About Me

My photo
United States
I despise the left wing liberal attempts to change America. I support FREEDOM, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, religious freedom and protecting the rights of Americans, including the unborn. Close the border, round up illegals and send them home. Welcome them back with a green card. I believe in preserving the visions of our founding fathers which did not include Socialism or Sharia Law. This IS STILL America.....at least for now.

Friday, April 10, 2009

H. R. 450, Protects Our Constitution


This is a MUST SEE VIDEO!

For the first time in a very long time, I am excited about a pending piece of legislation. It seems at every turn our Constitution is cast aside by majority votes. Just because the majority votes, does not make it legal or constitutional.

As I understand this bill H. R. 450, if it is passed all bills will require a statement showing where in the Constitution it is legal.

Now this is a shining example of what should be a non-partisan bill. The Constitution protects all of the freedoms we have as Americans. It seems we have cast aside our Constitution to function more as a Democracy than a Republic.

The United States is NOT a Democracy. It is a Republic. Do you know the difference?

What I do know...is that as a Democracy, if the majority votes to take away all of our freedom....we lose. As a Republic it could never even come up for a vote. As a Republic all laws must be in line with our Consitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our FREEDOM!.

If you do not know the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, please google it and enlighten yourself. You can thank me after you write your congressmen asking them to co-sponsor and support H. R. 450.

Act forces Congress' return to limited government
Legislator to colleagues: 'Your laws not authorized by Constitution'



To locate your representatives:

Find Your Congressmen

It only takes a minute to email them. What a small price to pay to protect our Constitution.

6 comments:

  1. Here's the thing...this bill doesn't say anything about the statement being accurate. It just says that every bill has to have a concise statement in it stating its constitutionality. There's no mention of any kind of enforcement or any kind of process whereby a bill wouldn't come up for vote because it didn't meet a standard. The bill has no teeth. It seems kind of pointless.

    Moreover, there's nothing in our Constitution that says an unconstitutional law shouldn't come up for a vote. The legislature can pass whatever laws they want. It's up to the judicial system to nullify laws that aren't Constitutional. It's good for the legislature to not waste our time with laws they know are unconstitutional, but there is a system in place to deal with the case where they do. No matter how liberal or conservative a legislature is, they cannot create laws that will stick and don't fit into the framework of the constitution.

    There is a system in place to ensure Constitutionality of laws. Putting a statement into a bill isn't going to make that system work better or worse. This smells like a political stunt, honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tell me that when H. R. 1444 is put into place and you are serving the government without volunteering to do so. H. R. 144, if implemented is in direct VIOLATION of Amendment 13 of our Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's my whole point, though. Put aside whether HR 1444 is going to force you into serving the government (forming a committee to look into whether people should be required to serve is not the same thing as requiring people to serve). Suppose that it will unconstitutionally force people to serve the government. Right now the process would go like this: Congress passes the law, President signs the law, law gets legally challenged and overturned in court as unconstitutional.

    With H.R. 450, how would the process be any different? Those in favor of the bill are in favor of the bill believing it it Constitutional. They know that it's a waste of time and effort to pass something that clearly is not. So they find a legal opinion that says it's Constitutional, and they put it into the bill as required by HR 450. Now what? They have met the standards, so the bill passes, the president signs it, and the judicial system overturns it. It's the way our government works. It's why you don't have to fear an ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative government quite so much. Checks and balances.

    I don't think the sentiment of not wanting to be forced to volunteer for stuff is wrong. I think it would be good for people to serve their fellow humans more, but it needn't be federally mandated. At the same time, HR 450 doesn't do anything other than help one party seem like they're trying to prevent the other party from trampling all over the Constitution (which, by inference, makes the other party look like they're trying to trample all over the Constitution).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't see it as a partisan bill. It is something ALL lawmakers need to consider when creating legislation of any kind.

    Right now, I feel like it is a necessary thing to have in place....otherwise....I think this country might as well tear up the constitution and throw it in the garbage.

    If lawmakers have to consider....and it is made public the point of it being consitutional they might think a little more.

    We are moving toward socialism at warp speed. There is no question that a lot of what this administration is doing is cause. Bush played a roll in this too....by laying the foundation for the national healthcare database and the "Black Widow".

    I have already been told that all three of our Drs.....GYN, family doctor and pediatrician are all going to leave medicine because of the database and the conscience clause. You tell me where it in the constitution that the federal government has a right to my medical records? That is a violation of my privacy.

    Volunteerism is a good thing. I volunteer and I always will. Nobody....BUT NOBODY is going to tell me when and where and how often I volunteer. That is my decision, this is my life. The government is getting too big. Intruding into our private lives....and allowing the United Nations to do the same.

    Anything we CAN do to move us back toward the constitution is a good thing. No matter how you look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One needs to safe guard our Constitution at all costs and to "verify" that all legislation is done in "accordance" with the Foundation of the Constitutiom and if HR450 would help this,then I pray for its passage. With all that has been passed and made into law that is in direct Violation of the Constitution, IMO, something needs to be in place for "true checks and balances" if not more of our Constitutional rights will be removed, and then it will be too late to do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is from WND:

    Act forces Congress' return to limited government
    Legislator to colleagues: 'Your laws not authorized by Constitution'

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: April 09, 2009
    11:00 pm Eastern


    By Chelsea Schilling
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily





    As a reminder of the federal government's limited powers, 20 representatives want to ensure that every single piece of legislation passing through Congress includes a statement citing specific constitutional authority for enacting it.

    Sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., H.R. 450, or the Enumerated Powers Act, states, "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. …"

    When he introduced the proposal Jan. 9, Shadegg gave a House floor speech reminding his colleagues of limited authority granted in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    It states, "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."

    Stand up for the Supreme Law of the Land and shock your fellow citizens into thinking with WND's "Legalize the Constitution!" magnetic bumper sticker.

    "What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people," Shadegg said. "As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers."

    For that reason, Shadegg said he has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he's been in Congress.

    "This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government," he said. "… It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that were reserved to them by the Constitution."

    Shadegg said the act would perform three important functions:

    1. It would encourage members of Congress to consider whether their proposed legislation belongs in the federal level in the allocation of powers or whether it belongs with the states or the people.

    2. It would force lawmakers to include statements explaining by what authority they are acting.

    3. It would give the U.S. Supreme Court the ability to scrutinize constitutional justification for every piece of legislation. If the justification does not hold up, the courts and the people could hold Congress accountable and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the Constitution.


    John Shadegg, R-Ariz.


    He said the Founding Fathers granted specific, limited powers to the national government to protect the people's freedom.

    "As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18 powers," Shadegg noted.

    Beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, he said, Congress has ignored the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded federal government.

    "Let me be clear," he said. "Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned. But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well."

    While many believe government "can do anything," that is not what the Founding Fathers intended for the nation, Shadegg contends.

    WND columnist Henry Lamb has been urging voters to contact representatives and ask directly if they will co-sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, or explain why not – in writing.



    "Nothing short of massive public pressure will force congressmen to take a position on this important bill." Lamb wrote. "Nothing short of a return to the Constitution can save this great nation."

    Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairs the House Rules Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee – where the act was referred Jan. 9 and remains today.

    Shadegg said the federal government has acted too long without constitutional restraint and has blatantly ignored principles of federalism.

    He urged his colleagues to join him in "supporting a review and a criticism and an evaluation of the proper role of the Federal Government in order to empower the American people and to distribute power as the Constitution contemplated it."

    ReplyDelete