Do the Brainless Wonders in Congress Know What Happened on 9/11/01?

Do  they know that a mere 19 men who had infiltrated our country hijacked four  airliners and used them to destroy the World Trade Towers and damage the Pentagon?  Current Congressional  leaders are even more brainless than leaders in November, 1941, who thought the country could avoid World War II by being neutral.  They hadn't yet experienced an attack by an enemy.  Today's leaders have..

The  government didn't know of a potential terror threat when the  9/11 hijackers entered the country.    Today the government is more careful about who it allows in. Suspected  terrorists cannot come in at monitored points of entry.   They have to find entry points that aren't closely monitored such as along our southern border.   Coming in that way allows them to bring weapons and high explosives.  
s
Those who claim there isn't a crisis need to explain when the terror crisis that began  on 9/11 ended.   Americans didn't realize there was a  terror crisis until a plane hit the second tower. 

Our enemies haven't announced an end to their war.  Maybe they haven't attacked our homeland because they prefer to concentrate on defending their homeland.  Maybe our law enforcement agencies have been preventing their attacks.  Or maybe they are secretly preparing a surprise attack like the Germans did before the Battle of the Bulge  or the Viet Cong did before the 1968 Tet Offensive.    If they think they can mount a surprise attack, we may not know until it begins. 

Put Immigrants in Democratic Districts

If President Donald Trump can't keep the caravan from entering the country, he should try to transport the participants to congressional districts whose  voters elected a Democrat to Congress.  Many Democrats want to encourage immigration so we should expect voters in those districts to welcome immigrants and be willing to share local resources including jobs with immigrants.

  Voters who don't want more immigrants in their districts shouldn't elect politicians who want to increase immigration..  Voters in higher income districts shouldn't vote to encourage immigration unless they are  willing to have new immigrants for neighbors

The United States Is Not a Democracy

"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. 
However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny." -- Patrick Henry

Americans are now living under judicial tyranny as one of our greatest patriots Patrick Henry predicted.   For those who have forgotten Henry, he is the man who said "give me liberty or give me death."

The judiciary's subversion of the Constitution was already recognized by Declaration of Independence author and third President Thomas Jefferson on Oct. 31, 1823 when he wrote the following to Monsieur A. Coray: "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."   

In a democracy the people either vote directly on the nature of social institutions or choose those who make such decisions rather than having those decisions made by autocrats who never have to face the voters.    There is no legitimate reason to allow judges or other  non-elected officials to make decisions about social issues.  

The political hacks who serve as federal judges have no special qualifications for making social decisions.   They are chosen for their political loyalty to a president or his party rather than their intelligence.  There is no legitimate reason to allow them to impose their views on social issues on the people.

As President Thomas Jefferson said:  "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." \

Contrary to a long standing myth, the U.S. Supreme Court has no special exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution.   When Chief Justice John Marshall claimed the Supreme Court could  rule an act of Congress unconstitutional in Marbury v.Madison  the only authorization he could find was the oath he and the other justices took to support and defend the Constitution.  The President, members of Congress and state leaders take the same oath and thus have the requirement to support and defend the Constitution. They thus have the same authority to decide what actions are consistent with the Constitution.     

Although officials subordinate to the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court take the same oath they lack authority to act independently of the officials whose powers are defined by the Constitution.   In particular, the federal courts created by Congress cannot rule on the constitutionality of acts of Congress.  The inferior courts can only delay enforcement of questioned  laws pending a review by the Supreme Court.  Allowing inferior courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws would  make them more  powerful than Congress and equal in power to the Supreme Court which is supposed to be the most powerful court. 

If the United States is to provide equal justice under the law, then federal law must be the same in Arctic City, Alaska, Honolulu, Hawaii. Key West,Florida, and Portland,Maine.  The current practice of allowing inferior  federal courts to interpret laws or rule them unconstitutional divides the country into separate judicial provinces or colonies each with its own autocratic judicial rulers.   In general, the inferior courts can have no authority to rule state laws or practices unconstitutional, or otherwise illegal, unless the Supreme Court or Congress has determined those laws or practices invalid.  The only potential exception would be laws or practices that involve the operation of state courts or law enforcement agencies.     

Article IV of the Constitution requires the United States government to guarantee the states a republican form of government.  A republic is a form of government in which the people determine social policies directly or through their elected officials.   Federal judges who attempt to impose their social views on the states are violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution.  Congress would be justified in impeaching judges who attempt to deprive citizens of their right to determine social policy.    Only the elected members of Congress can impose uniform social policies on the states.

After the Civil War  Congress proposed that the states add the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee the recently freed slaves equal treatment.  In 1896, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Plessy v.Ferguson   told the states they could ignore the intent of Congress by pretending to treat blacks separate but equal manner.   The Court refused to admit its mistake until 1954 when it overturned the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.   

Some autocratic federal judges are currently violating the Constitution by usurping the people's right to decide the co-called "same-sex marriage" social issue.   The issue does not represent a real legal controversy.    

Best Option to Repeal Obamacare

If House Republicans are serious about wanting to repeal Obamacare, they should pass a Resolution stating that some, or all, portions of the Obamacare law are unconstitutional. A House Resolution doesn't require Senate approval and cannot be vetoed as would be the case with a bill eliminating Obamacare.

The Resolution should include a statement reminding the courts that the only justification Chief John Marshall could cite for ruling on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress in Marbury v. Madison was the oath the justices took to support the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath and thus have the same authority to express opinions of the Constitution.

The voters provide the ultimate check on government. If one Congress acts contrary to what voters think is correct, they have the option of electing new members to correct the improper action. The House of Representatives is the closest to the people because each district is approximately equal in population and all are subject to replacement every two years.

Those challenging Obamacare in court could use such a Resolution to support their claims that the law is unconstitutional.

House members should consult with those challenging Obamacare for suggestions about what the Resolution should include. The following indicate some of the substantial constitutional problems with Obamacare.

Regulating individual behavior using the Interstate Commerce Clause sounds like a violation of the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. Congress could regulate the behavior of humans as elements of commerce when those humans were commodities to be bought and sold as slaves. Free citizens have the freedom to engage in interstate commerce or not engage in interstate commerce.

Requiring people to pay for health care by purchasing insurance violates their right to privacy in making health care decisions. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases has held that government cannot interfere in a person's right to make personal health care decisions. Requiring people to purchase insurance can force them to turn over health care decisions to an insurance company. Forcing them to turn money over to an insurance company instead of using it to pay for the type of health care they desire can deprive them of their right to choose health care options the insurance company doesn't support, such as plastic surgery, a sex change operation or treatment insurance companies considers "experimental".

Abortion supporters don't understand that Obamacare could eliminate abortion funding if health insurance companies considered late term or other abortions too costly or "risky". If the Interstate Commerce Clause can override the right to privacy on health insurance, then it can override the right to privacy on other health care decisions. This possibility may not be important for Obamacare opponents, but it is important to many Supreme Court justices.

Requiring people to purchase private health insurance violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the First Amendment. Some religions such as the Amish religion and Islam consider purchasing private insurance wrong. The Christian Science religion questions the use of medical doctors. Requiring members of these religions to purchase private health insurance deprives them of their right to practice their religion.

Exempting them from the requirement, creates a special benefit that amounts to a subsidy of their beliefs because they are allowed to keep more of their money for their own use, including donating it to their organization, than those who belong to other religious groups or don't belong to any religious group. Allowing members of some religions to spend money that members of other religions don't have to spend has the same impact as providing a direct government subsidy of the privileged religious groups. The First Amendment refers to government subsidy of a religion(s) as an "establishment of religion".

I have heard that the act creating Obamacare contains a provision that in effect states that if the Supreme Court finds any part of the act unconstitutional than the entire act would be invalid. Such a provision in and of itself would render the act unconstitutional because the provision would alter the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison invalidated an Act of Congress for a less significant attempt to alter the Court's power.

Such a provision would drastically alter the Court's Article 3 powers both expanding and restricting them. The provision would in effect grant the Court a stronger veto power than the President has because Congress could not override the Court's "veto". On the other hand the provision would dictate to the Court by removing the option of invalidating or modifying only those provisions in legislation that in the opinion of a majority of the Court violate some portion of the Constitution. The Constitution established the judicial branch to limit the ability of the government to control the lives of its citizens by limiting the circumstances under which the government could impose punishment. The judicial branch is not supposed to function as a super legislature.

The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance from private companies at rates set by those companies involves the transfer of the government's taxing authority to private companies which deprives voters of the ability to elect those who determine their taxes.

The Resolution should remind the Court that forcing people to purchase private health insurance is unnecessary to provide people with access to health care. Government can raise revenue to pay for health care with its taxation powers and then use that money to directly pay health care costs as it already does with Medicare and Medicaid.

The comparison of Obamacare to requirements for purchasing auto liability insurance is invalid. The auto liability insurance requirement is a requirement that those who engage in the dangerous activity of driving a motor vehicle prove they can compensate anyone who suffers a loss because of their mistakes while operating a motor vehicle. Many states allow motorists to fulfill this liability requirement by posting a bond rather than purchasing insurance.

Don't Cut Wall Street Bums' Taxes

The Wall Street bums who demanded bonuses for wrecking their companies and the U.S. economy, don't deserve a tax cut. Congress should even consider raising taxes on them and other members of upper income groups to replace the money that would otherwise be collected from those earning far less.

Republicans who argue that cutting taxes for the upper income group would allow small business owners to create new jobs, ignore the fact that most of those who make over $250,000 a year don't own small businesses. Executives of Wall Street and other large corporations aren't going to reinvest their money to expand their business. If they invest in stocks, it will be to bid up the prices of existing stocks.

Neither overpaid athletes nor entertainers.are likely to use their money to create jobs.

Congress can encourage small business owners to invest in new jobs without giving everyone else a tax cut. All Congress has to do is authorize small business owners to deduct investment in buildings and equipment immediately instead of requiring them to spread out the deduction over several years through depreciation.

Congress has already "rewarded" the Wall Street bums by giving them bonuses for wrecking their companies and the economy. It shouldn't reward them again by cutting their taxes.