII. "And that law, which goes into effect when there's a state of emergency, prohibits the transportation, purchase, sale and possession of firearms other than on one's own premises."

Other states also have laws restricting firearm use that lie dormant until a declared state of emergency, a fact that worries some gun rights activists.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125245

Global warming UNraveled Not Settled Science

The Continuing Climate Meltdown
More embarrassments for the U.N. and 'settled' science.
It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic for which flag stands

A single comment made by Michael Krajovic should be a rallying sound to all who understand the true foundation of our nation. We who know that the Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States flag and to the republic - if you can keep it - for which the flag of the United States stands - must reject the continued attempt by anyone, even Sarah Palin, to tag our nation as a democracy, and to misguidedly claim our 'service' by way of collective taxation is to fund whatever the government determines is the 'united common good.'

By way of a question, Mr. Krajovic posed in his published statement (Herald-Standard Significance of new vo-tech school not to be underestimated February 14, 2010) higher taxation for the building of a new vocational technical center is not just a must-do, it is an absolute must for the life of the county and its economy.

Krajovic's words are not just chilling. They show a frame of mind that wholly believes that your individual right to earn a living by working and what you do with those earnings is not your individual right.

Your hard-earned money is not yours to do with as you wish. No. Your money must be taken from you in the form of not simply 'just' taxes - just meaning for those functions which are the domain of government - limited government by design - but your income in taxes must be taken from you at a higher level to enable the dream of others who desire whatever they desire to be fulfilled.

In this case, what Mr. Krajovic desires is a new vocational technical "public" school building funded with an increase in local property taxation which is the form of taxation in Pennsylvania that funds our public school system.

To Mr. Krajovic, we pledge allegiance to the "united common good."

And what Mr. Krajovic believes is the united common good, a new building, must be funded or the county gains over the last many years, in his opinion and mind, will be lost.

Had Mr. Krajovic used the word "collective" common good, he'd have given up the game he and others have played for decades. By using "united" common good he hides behind the word that actually has a far different understanding than "collective."

Mr. Krajovic, a private citizen, at the helm of an economic development agency (public-private), wants an increase in taxes for his desire, his dream.

We've heard this one before. Private citizen wants some thing promoted as being for the public's common good. Instead of using all private resources, one's own, or those collected from others voluntarily, the private citizen wants public monies, every other taxpayer's hard-earned salary or property, taxed for whatever will fulfill the dream.

An amphitheater which sponsors plays.

A coal-mine small scale theme park.

Renovation of theaters.

Mr. Krajovic can't even think for one moment, if he or others making hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries annually want these things why don't they pool their collective private resources and fulfill their own dream?

Why not? Because they can free up their own monies for whatever else they want and desire for themselves - a private collection of artwork, perhaps a speedboat or new car every year - by having the cost of their dream shared by the public.

To their benefit, they often head up agencies and charitable organizations that pay them some no small fee for their services.

The public has no recourse but to pay the taxes they are obligated to pay at threat of loss of residence or business property, and fines, and potentially jail time for failure to pay whatever government deems is the cost of government.

How does Mr. Krajovic explain the failure of the Keystone Opportunity Zone program, ongoing for ten years, and recently extended for another 7-years, maybe longer if new legislation comes along after 7-years, to draw the kind of manufacturing plants or even industrial plants that would employ hundreds of thousands of new employees, promised by Mr. Krajovic in making his pitch to the municipal, school, and county boards of supervisors, directors, and commissioners?

Mr. Krajovic doesn't explain any failure of the KOZs to attract the massive influx of investment, and the creation of new jobs, not merely recycled jobs as has been the norm not only in Fayette, but across the state of Pennsylvania.

We have called for the board of commissioners to dismiss the entity Mr. Krajovic presides over, Fay Penn Economic Development Charity, yes, unbelievable, Charity, as the county's lead economic development 'agency' for some years now.

The commission board should see fit to do so immediately or at least a motion by one commissioner to hopefully gain a second, if not a unanimous vote, should be made at the next meeting of the board.

Mr. Krajovic should be held accountable for his agency which has so far failed the county to generate the promised hundreds of thousands of jobs via the Keystone Opportunity Zones.

Yes the promise ten-years back and counting was high-paying and thousands upon thousands of new jobs, new employers and newcomers from outside the area. Newcomers who would need to build adequate for them houses. Those newcomers would buy or build anew and houses and upscale property would add to the tax base of the individual school districts where located.

Questions should also be asked about ownership of the property proposed as the site of the new taxpayer-bought and funded vocational technical school.

Is the owner of the property an entity with which Mr. Krajovic is affiliated?

If Mr. Krajovic so believes a vocational technical school is absolutely crucial why doesn't he start up a private funding stream if the quality of students promised to be produced are also crucial to the continued existence of the county?

In other words, start your own private school funded wholly through private sources.

That is not something Krajovic believes in since the entirety of his comments rest on the idea of "the united common good."

Chilling comments pepper Mr. Krajovic's piece.

The most dangerous is this idea our very citizenship is based on a pledge of allegiance to the united common good.

our pledge of allegiance to the united common good

this is so misguided it is difficult to know where to begin to burst this fallacy.

Back to the Republic is must-read. As is the Constitution of the United States. As is the body of work called The Federalist Papers.

As is a reading and rereading of the Pledge of Allegiance.


Net the Truth Online

(I) pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

http://wilstar.com/holidays/pledge.htm

Back to the Republic

http://www.archive.org/details/backtorepublicg00atwogoog

Significance of new vo-tech school not to be underestimated
February 14, 2010 01:50 AM TEXT SIZE By: HERALD STANDARD STAFF

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1642/2010/february/14/significance-of-new-vo-tech-school-not-to-be-underestimated.html

Need new vo-tech school to facilitate education, job issues
February 07, 2010 03:09 AM TEXT SIZE By: HERALD STANDARD STAFF
Herald Standard

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/february/07/need-new-vo-tech-school-to-facilitate-education-job-issues.html

Global Warming UNraveled Climate Change Retreat

Daily Press

The Great Climate Change Retreat


THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

MORE FROM EXPRESS.CO.UK ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE...

* WHAT A CLIMATE CON!

* CLIMATE CHANGE 'INDUSTRY' IN DEEP TROUBLE

* CLIMATE SCEPTICS ARE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE

* GLOBAL WARMING 'TO BECOME' GLOBAL COOLING

The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.

The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.

Last month we revealed how the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was “speculation” lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.


The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.

Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble “keeping track” of the information.

Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.

Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

Politics PA: Report on whether special election Murtha vacancy

UPDATED — PoliticsPA: Rendell undecided when to hold special election
By Alex Roarty and Louis Jacobson
PoliticsPA Staff Writers

Gov. Ed Rendell said Monday he hasn’t decided whether he’ll hold a special election to replace the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha on or before the state’s May 18th primary.

The governor told reporters on a conference call that his “inclination as always is to save money” but said later congress is considering “some extra special issues” right now that demand the 12th Congressional District have representation. Holding a special election separate from the primary would like cost the state at least several hundred thousand dollars.

Rendell has 10 days to declare a vacancy and decide when to hold a special election, said a spokesman for the Department of State. The special election then has to be at least 60 days later.

A special election, although it can be held on the same day, is not the same as the primary. Candidates theoretically might have their names on two separate ballots on May 18 — one for the primary, the next for the special election.

If the special election is held before May 18, the winning candidate must have his or her name on the primary ballot if they want to seek re-election, meaning they would be forced to campaign for and win two elections within months of each other.

Party rules for Democrats and Republicans will determine how the special election candidate is selected. For Republicans, each county committee in the district will be assigned a certain number of conferees to send to the selection meeting. The conferees will vote to decide who becomes the party’s candidate.

For Democrats, the county committees in the 12th Districts will meet to recommend a candidate to the state party’s 50-member executive committee. The executive committee, comprising members from across Pennsylvania, will decide whether to endorse a candidate.

The 12th District is spread across southwest Pennsylvania, including parts of Greene, Fayette, Allegheny, Cambria, Washington, Armstrong, Somerset, Westmoreland and Indiana counties.

http://www.politicspa.com/politicspa-rendell-undecided-when-to-hold-special-election/6319/

Tribune Review

Support builds for Murtha's wife taking seat
By Salena Zito
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, February 12, 2010
Last updated: 8:41 am

Gov. Ed Rendell will decide when to conduct a special election for Murtha's seat. He told reporters he is leaning toward the May 18 primary to keep costs down.

The state Democratic and Republican parties each would choose a nominee. Independent candidates also could enter the race.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_666804.html

Meanwhile

Murtha's death sparks inquiry
By Mike Wereschagin
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, February 12, 2010

A congressman in line to take over the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha's subcommittee chairmanship said he plans to look into how Bethesda Naval Medical Center handled the operation that preceded Murtha's death.

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Washington, said the inquiry likely won't rise to the level of a congressional hearing, but he and other senior legislators in both parties want to know why Murtha died after undergoing a routine gallbladder removal. Murtha died Monday from complications arising from the surgery. U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, D-Philadelphia, said Murtha's large intestine was damaged during the procedure.

"This is normally a pretty routine operation. What I want to know is, what went wrong? Are there problems (at Bethesda)? Do we need to do anything to help?" said Dicks, who is next in line to assume Murtha's longtime chairmanship of the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

Dicks plans to speak with the commanding officer at Bethesda as well as Navy officials on Capitol Hill. Top Republicans on the committee, including ranking member Bill Young of Florida, support the inquiry, Dicks said.

A Bethesda spokeswoman could not be reached for comment.

"This is not a witch hunt. We're simply trying to do our job over here. I have no preconceived conclusions, though there is no question about the fact that there was a mistake made," Dicks said.

Murtha's laparoscopic surgery, where a surgeon using a video camera removes the gallbladder through small incisions, is among the most common operations in the country. Murtha underwent the surgery Jan. 28 and went home that day. He was admitted to Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington on Feb. 1.

Fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of people who undergo the surgery die, according to the American College of Surgeons.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_666806.html