May 06, 2005

The States Still have the Power to Control their Federal Government
By Robert Greenslade © Nitwit Press

Since I began writing articles on the Constitution several years ago I have received numerous comments from readers across the country. While most of these comments have been interesting and thought provoking, more readers than I can count have made an assertion that has me perplexed. They believe articles on the Constitution are no longer relevant because the Civil War altered the system of government established by the Constitution and vested the federal government with jurisdiction over issues that were previously under State control. In the author's opinion, this assertion is just another urban myth because the Civil War did not alter the system of government established by the Constitution or divest the States of the power to control their federal government.

For those readers who believe the Civil War altered the Constitution and transferred power from the States to the federal government, consider the following: (Read the rest here)

Reconsidering the Patriot Act
by Congressman Ron Paul - R - TX

When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?

Congress is scheduled to review those sections this year, but there is little chance any portion of the Act will be allowed to lapse. If anything, many members of Congress are eager to expand federal police powers.

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us-- we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.” (Read the rest here)

Inquiry Into Trusts
By Ed Henry

As of April 26, 2005 , the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has taken a formal step that is bound to be stonewalled by the White House, but let’s hope it goes somewhere. It deals with the scam.

It’s a very short “Resolution of Inquiry” regarding the Social Security trust fund. It’s also called “H. Res. 170,” not to be confused with H.R. 170 that stands for House of Representatives bill number 170 and deals with a separate issue.

House Resolution 170 is very short. The wording is as follows: (Read the rest here)

Minuteman Project Is a Fraud
by Sheldon Richman

(See Editor's note after article.)

If people who make up the Minuteman Project really want to do something for their country, they should devote their energies to getting rid of the stifling welfare state. Aside from all the good that would do for citizens, it would also ensure that anyone coming here from a foreign country would be looking for something other than a handout coerced from the taxpayers.

But that’s not what the Minuteman Project is about. Instead, this “citizens’ neighborhood watch along our border” looks for foreigners who, by and large, are seeking better, more-productive lives for themselves and their children. The self-appointed American border guards inform the authorities when they find any. This strikes me as most out of keeping with the heritage of a country born in revolution, devoted to individual freedom, and skeptical of political power. The irony is that these Americans claim to be acting in the tradition of the original Minutemen, those brave early Americans who were always ready to engage the British forces during the struggle for independence. But this claim is bogus. (Read the rest here)

Your Feedback and Comments
The Mailbag for Friday

Libertarian Commentary on The News
By Nathan A. Barton © 2004

It's cloudy, cold and windy here in the desert today, so - since there's no word yet from Nathan - I'm going to comment on the news instead of working in the orchard as I had intended. As always, your comments are welcome. Just use the form at the bottom of the page and watch the mailbag for my response. MamaLiberty

Judge throws out England's guilty plea
Las Vegas Review-Journal

"A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, saying he was not convinced the Army reservist who appeared in some of the most notorious photos in the scandal knew her actions were wrong at the time. The mistrial marks a stunning turn in the case and sends it back to square one. The case will be reviewed again by Fort Hood's commander, Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, who will decide what charges, if any, England should face. If she is charged, the case would go back to a military equivalent of a grand jury hearing, an Article 32 proceeding, prosecution spokesman Capt. Cullen Sheppard said." (05/04/05)

Of all the insanity coming out of this situation, this has got to be about the worst. If this woman wasn't intelligent enough to know right from wrong, what was she doing in the military to begin with? The photos don't lie, I'm afraid. She knew perfectly well what she was doing, and enjoyed it. They seem to think they can just sweep this under the rug and nobody will notice. I sincerely hope they can't get away with it. (Read the rest here)

New At The Price of Liberty!
Liberty Bloggers We Know