Category Archives: U.S. Constitution

Balanced Budgets and Reality — Obama Advised to come up with a Plan B

I support a balanced budget amendment but it will never happen.

The last time that such an amendment got to the floor the senate, with a Republican majority, were unable to get the votes.

The U.S. actually started life with a balanced budget requirement AND term limits. Both were such a disaster that they were thrown out when America went from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution.

The most recent Republican proposal for a balanced budget amendment is a non-starter too. It exempts military expenditures during time of conflict. Any conflict. Since the War Powers Act was passed in the early 1970s we have not gone a whole 12 months without conflict somewhere.

For a balanced budget amendment to be taken seriously there must be no loopholes or black pits (like endless conflict and war). If you want it then it must be paid for, and raising taxes automatically to pay for any bill that is overdue needs to be in the package.

Of course it will also take 3/4s of the states to pass such an amendment and they have 7 years to dawdle. Most states know balanced budgets are almost impossible — good only for political theatre.

Conservatives are now telling Obama that he needs a Plan B if he doesn’t want to see the government run out of money. Plan B seems to be ‘you endorse/propose a balanced budget amendment that meets our requirements and we’ll make a deal’.

Unless the Republicans come up with something other than what they proposed earlier this year then Obama should hand the House Republicans back the loaded gun with only one bullet in it and say: Here, you use it. You are the House. You do what you’ve got to do. I’ll consider signing it after you debate it and take a by name vote on it.

1 Comment

Filed under American History, Democratic Party, Economics, Election 2012, Republican Party, U.S. Constitution

U.S. Attempts To Block Constitutional Challenge to States’ Challenge of Health Care Reform Law

By Bill Golden
JeffersonConservative.com

The Obama administration has now adopted a strategy of trying to preempt court consideration of the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act by arguing that states have no legal basis or standing to challenge the Health Care Reform Act.

A secondary Obama administration argument is that Congress has the power to regulate interstate trade and that authority is enough by itself to make the measure constitutional.

The Obama administration challenge is officially being made by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, now known as ‘Virginia v. Sebelius‘.

Virginia is being made the test case to see if the federal strategy will work. Virginia must respond by June 7th to the federal challenge.

Federal attorneys argue that individuals, not the state, are affected by the requirement to buy health insurance, meaning that the state has no standing to sue over the issue.

CHALLENGE: The Health Care Reform Act forces both individuals to buy something that they did not previously have to (5th Amendment protection – you do not lose rights just because they are not specifically listed in the Constitution; in this case you and I have a right to not buy health care insurance) and the new law forces states to increase their financial support and thus to increase taxes for delivery of medical services (health care high risk pools, medicare, etc.).

Actions by the federal government that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner violate the due process of the fifth amendment. “Discrimination” in this sense is that the Health Care Reform Act forces some individuals, but not others,  to purchase health insurance.

A counter argument is that all Americans are required to purchase health insurance, but receive an exemption if they can prove that they purchased a policy personally or through their employer.

A reasoned position by Virginia is that it is representing the collective rights of its citizens in both cases, by protecting both their individual rights and the phantom requirement to increase state taxes in order to provide additional non-federally funded medical services.

Learn more by googling: Virginia v. Sebelius and Fifth Amendment Due Process


Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.’

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Care, U.S. Constitution

Arizona and the Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

by Bill Golden
JeffersonConservatives.com and Bill4DogCatcher.com

A permanent resident alien is entitled to constitutional protection, and specifically the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For all Americans, knowledge of the U.S. Constitution is important — probable cause, reasonable suspicion, search and seizure all have highly defined meanings.

Below are two important constitutional challenges that are relevant to Arizona’s recently passed law SB1070:

Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32-4 (1982):
‘[O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly.’ Bottomline: Legal aliens (immigrants) have full protection of the U.S. Constitution.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 392 U.S. 1 (1968):
As for how reasonable suspicion plays a role in checking someone’s identification, the courts acknowledges that this is a tricky area of law. However, the bottom line is that the police are ultimately held to an objective justification reviewable by the courts.

“It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs “seizures” of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime – “arrests” in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person. … This Court has held in [392 U.S. 1, 18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. … The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [392 U.S. 1, 22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate?”


The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants.

The 4th Amendment reads like this:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4th Amendment requires that in order for a government official, such as a police officer, to search a person’s home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, he must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.

In order for a warrant to be issued, someone must affirm to the judge that he has a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, he believes he will find evidence that will verify the crime. The person submitting this information to the judge is usually a police officer. The police officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone’s private property will yield evidence of the crime.

The judge then reviews the information and if he also believes that the information the officer has submitted shows probable cause, he will issue the warrant. In order for the warrant to be good, it must identify the place and the particular items or persons that are to be seized if they are found. A warrant is not a general order that can be used to search for anything, anywhere the officer wants. It is very specific about what is being looked for and where the officer can look for it.

Learn more about Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Learn more about the Fourth Amendment via Google

Leave a Comment

Filed under U.S. Constitution