Today we have power grabs and new laws established with bailouts and takeovers in the private sector with only one potential backdrop to protect the citizens from the unconstitutional actions of politicians – the Supreme Court.

Each branch of government has a duty, an obligation to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution and each elected official or appointment takes an oath to do so. When the executive and legislative branches overstep their legitimate, Constitutional boundaries, it’s the judicial branch of government that can stop them.

If the Supreme Court of the United States fails to say “no” when the other two branches of government don’t abide by the Constitution nothing can stop the levy of tax, no imposition of a mandate, no regulation instituted or no industry in the private sector that can’t be taken over by the government.

What remains if the Supreme Court will not say “no” is the American voting citizen who can, through a very slow process, begin to remove and replace members of Congress and the president within the election process. When lifetime appointees like the Supreme Court justices, who are unelected, refuse to say “no” and refuse to uphold the Constitution the promise to defend, it will take a very long time to reverse the damage.

The United States Constitution is the litmus test that should be the sole determinant in deciding rule of law not judicial precedent. Rubber stamping tyrannical actions by the government by saying “yes” to anything is exactly why liberal judges, activist judges past and present must be stopped or they will destroy the future of the United States of America.

Today’s Progressives hold the Commerce Clause near and dear, an endless source of government power. Progressive would like nothing more than to stretch the Commerce Clause to justify “individual mandates” requiring every man, women and child to buy health insurance. This is but one example of how government uses the Constitution to manipulate the law and deny freedom to American citizens.

What Progressives call a “living Constitution” would tell us that our precious document changes and evolves over time creating new rights and entitlements making the false argument that new times and circumstances demand a different interpretation of the Constitution.

Judges should not rely on past precedence but should read, study and follow the Constitution and rely on that document that say what the federal government can and cannot do. Following years and years of precedent is basing a decision not on Constitutional limits but by tortured reasoning that lead to more and more regulation and less freedom and individuality.

American citizens do not want their country to be reinvented, expanded and transformed by a so-called “living” Constitution. American’s rightfully are demanding a return to constitutional, limited government. The political class in Washington D.C. is not listening; they are ignoring the will of the people on a daily basis.

Progressives can’t have our Constitution, the can’t burn our Constitution. WE WILL STOP THEM, INDEED!

Join the Discussion or comment below

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

I’m not in favor of private sector business breaking the law nor am I in favor of politicians doing the same. The Democrats and Obama favor regulation that will lead them to their promised land of government control over private business.

Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Barney Frank (D-MA) have now completed their House and Senate versions of financial regulation that Barack Obama wants on his desk by Independence Day. How appropriate, lose more independence on the day we celebrate what is now become fleeting liberty and independence.

A 2,000-page monstrosity, the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill is short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact. This law is going to be continually rewritten by federal bureaucrats for years to come.

Here is a small breakdown of the faulty Dodd-Frank financial industry takeover:

Permanent Bailout Authority: Dodd-Frank creates an “orderly liquidation” process empowering regulators to seize financial institutions they deem failing. The bill allows regulators to takeover and sell off a private business without judicial review. Seizing private property doesn’t pass the Constitutional smell test.

Trusting the Same Regulators that Failed Last Time: Dodd-Frank establishes a new 10-member Financial Stability Oversight Council composed of regulators that would be responsible for monitoring and addressing system-wide risks to the financial system. This group will have unlimited powers to draft financial firms into the regulatory system and even force them to sell off or close pieces of themselves.

Brand New Innovation Killing Regulators: Dodd-Frank establishes a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with broad powers to regulate the financial products and services that can be offered to consumers.

Micromanaging the Market: Dodd-Frank creates a form of the “Volcker rule” which would largely prohibit any bank or other institution with FDIC-insured deposits from undertaking proprietary trading or from owning or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds.

Fannie and Freddie Forever: Dodd-Frank does nothing to address Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac both government pets who have received much of the Federal bailout money. Both government sponsored failures are now in receivership and played an enormous part in the housing bubble, despite complete denial by Dodd and Frank.

As someone who donated to Scott Brown’s campaign to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts he has been on record as cutting a deal to help his state institutions with language that may exempt them from some of this mess. I call it a vote for a favor and screw the rest of the nation. I also wrote and called the Brown reelection offices to call out previous votes for stimulus money and the so-called jobs bill as disingenuous.

However, Brown is now reconsidering his original vote in favor of the measure. Scott released a statement explaining:

“My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Had Brown not figured this out before his initial vote? Are other Republicans on board with this mess? Where are the erstwhile Maine “RINO” twins Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins?

This bill will retard economic growth,  cost taxpayers billions and further retard job growth. Pick your poison but any member of the GOP cutting a side deal for this enormously flawed legislation is beyond a RINO and should never confuse themselves as Conservative.

The devil is in the details and drilling down into Dodd-Frank and voting for it is climbing in bed with the Devil. Indeed!

Join the Discussion or comment below

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

As the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan got underway at 12:30, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), lost no time getting to the heart of the concerns that are raised by Elena Kagan’s nomination by Barack Obama to the Supreme Court:

• Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least fifty years. It’s not just that she has never been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which real understanding occurs. Ms. Kagan has never tried a case before a jury. She argued her first appellate case just nine months ago. While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of years…

• What Ms. Kagan’s public record does reveal, however, is a more extensive background in policy and politics, mixed with law. Ms. Kagan’s college thesis on socialism in New York seems to bemoan socialism’s demise there. In her master’s thesis, she affirmed the activist tendencies of the Earl Warren Court, but complained that they could have done a better job of justifying their activism…

• During her White House years, the nominee was the central figure in the Clinton-Gore effort to restrict gun rights—and, as the dramatic 5-4 decision today in McDonald shows, the personal right of every American to own a gun hangs by a single vote…

• Ms. Kagan was also the point person for the Clinton Administration’s efforts to block Congressional restrictions on partial-birth abortions. Indeed, documents show she was perhaps the key person who convinced President Clinton to change his mind, from supporting to opposing legislation that would have banned that horrible procedure…

• During her time as Dean of Harvard, Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard’s existing policy and kicked the military out of the recruiting office in violation of federal law. Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas…

• In her first appellate argument, Ms. Kagan told the Court that the speech and press guarantees in the First Amendment would allow the federal government to ban the publication of pamphlets discussing political issues before an election. I would remind my colleagues that the American Revolution was—in no small part—spurred on by just such a political pamphlet, Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” To suggest that the government now has the power to suppress that kind of speech is breathtaking.

• Also as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan approved the filing of a brief before the Supreme Court asking that it strike down provisions of the Legal Arizona Worker’s Act, which suspends or revokes business licenses of corporations which knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, even though Federal law expressly prohibits such hiring. She did this even after the liberal 9th Circuit had upheld the law…

• She clerked for Judge Mikva and Justice Marshall, each a well-known liberal activist judge. And she has called Israeli Judge Aharon Barak—who has been described as the most activist judge in the world—her hero. These judges don’t deny activism; they advocate it. And they openly oppose the idea of a judge as a neutral umpire…

• In the wake of one of the largest expansions of government power in history, many Americans are worried about Washington’s disregard for limits on its power…Even today, President Obama advocates a judicial philosophy that calls on judges to base their decisions on empathy and their “broader vision of what America should be.” He suggests that his nominee shares that view…Americans want a judge that will be a check on government overreach, not a rubber stamp.

Join the Discussion or comment below

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: