Mike Huckabee Has A Strong Message For Republicans

Mike Huckabee

In his opening monologue this weekend, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told fellow Republicans to “grow a spine” when it comes to judicial activism.  Huckabee was referencing the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear petitions from five states where bans on same-sex marriage was overturned in the lower courts, including Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

On Sunday, a federal judge overturned a same-sex marriage ban in Alaska, a law that had been in place since 1998.  It had been the first law of its kind, according to CNN.

Huckabee stressed that his position on same-sex marriage is the same position President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden had until two years ago–“that it was inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.”

“I wonder sometimes, do we still teach civics in school? Are Americans, even elected officials, lawyers, and judges utterly ignorant about the structure of our government and how it functions?

“Well can I assume everyone knows that we’ve got three branches of government, and each are equal to the other? The founders took extraordinary measures to prevent too much power being grabbed by one person or group. The system they created, sometimes cumbersome; but it’s based on the longest used Constitution in human history.

“The Congress controls the purse or the money, the Executive branch controls the sword, and the Judicial branch watches over and offers opinions as to the Constitutional compliance of the other two.

“My friend Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel and Dean at the Liberty University School of Law points out in his outstanding book called Judicial Tyranny, and he says this and I quote: ‘The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the liberties of the minority against the majority. However, our constitutional makeup does not give the minority veto rights over the majority.  The major…political and social questions of our day has by constitutional design been given to the majority through the legislative process. Continually taking away the right of the majority to shape their culture will ultimately result in rebellion. To take away the right of the people to debate the question leads to an oligarchy, or government of the few, and it results in tyranny.’

“Well this week, the Supreme Court declined to take up cases from the court of appeals regarding same-sex marriage in a number of states where the people had already voted to affirm natural law marriage of a man and a woman. In these states, typically, a single robed judge decided that his opinion mattered more than the collective votes of the people themselves.

“The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, despite the confusion that exists due to its own Windsor decision last year which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Several governors and other elected officials reacted by saying, ‘Well, that’s it. That’s the final word.’ Horse apples. The Supreme Court is not the supreme being. Yes, it’s the highest court within one of the three branches of government, but it isn’t superior to the other two.

Pages: 1 2

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Huckabee Picks The Toughest And Most Important Fight

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Once and likely future presidential candidate Mike Huckabee may have been the last speaker at the recent “March for Marriage,” but what he had to say made the most lasting impression. For it was the winsome Huckabee, whom his detractors believe is “too nice” to take on the Left, who took on a fight even the boldest conservatives have shied away from for far too long.

“Judicial supremacy is a curse upon this great republic and is the greatest heresy of our time,” Huckabee said.

He went on to say that the executive and legislative branches are not required to impose every violation of “natural law,” no matter what “nine people in black robes” decree.

Regardless of whether you like or dislike the idea of Huckabee 2016, every single word he said is true. And until we take his words to heart and act upon them, we cannot undo the damage the cultural Marxists have done to our constitutional republic.

Imagine trying to win a war without dismantling your enemy’s most fearsome and effective weapon. The odds for ultimate victory would be slim, for every gain you make would be eradicated every time your adversary unleashed this weapon. Yet this is exactly what we’ve been trying to do against the Left for at least a generation.

Come now, let us reason together. We’re all friends here. Can we be honest with one another? Can we be the critical thinkers we claim to be? Good. Then I’d like to pose a few questions for us to ponder.

Despite the fact we’ve sold a lot of books and gotten a lot of people elected to office, how come our movement has almost no substantive domestic policy victories to speak of? How come the Reagan era was the zenith of our movement, and not its vanguard? How come we conquered statism in the Soviet Union, but have barely stunted its growth in our own country?

There are several uncomfortable answers to these questions, but undoubtedly one of them is certainly our unwillingness to confront the most potent weapon the Left uses against us over and over again. A weapon they have put in place so they could unravel the intent and foundation of our constitutional republic without risking the scrutiny of the voters. This way, they could impose “pretend laws” on a defenseless citizenry that would never see the light of the day if they had to pass lawfully.

I’m referring to judicial supremacy, which is really just a tyrannical oligarchy by another name. The federal judiciary has become America’s Politburo, where elites gather to impose pagan morality and anti-constitutional injustice on what’s supposed to be a free people. The notion that the judicial branch is superior to all the other branches flies in the face of what our Founding Fathers intended, and is one of the statists’ most pernicious lies.

Indeed, the framers explicitly said from the outset that this was not the intent of an independent judicial branch.

In “The Federalist No. 78,” Alexander Hamilton writes: “The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.”

Pages: 1 2

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

This Lawsuit Might Kill Obamacare Once And For All

On May 8th, oral arguments will take place in the D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals concerning the unconstitutional manner in which the Affordable Care Act was assembled and placed before Congress for passage.

According to the Origination Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

In 2009, the House passed a bill concerning proposed tax credits for members of the military who were first-time home buyers. The Senate took that Bill, removed ALL of the content, and substituted the nearly 3000 pages of the Affordable Care Act. According to Senate Democrat leaders, this was perfectly constitutional as the Affordable Care Act became an amendment to the original bill! Nonsense, of course, as this was thoroughly improper and unconstitutional. But the left was not about to miss something they had waited years for–an opportunity to place the activities and choices of 300 million Americans under the life and death control of the federal government.

However, case law goes directly against the obviously fraudulent shenanigans of the Senate by establishing that in order to be considered a “genuine amendment,” it must be “…germane to the subject matter of the House bill.” Clearly, the Affordable Care Act had nothing to do with the subject matter of the House bill.

Does the Affordable Care Act qualify as a “bill for raising revenue”? The Supreme Court certainly believes it does. In fact, according to its June 28th, 2012 ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, not only did the Court find ObamaCare’s individual mandate to be a tax rather than a penalty as claimed by Congress; the entire law passed the Court only because it WAS declared a tax. The government’s argument that the ACA was constitutional under the Commerce Clause was thrown out by the Court.

In the last 5 years, the Affordable Care Act was manufactured in a thoroughly unconstitutional way and passed muster before the Supreme Court only thanks to some of the most disgracefully, activist rewriting of a law in decades. Will the D.C. Circuit Court actually make its ruling according to case law and the clear language of the Constitution?

Don’t get your hopes up.

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

You Won’t Believe What The Government Did To This Woman Over A $6 Dollar Fine

When her husband died about a decade ago, Pennsylvanian Eileen Battisti was obviously distraught. One might imagine the furthest thing from her mind was taking care of an unpaid interest bill on her home.

In the interim, though, reports indicate she failed to pay the balance; and the house was auctioned off about three years ago.

While this would be a tragic, although unremarkable, case had Battisti ignored thousands of dollars in mounting debt, what makes her story noteworthy is the miniscule amount she actually owed.

She said she made every effort to pay the bills she knew about following her husband’s death and somehow missed the roughly $6 she owed in interest. Nevertheless, the local government claimed it provided sufficient notice of the past-due bill – which had grown to $235 at the time of the sale – and impending auction.

A county judge upheld that decision this week, allowing the sale to stand and dismissing Battisti’s appeal.

Judge Gus Kwidis wrote in his decision that there “is no doubt” Battisti “had actual receipt of the notification of the tax upset sale on July 7, 2011, and Aug. 16, 2011.”

He said a notice was sent via first-class mail – and not returned – informing her of the auction.

Few are arguing the county and judge are legally incorrect in their assertion. Based on the letter of the law, Beaver County Chief Solicitor Joe Askar stands by the ruling.

“The county never wants to see anybody lose their home,” he said, “but at the same time the tax sale law, the tax real estate law, doesn’t give a whole lot of room for error, either.”

He concluded that Battisti “had some hard times” following the death of her husband, who he said “kind of took care of a lot of that stuff.”

Having her home sold at auction only “made it set in a little more,” he noted.

Battisti contends that, for whatever reason, she was unaware of the bill.

“I paid everything,” she said, “and didn’t know about the $6.30. For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy.”

She plans to appeal the ruling in Commonwealth Court. If unsuccessful, she will receive the bulk of the $116,000 bid for the property at auction.

Local reports offer no indication of the home’s estimated market value.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

GOP Senators Block Obama’s Extremist Judicial Nominee

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of Goodwin Liu, Obama's extremist judicial nominee.

The Senate votes today against a motion by Senate Democrats to cut off debate on Goodwin Liu, a pro-abortion law professor President Barack Obama selected to become a judge on a federal appeal court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Liu’s nomination for the federal appeals court in the western United States in April on a 10-8 party line vote. Liu, a liberal University of California law professor, faced opposition from Republicans while getting support from each of the Democrats on the committee and Republican lawmakers have filibustered his nomination, calling him too extreme to be approved.

Today’s vote saw Senate Republicans uphold their filibuster 52-43 with Republican senators Lindsey Graham, Dick Lugar, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown all voting to stop the nomination from moving forward. Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined them while “pro-life Democrats” Bob Casey and Joe Manchin voted to allow the nomination of the abortion activist to move ahead.

Lisa Murkowski, a pro-abortion Republican, was the lone GOP vote for ending the filibuster.

During the debate leading up to the vote, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, a member of the committee, outlined his strong opposition, saying Liu has “activist judicial philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the principles on which our system of government is based.”

…As a law professor at Berkeley, Liu has spent the last few years lecturing about his disdain for the U.S. Constitution. “‘[S]trict construction,’” he wrote in the Stanford Law Review, “[doesn’t] make a lot of sense.

Meanwhile, Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, called Liu “the worst of Obama’s nominees at all levels of the federal courts.”

Obama picked Liu for the open federal appeals court seat a year ago, but Republican filibusters kept him from receiving approval in the full Senate — forcing Obama to renominate Liu this January. With Democrats controlling fewer seats now, at 53, they are seven short of the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster assuming no Democrats peel off and side with Republicans, which may not be the case for some moderates or those facing tough election battles in 2012.

Liu is a liberal abortion supporter who conservative legal guru Ed Whelan observed was so left-wing that former “White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel initially vetoed” his candidacy for the Ninth Circuit “on the ground that Liu’s left-wing record made him too controversial.” But Whelan says new White House counsel Robert Bauer “eager to please the Left, successfully pushed back.”

Read more.