Tag Archive: Constitutionality

Newtown School Panel To Include Proposed Gun Ban In Report




” An advisory panel charged with looking at public safety in the wake of the deadly Newtown school shooting agreed Friday to include in its final report a recommendation to ban the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading.

  The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, created by Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy in the wake of the 2012 school shooting, plans to complete its work next month. The report will include dozens of recommendations in three categories: law enforcement and emergency response; safe school design and operation; and mental health and wellness.

  In its interim report last March, the commission included the proposed gun ban, which is opposed by the gun lobby and manufacturers. It would go much further than a 2013 Connecticut law which, among other things, expanded the state’s assault weapons ban and barred the possession and sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

” Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide,” said former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, a member of the panel. “The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons.” “


Morning Journal












Arizona Legislators Join Florida In Effort To Virtually Nullify All Federal Gun Laws


Arizona SB1294


” The campaign to stop federal violations of the Second Amendment at the state and local level got two big boosts late last week with the introduction of the Second Amendment Preservation Act in Arizona and an important endorsement for a similar bill pending in Florida.

  Along with eight other sponsors, Arizona state Senator Kelli Ward introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act in the Grand Canyon State. SB1294 prohibits the state from enforcing “any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.”

“ We’ve sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the Constitution long enough,” Ward said. “We’re going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights.”

  The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot “commandeer” or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations – constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. The 1997 case, Printz v. US, serves as the modern cornerstone.”


” If you live in Arizona:  take action to support SB1294 HERE.

If you live in Florida: take action to support HB733 HERE.

All other other states: take action to get your state on board, and protect the 2nd Amendment HERE. “

You can read the bill here while the Tenth Amendment Center has more on the story .

    For more on the state’s efforts to rein in rampant Federal overreach check out the links below . There are movements and proposed legislation in nearly two dozen states in the works as of this writing with the express goal of reasserting our founding principles of State’s rights , limited government and strict adherence to our Constitution .

States may bind together to fight federal gun laws
Nullification: How States Are Making It a Felony to Enforce Federal Gun Laws
Missouri joins other states in attempt to nullify federal gun laws

Nullification : The Time Has Come



“All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Meet The Liberals Backing Obama’s Executive Power Play In Labor Board Case




” On Monday January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a major case testing the scope of presidential power.

  What is surprising, however, is that Obama has also received strong support from a leading liberal organization, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a Washington think tank and law firm “dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution’s text and history.”

  According to a friend of the court brief submitted by the Constitutional Accountability Center on behalf of the federal government in Noel Canning, “crabbed and erroneous interpretations of the Recess Appointments Clause would undermine the scope of a presidential power that is fundamental to the proper operation of the federal government: the President’s ability to make temporary appointments to Executive and Judicial Branch offices when the Senate is unavailable to provide its advice and consent.”

  That view is surprising because it stands in such marked contrast to previous progressive interpretations of the Recess Appointments Clause, most notably that of Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. In 2003, Kennedy filed his own friend of the court brief when the federal courts heard a similar case dealing with President Bush’s purported recess appointment of William H. Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, an appointment which Bush made while the Senate was on an intra-session break, not while it was in recess.”


Story continues 








Daily Video 10.4.13

Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare



Published on Oct 2, 2013

” “When this case first started in 2009 it was a laugher,” explains Josh Blackman, assistant professor at the South Texas College of Law and author of the new book Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare, which tells the inside story of the legal challenge surrounding President Obama’s signature law. “Fast forward two-and-a-half years and this argument gained steam and gained traction and started to be accepted by judges and some scholars. And then we go to the Supreme Court where five justices say that Congress can’t regulate inactivity and seven justices say that the federal government can’t coerce states into accepting Medicaid money. Holy cow!”

In the end, of course, the court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate by declaring it a tax, which critics believe effectively rewrote the legislation. Blackman believes Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion wrongly “upheld a law that Congress never wrote,” but he sees a clear indication that the “federalism revolution” of the Rehnquist court is still ongoing. “You now have the strong constitutional undercurrent in the people [via the Tea Party talking] about what the federal government can do, and you have the Supreme Court on record saying that there are certain things the government can and can’t do. This, actually, is not so bad for libertarians. This might be a good recognition that the Constitution has very strong libertarian principles embedded into it.”

Blackman sat down with Reason’s Damon Root to discuss Unprecedented, the case against Obamacare, and how he sees the remaining legal challenges against the health care law faring in court.

Produced by Meredith Bragg. Cameras by Todd Krainin and Bragg.

For links, downloadable versions, and more, visit… and subscribe to ReasonTV’s YouTube page to receive updates when new videos go live. “










Obamacare and the Unconstitutional Revolution




” Contrary to the complaints one hears from Rand Paul and other libertarians, the revolution has not occurred in foreign affairs and national security. Instead, Obama has dramatically changed the presidency by claiming the right to refuse enforcement of laws with which he disagrees.  This newest development only compounds Obama’s injury to the Constitution by refusing to enforce the immigration and welfare reform laws.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The framers included this provision to make sure that the president could not simply cancel legislation he didn’t like, as had the British king. Since the days of Machiavelli, through Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu to the Framers, executing the laws (along with protecting national security) has formed the very core of the executive power. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 75: “The execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate.”

Under this understanding of presidential power, President Obama may not refuse to carry out an act of Congress simply because of disagreement. The Framers gave the president only two tools to limit unwise laws.”


Read it all to see just how blatantly unconstitutional have been many of the current president’s actions . A Constitutional scholar Obama is not , all reports to the contrary not withstanding .








High Court To Hear Obama Recess Appointments Case



” The Supreme Court on Monday waded into a major constitutional clash between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans that could fundamentally limit a president’s use of recess appointments to fill high-level administration posts.

The justices will review a federal appeals court ruling that found Obama overstepped his authority when he bypassed the Senate last year to fill three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board.

At issue for the Supreme Court: What constitutes a congressional recess and does it matter when a vacancy occurs?

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., held earlier this year that recess appointments can be made only during the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. Two judges on the panel also ruled — for the first time — that a vacancy must occur while the Senate is away in order to be filled during the same break.”




Illustration by The Looking Spoon















” This article is part of a series on Guns in America that explores the use of firearms in our country and the debate over gun control.

Since the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, one of the major responses has been to increase restrictions on gun rights, presumably to reduce the probability that a mass shooting will take place.

But what if their proposed methods for doing so are unconstitutional? That’s the argument advanced by some experts on constitutional law, who argue that the landmark cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago protect against the most controversial ideas being proposed, such as an assault weapons ban. Moreover, even some renowned liberal experts on the same law law admit that the tools available to the government are limited.

Key questions in the debate are: Can the government ban assault weapons without violating the Constitution? If so, why? To answer these questions, TheBlaze spoke to legal authorities on both sides of the ideological divide, including some truly famous names within the realm of constitutional law. What we found may surprise you.

A Teaser To Pique Your Interest …

” On these grounds, at least one expert would toss out assault weapons bans entirely. That expert, Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law Center, explained his reasoning to theBlaze via phone:

“When you get down to specifics, I think some of the easier cases for finding unconstitutionality is the assault weapons ban, which bans a weapon in common use, which is the phrase that Heller used to describe the weapons that are protected by the Second Amendment,” Barnett told TheBlaze. “There’s hardly a weapon that’s in more common use than the AR-15 so-called assault weapon. I say so-called, because we all know this is a made-up category. They don’t fire any faster than a constitutionally protected handgun fires, and it’s typically less lethal than a handgun.” “

Read The Whole Thing











” The Supreme Court is staying out of the gun debate for now.

The justices on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a strict New York law that makes it difficult for residents to get a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court did not comment in turning away an appeal from five state residents and the Second Amendment Foundation. Their lawsuit also drew support from the National Rifle Association and 20 states.”







A Drone Strike Reality Check






” Ben Swann, in a special edition of Reality Check, gives us a full overview of drones, drone strikes and the Obama administration’s “kill list” and assassinations.”



  This post from the Freedom Outpost is a link-filled encyclopedia on Obama’s Drones . Explore the videos and links if you want to know what is going on in the world of targeted assassination .



Eric Holder: Drone Strikes Against Americans On U.S. Soil Are Legal



“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”


   That statement alone should be reason for firing Holder … where does the government get the notion that it can assassinate fellow Americans? Oh , yes , wait a minute … Janet Reno . That’s it , isn’t it , Waco and Ruby Ridge . Lon Horiuchi got away with assassinating an unarmed mother didn’t he ?

So the precedent has been set … again by those ACLU supported , civil rights champions of another Democratic Administration .



” Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.”










NY State Supreme Court: Gov. Cuomo Must Prove New Gun Laws are Constitutional



” Do New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s new draconian gun laws pass constitutional muster?

n the lawsuit, Tresmond challenges the constitutionality of the NY SAFE Act on the grounds that it violates not one’s Second Amendment rights, but one’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against government seizure of private property without “due process and just compensation.”

In an interview with the Utica Observer-Dispatch, Tresmond explained how his two plaintiffs, both gun owners who possess ‘assault’ weapons and ‘high’-capacity magazines will be forced to forfeit their property when the new laws take effect.

“If you can take somebody’s $20,000 gun or firearm without any compensation whatsoever, that’s criminal,” Tresmond added, noting that the case may be on its way to becoming a class action lawsuit. “



New Poll Finds 57 Percent of Americans Think Obama’s Assassination Program Is Unconstitutional



” A new Reason-Rupe poll finds that a majority of Americans think President Obama’s targeted killing program, which famously allowed the CIA to assassinate an American-born Muslim cleric living in Yemen as well has his American-born teenage son, to be unconstitutional.

When asked if they thought it was “constitutional or unconstitutional for the president of the United States to order the killing of American citizens who are suspected of being terrorists,” 57 percent of respondents said they thought it was unconstitutional, including 65 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents, and 44 percent of Democrats.

Thirty-one percent of respondents said it was constitutional for the president to kill Americans suspected of being terrorists, including 40 percent of Democrats, 27 percent of Republicans, and 28 percent of independents.”



And the Democrats call themselves the “Champions Of Civil Liberties” ? What a joke … a sick , sick joke .







Meacham On Drone Kills: Obama Acting Like ‘American King’

Jon Meachum



” Barack The First? Wow: who would have thought that perhaps the strongest statement yet in condemnation of President Obama’s self-arrogated right to kill Americans abroad would have come from Jon Meacham?  Yet on today’s Morning Joe, historian Meacham—who knows something about the use and abuse of presidential power—criticized Obama for ignoring the “rule of law” and actually described Obama as acting like “an American king.”

Joe Scarborough seconded Meacham’s surprising statement, adding that had this come to light under George W. Bush, impeachment would be in the air.” 

  Justice Antonin Scalia speaks out about the mandate .

  ” “You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can’t be a pig,” Scalia said. “What my dissent said … was simply that there is no way to regard this penalty as a tax. It simply does not bear that meaning. In order to save the constitutionality, you cannot give the text a meaning it will not bear.” “

  With all eyes on SCOTUS today we’ve deliberately remained silent . Not without opinion , but out of deference to the multitude of bloggers with legal backgrounds that can offer the public their expertise .

    We are from the business world and as such can offer only common sense and a historical kind of sense as to our understanding of the Constitution , the Founders and their ideas of liberty .

  That being said , our initial reaction to the Roberts Court’s finding was a feeling of being sold down the river . We are sorry to say that this post at Volokh Conspiracy merely serves to amplify the feeling that Roberts caved to media/political pressure .

   Tax , Commerce , who cares what you call it ? A Mandate is a Mandate . Where does that fact that the citizens can be forced to BUY something fit into the concept of individual liberty ?

” Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion “

  When your message sucks you blame the messenger …. Right ?

” The left has spent the last several weeks pre-impugning the integrity of the Supreme Court in advance of the epochal Obamacare decision. At the New Republic, Jonathan Cohn declared that the Court itself was “on trial.” Cohn warned that if the justices did not deliver his preferred verdict, the institution would forfeit its “legitimacy.”
At the Atlantic, James Fallows said (and then walked back) that a strike-down by the court would be a sign that America was undergoing a “coup.”  “