Supreme Court Is NOT The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Constitution

SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution; the STATES hold that power. How does it make any sense that one part of the federal government holds the authority to determine the power of the whole?

It makes no sense; and as a matter of fact, James Madison told us that in no uncertain terms:

“…that the ultimate right of the States, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800

However, that is exactly what has happened with Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell. It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic–and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress. Interestingly, all you need to know about the King v. Burwell decision is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the majority opinion. Consider these words:

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”  (emphasis mine)

IF we were a democracy, as Roberts is asserting, this opinion would be absolutely correct–Obamacare would result from an absolutely lawful use of federal power, and we would have no real argument to make. However, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In a Constitutional Republic, the Legislature is NOT unlimited in its power and authority. Article 6, clause 2, The Supremacy Clause, makes it perfectly clear that there is a hierarchy to the federal system and that the Legislature is NOT on top; the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

When Roberts says, “But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done,” he is asserting that whenever the Legislature makes a law, we are bound by it without question. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Supremacy Clause, we have an obligation to undo what Congress has done if what they are doing is not “made in pursuance” to the Constitution.

Additionally, if the “Laws of the United States” are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, then they cannot legally exist. To allow Legislative Acts contrary to the Constitution to remain law would elevate the Congress ABOVE the Constitution, destroying the Constitution itself and transmuting the nature of our Republic into an Oligarchy.

There is no specific enumeration in the Constitution for the federal government to provide healthcare to the States or the people. There is only errant interpretation of clauses to justify such an exercise of power.

Because there is no specific enumeration for healthcare, the Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that healthcare is not a power to be exercised by the federal government.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (emphasis mine)

But what does Roberts use to justify this federal encroachment? Not a clause from the Constitution, but an opinion by the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison. How convenient that the Supreme Court can write opinions that declare themselves the ultimate rulers of the universe and then be allowed to credibly use those opinions to justify their emperor-like behavior! Ironically, the most important role of the Supreme Court is to make sure that the Congress acts within its Constitutional limitations. But since it is ridiculous to believe that any entity of power would act on its own to limit itself, our framers didn’t trust these federal employees with that task. They trusted the States.

Madison declares in 1789 that the STATES are to be the ultimate control against the expansion of federal power, the greatest opponents to the federal government necessary to preserve the Liberty of the people:

“The State legislatures will…be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.” House of Representatives 1789 (emphasis mine)

But, when the States REFUSE to live up to their obligations and allow any branch of the federal government to expand power and limit the people and the States, they are simply declaring that they believe we are not a Constitutional Republic, but instead a Federal Kingdom built of 50 colonies subject to the whim of the feds.

Justice Roberts told the States in the original PPAC opinion:

“We look to the States to defend the their prerogatives by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. The States are SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS. Sometimes they have to act like it.” (emphasis mine)

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the federal government is limited by specifically enumerated powers. It is time for the States to ACT like States, instead of cowering like colonies. It is time for the States to fulfill their obligation to be the SURE GUARDIANS OF THE PEOPLES’ LIBERTIES.

It is time to dethrone the Supreme Court. It is time to STAND for the Constitutional Republic and defy this theft of State Power and destruction of the Constitution.

Healthcare is NOT a specifically enumerated power delegated to the federal government. The exercise of that power is therefore contrary to the Constitution. According to the Supremacy Clause, any law by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution is NOT the law of the land. That makes the law null-and-void of any force. Since the Affordable Care Act is NO LAW AT ALL, when we REFUSE TO COMPLY we are not breaking the law…we are enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land, defending our Republic, and guarding our Liberty!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Congressional Appropriations Power And Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must recognize so-called same-sex “marriage,” does that mean that proponents of real marriage have only the remedy of a Constitutional Amendment to block the effects of such a decision? No! While some men and women of good will have claimed that an amendment to the federal Constitution is the only remedy available, they have not thought through the problems associated with such a strategy. History demonstrates that this strategy is only rarely successful. Only four Supreme Court decisions have ever been reversed by Constitutional Amendment since 1789. Moreover, Liberals, and faux conservatives who duck social issues, would love to send grassroots conservatives on a futile, wild goose chase in a multi-year pursuit of a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There is another way. Congress can immediately take action on a strategy to block the Obama Administration’s implementation of the Court’s decision through the use of riders to appropriations bills which will come before Congress this summer and fall.

Suggested by James Madison, both liberals and conservatives have successfully used this strategy to change public policy over the past 50 years. This approach is constitutional. It can be set in motion within days. And, if pursued by defenders of real marriage, this approach will require every 2016 congressional and presidential candidate to take a position on marriage.

The Appropriations power of Congress can and must be used to block implementation of unlawful rulings by out-of-control federal judges. Members of Congress would simply attach amendments to pending Appropriations bills later this summer to prevent the Obama Administration from implementing the pro-same sex marriage decision.

Does Congress have this power? Yes!

The Constitution provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law …”  Art. 1, Sect. 9.

James Madison noted: “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” Federalist 58. Every Appropriations bill consists of page after page of limitations, conditions, or prohibitions on how our federal tax dollars may be spent, if spent at all. Such money prohibitions which changed history include:

  • The Vietnam War ended with the 1975 cutoff of American military aid;
  • Medicaid funding of abortion on demand was banned via the Hyde Amendment in 1976;
  • Funds to assist anti-communists seeking to overthrow the Communist government in Angola in 1975-76 were prohibited;
  • The implementation of a published IRS ruling under President Jimmy Carter which compelled private, predominantly Christian schools to prove they were not discriminating on the basis of race in order to keep their tax-exempt status in 1979 was blocked by an Appropriations Amendment from former Congressman Robert Dornan (R-CA); and
  • Tax funds to assist Contra rebel groups in overthrowing the Nicaraguan government were blocked in 1982.

Some may question if it is “constitutional” to prohibit spending money to implement same-sex “marriage.” President Andrew Jackson answered that question in his 1832 veto message of the National Banking bill, where he noted: “[t]he authority of the Supreme Court must not … be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities.” President Jackson’s Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States; July 10, 1832.

The Supreme Court’s twisting of the Fourteenth Amendment–enacted after the shedding of blood of over a half a million Americans for equal rights for black Americans–into a mandate for same-sex “marriage”  must be challenged immediately and effectively. Many millions of Americans who voted to support and adhere to the millennia-old consensus on marriage must question the authority and judgment of the Court.

Past Justices did not always claim such sweeping infallibility. Referring to past controversial decisions of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969) commented in 1962 on the World War II Japanese internment cases that: “… the fact that the Court rules in a case like, Hirabayashi that a given program is constitutional, does not necessarily answer the question whether, in a broader sense, it actually is.” Earl Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N.Y.U. L. REV. 181, 193 (1962), Reprinted in, The Air Force Law Review, Vol. 60, 2007, pp 16-17.

Providentially, I was involved in the initiation of (i) the successful Hyde Amendment relating to abortion, and (ii) the Dornan Appropriations Amendment blocking Jimmy Carter’s efforts to put private schools under the thumb of the IRS, on pain of losing their tax-exempt status. The stories of these two efforts are instructive as to the power that Congress has to fix such problems.

In the Spring of 1976, a friend provided me with the results of a FOIA request showing the Department of Health Education and Welfare (now HHS) had paid for roughly 300,000 Medicaid abortions. As a private citizen, I went to the U.S. Capitol and requested a Page to have Representative Bob Bauman (R-MD) come off the House Floor and meet me at the Cloakroom door. (Bauman and I were both active in Young Americans for Freedom many years earlier.) I showed Congressman Bauman the FOIA documents and suggested that an amendment to the HEW Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of federal tax money for abortion would be in order. He said he knew a freshman Congressman who might be willing to offer the amendment cutting off all funding for elective abortions. That first-term member of Congress turned out to be Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL). The abortion funding restriction — widely known as the Hyde Amendment — has passed Congress every year since 1976.

As a legislative assistant to Congressman Dornan, I worked with the late Jack Clayton of the National Association of Evangelical Schools to devise an amendment to protect private schools by adding a rider to a Treasury appropriations bill prohibiting the use of any federal money to implement the IRS Ruling which had compelled mostly Christian schools to jump through bureaucratic hoops to demonstrate they were not discriminating to the satisfaction of a hostile IRS in order to keep their tax exempt status. This was not a partisan effort. Indeed, I worked with Missouri Democratic Senator Eagleton’s staff as Lutheran Missouri Synod church schools were particularly burdened by the IRS Ruling. Senator Eagleton made sure that the Senate approved the House-passed Dornan Amendment. That Amendment became part of the Treasury Appropriations bill and was signed into law, stopping the IRS crusade against Christian schools.

In April 1980, in Harris vs. McRae, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the Hyde Appropriations Amendment banning taxpayer paid abortions. In 1981, during a break in a Conference Committee meeting held in the Capitol building, I was conferring with my boss, Mr. Dornan, when liberal New York Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel, who supported legal abortion and abortion funding, came over to talk with us about that decision. Rangel told us that Congress could never give up the “power of the purse.” He said: “You know, we differ on abortion. But if the Supreme Court had said that they were going to tell us how to spend our (i.e., taxpayer) money, I would have put in court-stripping bills faster than you could!” I remember Rangel pressing his finger on Dornan’s chest as he spoke, in a firm but friendly manner.

The appropriations amendments which will be required to blunt the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision mandating recognition of same-sex marriage must prohibit the use of monies or fees administered by an executive agency, judicial agency or court, or presidential executive order, directive, or guideline or similar agency action to implement any aspect of the ruling in the Supreme Court marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, to prevent the following:

  • Removing the tax exempt status of any church, institution, university, school, or non-profit entity declining to facilitate or participate in same-sex “marriage”;
  • Requiring any federal contractor or grantee to accommodate same-sex “marriage”;
  • Disciplining or fining any person who declines to participate in a same-sex “marriage”;
  • Requiring federal employees to undergo sexual attitude restructuring education to ensure their acceptance or accommodation of same-sex “marriage”;
  • Withholding any federal grant or contract money to any state, territory, or possession declining to implement same-sex “marriage” in schools or other agencies of state government;
  • Withholding federal money from any state, territory, or possession which does not change state, etc. legal codes to accommodate same-sex “marriage”;
  • Allowing federal courts to hear challenges to any state or federal law affirming that marriage is only a relationship between one man and one woman. (See Article III Power to Curb Federal Court Jurisdiction.)

An appropriations bill is much easier to pass than a normal bill. Because funding bills are necessary to keep the government open, they must be considered and passed yearly. Other bills can be buried in committee, but appropriations bills cannot be ignored.

If our Republican House of Representatives and our Republican Senate place an appropriations rider on all spending bills stating “no funds appropriated hereunder may be used to implement the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell,” it would not undo or reverse the Supreme Court’s same-sex “marriage” decision. However, it would make Obergefell a decision that was never enforced at the federal level.

If Congress wanted to get creative, and send a message to a Supreme Court that had usurped Congress’ and the states’ role to decide policy, it could also consider an appropriations amendment to limit the number of clerks assigned to each Supreme Court Justice to a single clerk. If the Justices have so much time on their hands that they can attempt to defy the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, they may become more circumspect in crusading for the liberal agenda. (I actually had such an amendment drafted for Congressman Dornan while the Harris v. McRae case was pending. Had the Hyde Amendment been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congressman Dornan intended to offer that amendment.)

It is most crucial that citizens upholding one man, one woman marriage make it immediately clear that they expect their Members of Congress to support anti-same-sex marriage appropriations riders, and to secure record votes to show the public how they voted on the specific question. To avoid taking a stand with a recorded vote, Members of Congress might try to lump all the appropriations bills into one “Continuing Resolution.” (A continuing resolution is a measure which generally funds the entire federal government in one appropriations bill utilizing spending conditions from previous years but with different spending amounts.)

Should the Republican leadership decline to take separate votes on individual appropriations bills to protect marriage, then the leadership should be removed for abandoning their stated policy beliefs as contained in the 2012 Republican Platform: “The union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard.”

In April 2013, the leaders of thirteen social conservative organizations wrote to Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus, challenging the conclusions of a RNC report which concluded that the Reagan Coalition embracing social issue conservatives was a political relic and should be abandoned. The conservative leaders told Priebus: “We respectfully warn GOP leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents ….”

Incumbent Members of Congress who fail to amend appropriations bills to protect natural marriage need to face primary opponents who will amend appropriations bills. We must ensure that protection of marriage becomes a necessary condition for receiving our votes in the 2016 elections and beyond.

No Congressman or Senator should be given a pass or be excused if they claim that the House or Senate Rules must prevent record votes. There are procedures to ensure record votes are taken. For example, in the House, only 25 members are needed to call for a record vote on an amendment to an appropriations bill.

The risk of permanent damage to individuals, our institutions, and our nation is too great to allow those who represent “We the People” to duck accountability for defending marriage as it has been understood for millennia. Failure on our part to demand that our representatives use all legal powers they have means we are giving up the fight, which would make us partially responsible for the evils that will ensue.

_____________________

Virginia Delegate Robert G. (“Bob”) Marshall is a senior member of the Virginia House of Delegates, currently serving his 12th term. First elected in 1991, he has consistently addressed a wide range of policy concerns including fiscal and social as well as civil liberty issues. Marshall is the co-author of the 2006 voter-approved traditional Marriage Amendment to the Constitution of Virginia. He is also the author of 2012 statute preventing Virginia from assisting the federal government in the arrest and detention of American citizens without trial, presentment of charges, or representation by counsel of alleged violations of federal security laws, and the author of a 2015 law requiring Virginia law enforcement to secure a warrant to track cell phone or computer identification and location data. Marshall has been married to his wife Cathy for 39 years; they have five children and five grandchildren. He can be reached at delegatebob@gmail.com.

This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” Please support this important work with a contribution to the U.S. Justice Foundation. Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Conservative Lawmakers Went Against Boehner Last Week; Now He’s Taking This Revenge

House Speaker John Boehner continues to punish GOP members of Congress who break ranks.

Last week, 34 conservative Republicans voted against a procedural rule that would have advanced the vote on Trade Promotion Authority. President Obama has sought to re-establish so-called “fast-track” negotiation authority, which requires Congress to approve or disapprove a trade deal within a certain time frame, without amendments. The move is seen as critical for the approval of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement later this year.

Today, Congress voted to grant that authority to the president for another six years.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., was among the 34 who voted against the procedural rule last week. He was chairman of the Government Operations subcommittee; however, after the vote, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, gave Meadows the option of resigning his position or being fired.

Boehner when questioned about the move said: “I think the chairman made the right decision.” He added: “I made it clear to the members I supported that decision and I don’t think I need to say a whole lot more. But I’m sure the family conversation will continue.”

“In the wake of the procedural vote on Trade Promotion Authority, Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Steve Pearce of New Mexico were removed from the GOP whip team. The members each defied House Republican leadership in voting against the deal,” according to the Daily Signal.

“[The speaker] signaled he has no plans ease up on lawmakers who stray on key votes,” the Washington Examiner reported. “We have a majority and when it comes to procedural votes in the House, the majority has to stick together and vote for…those procedural motions,” he said.

Boehner used the same word choice of having a “family conversation” after Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, David Schweikert of Arizona, and Walter Jones of North Carolina were kicked off their committees after they didn’t vote for him to be speaker during the 113th Congress.

The Daily Signal reports that this session, “Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent, both of Florida, were removed from the powerful Rules Committee after voting for other members during the speaker election in January.”

With regards to Nugent, “Campaign checks from corporate political action committees have all but dried up. GOP leaders have prohibited him from traveling on congressional trips overseas. Bills that Nugent has written have been snatched away and doled out to other members of the House Republican Conference,” according to Politico.

The House Freedom Caucus (made up of between 30 and 40 conservative lawmakers) met Tuesday night to discuss Meadows’ removal from his chairmanship. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, its chairman, recounted: “We had a good discussion. I’ll leave it at that,” regarding the House GOP leadership’s tactics.

The Freedom Caucus could make life difficult for Boehner when he seeks to move legislation that requires strong Republican support.

Meadows, who is a member of the caucus, said regarding his removal: “There is no honor in bowing to a bully.” He added: “There is only honor in fighting a good fight—win or lose. This is not a fight I will back down from.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Scary: Top Obama Advisor Just Admitted How Barack Is Trying To Get MORE Power

In a recent op-ed, a former advisor to President Obama warned that Congress’ rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by virtue of failing to get the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to the White House would “neuter” the presidency for the rest of the president’s term.

Writing in The Washington Post Sunday, Larry Summers, who served as treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and as director of the White House National Economic Council under Obama, warned of a potential crisis should TPP not be enacted.

“The repudiation of the TPP would neuter the U.S. presidency for the next 19 months. It would reinforce global concerns that the vicissitudes of domestic politics are increasingly rendering the United States a less reliable ally,” Summers wrote.

Along with the president, TPA and TPP has been championed by House Ways and Means chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who asserted on Bloomberg recently there are provisions in the bill that will allow Congress more oversight over the executive.

There’s a perception that the President will abuse the rules like he does on everything else, but we wrote this so much in a different way so that the President really can’t abuse the rules, so that there’s more transparency, so that we can see the text that’s being negotiated, so the country gets to see what these trade agreements are all about, and Congress sets what the parameters are.

Congress says what needs to be in a trade agreement and, more importantly, what cannot be in the trade agreement, and Congress reserves the final power to decide whether or not we enter into a trade agreement with another country or not.

But as Breitbart’s Alex Swoyer points out, Ryan’s argument isn’t accurate. “…Ryan is incorrect in his primary argument about TPA giving Congress more power over Obama’s trade agreements. Summers is saying, essentially, that without TPA (among Obama’s other trade agreements) the U.S. president would lose power over international negotiations,” the reporter noted.

Even though TPA was passed Friday, a renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, required to pass for TPA to reach Obama’s desk, was rejected.

After a second vote on TAA was thought to take place Tuesday, the House Rules Committee extended its deadline to July 30, Roll Call reported. The date is right before Congress goes on its month-long recess.

h/t: Breitbart

Are you sick of big government? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Like Obama’s Executive Orders? Then You Will LOVE TPA!

How have presidential executive orders worked out for us, lately? Can you imagine this power in the hands of this president expanded to INTERNATIONAL rules and regulations? Congress wants to do just that: expand presidential EOs into INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS. That is exactly what TPA is all about, international executive orders. Since the “experts” don’t seem to want to connect the dots, let me show you how this really works.

TPA is an authority granted to the president to engage in “executive agreements” with foreign countries. What is that actually? Well, simply put, it is the power of Executive Orders for international agreements.

“Executive agreements” are not the same as treaties, the “experts” claim, because they do not carry “Constitutional authority.” However, the “experts” will tell you that even though they do not carry the power of Constitutional law, they carry the power of International law.

The “experts” claim that because executive agreements are NOT treaties, the States are not bound by them per Constitutional law. The experts fail to mention that these agreements are binding upon the executive branch and anyone considered a “party” to the executive agreement.

The “experts” also claim that these executive agreements do not represent unlimited power because they are not “lawful” unless Congress approves them. They neglect to tell us that this approval is one of a simple majority; there is no chance for a filibuster and no authority for Congress to make any amendments to these executive agreements.

The “experts” also tell us that these executive agreements do not expand presidential power. After all, they say, nearly every president since Roosevelt has had the authority of these executive agreements. They also neglect to mention that there is absolutely NO Constitutional authority for executive agreements.

The final claim is that trade agreements will stop without these executive agreements, that the office of the president cannot possibly negotiate with foreign countries unless we authorize this expanded power. This ignores the fact that international trade existed long before TPA.

HELLO AMERICA! Do we hear what they are saying??? These are the SAME things we are told about Executive Orders here in the US.

Executive Orders are not the same as law.

EOs are not binding on the States and the people, only executive agencies. But these executive agencies, via EOs, ARE controlling the people and robbing us of our Property, our Liberty, and our livelihoods.

EOs are not expansions of presidential power because every president has written executive orders. (This premise ignores the fact that although all presidents used executive orders, only modern presidents used them in conjunction with unconstitutional executive agencies.)

Although EOs cannot be amended by Congress, they can be stopped by Congress with a simple majority vote under Art. 1 sec. 7.

EOs, we are told, are necessary for proper and efficient operation of the executive agencies. Without EOs, the government would shut down.

When has an EO ever been overturned by Congress? When was the last time Congress exercised any significant limitation upon presidential power? And NOW they want to expand that power to include international executive orders, binding upon the same executive agencies that already drive us into complete servitude.

Do you want the UN Arms Treaty? Of course not. With TPA, the president won’t have to sign the UN Small Arms Treaty; he can make an international trade agreement dealing with small arms that will bind all the executive agencies in the US to the SAME rules and regulations as the UN Arms Treaty.

The same would work for the UN Land Sea Treaty. Obama just will have to make an international executive agreement. This executive agreement will bind executive agencies. PRESTO! International environmental controls? NO PROBLEM. International gun standards? NO PROBLEM! International standards of law? NO PROBLEM!

TPA will allow the president to have the power of treaties without the fuss of proper checks and balances…just like Executive Orders.

It is absolutely mind-boggling how people much smarter than me aren’t talking about this truth. Why are Cruz, Walker,  and the ‘libertarian’ Cato Institute joining with Obama, McConnell, and Boehner to push these International Executive Orders? I don’t have the answer for that. But it is clear that TPA is not a specifically enumerated power. TPA is not necessary for trade. And, we have a current example of this kind of power being used; and it has NEVER preserved Liberty.

TPA will do the same thing already accomplished by EOs to Americans–and will expand that to international standards and control. How can we possibly think that will work out well for us?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth