Posts

Dems’ New Voter ‘Rights’ Bill Is Great for Felons and Fraudsters, but Bad for the Constitution

Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on H.R. 1, otherwise known as the “For the People Act,” turned into a heated sparring match between Democrats, Republicans, and witnesses.

House Democrats are trying to sell the election overhaul legislation as an update on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and Democratic leadership clearly thinks a lot of it, giving it symbolic status as the first bill of the 116th Congress. But it looks more like a “greatest hits” collection of Democrats’ biggest election gripes.

“The only common motivation running through the whole proposal seems to be this — Democrats searching for ways to give Washington politicians more control over what Americans say about them and how they get people elected,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said of the bill on the Senate floor Tuesday.

Given that the bill is probably dead on arrival in the Senate, the most it can achieve this session is to spark conversations about the voting system. Here’s what Democrats want to do.

One of the central features of the bill is restoring voting rights to felons (who tend to vote Democrat, by the way). Democratic politicians have pushed for measures like this in various states, and now House Democrats want to make it a reality in federal legislation.

“Not only is ex-offender disenfranchisement wrong and anti-democratic in and of itself, many of these laws were deliberately designed to entrench white supremacy,” read an opening statement from Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., grilled one witness on specific instances of felons, including two convicted of voter intimidation, who would be put back on the voting rolls under the proposed bill. He also asked about the future voting of violent felons like a man who committed sex acts on a minor at knifepoint.

“I think that, like, there are some things you can do that are so bad — the degradation of people’s right to vote, intimidating people from voting, raping children,” Gaetz told the witness, “that probably surrenders your right to participate in those decisions in the future.”

And while the bill seeks to increase the voice of convicted felons in our electoral process, it seeks to restrict the speech of others through campaign finance regulations.

According to a memo from the Conservative Action Project, the legislation “would allow the Federal Election Commission to track and catalogue more of what Americans are saying, register even very small political donations, and make public those who donate to different charitable and nonprofit organizations.”

In turn, the memo continues, this would “subject private citizens to intimidation and harassment for their private and political beliefs, far broader than what was done in the IRS targeting scandal in 2013.”

The legislation also takes aim at the states’ constitutional power to run their own elections by reviving a process known as “preclearance,” which was immobilized by the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The preclearance process requires states to get the federal government’s permission for almost any change they make to election process, whether it’s moving a polling place or implementing a voter ID law.

Furthermore, the bill also eliminates political “gerrymandering” by forcing states to draw future congressional districts via independent redistricting commissions. Redistricting done by state elected officials has long been one of the Left’s biggest scapegoats in the election process.

As unpopular as partisan redistricting can be, there are still good reasons to keep the question in the political arena rather than put it into the realm of the unelected and unaccountable. CR’s Daniel Horowitz explains it this way:

“After every decennial redrawing of the maps, a number of states run by either party tend to get carried away with their power to draw the boundaries and create districts that fail to respect the geographical, demographic, or cultural integrity of the region. The reality is that both parties engage in gerrymandering. Yes, it is unfair. But what should be the remedy? Using the electoral process to punish these troublemakers or having the unelected judges redraw even worse maps?”

Critics also say that the act would make it easier to commit voter fraud nationwide. In his prepared testimony, Public Interest Legal Foundation President J. Christian Adams warns that the bill’s vague language surrounding voter registration “could jeopardize very important voter registration safeguards.” Furthermore, key provisions of the bill would force states to expand automatic voter registration (aka “motor voter”) and same-day registration, which make things easier for potential fraudsters and even allows non-citizens to vote in our elections.

Given provisions like these, it’s no wonder why Republicans are speaking out so vociferously against the bill.

“This bill works like the Chicago-style Democrat machine,” House Freedom Caucus Member Ken Buck, R-Colo., said of the proposed legislation.

“If you’re earnestly for the people, if you want everyday citizens to have the power that only comes through their ability to hold officials accountable at the ballot box, you’d have to send this bill back to the drafting table,” reads a statement from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., because H.R. 1 “throws a strong left hook at the Constitution and expects voters to take it on the chin.” (For more from the author of “Dems’ New Voter ‘Rights’ Bill Is Great for Felons and Fraudsters, but Bad for the Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Suspending the Constitution: In America Today, the Government Does Whatever It Wants

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document.

The reality we must come to terms with, however, is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces may change over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security.

Thus, in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

Most of the damage, however, has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.

A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one. Only a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. And more than half of Americans do not know which party controls the House and Senate.

A 2006 survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsonstelevision family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties” is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

As actor-turned-activist Richard Dreyfuss warned:

“Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable.You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”

(This post originally appeared HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who Lives in a ‘Constitution-Free’ Zone? Well over Half the U.S. Population

Arivaca is a small, unincorporated community in Pima County, Arizona, around 11 miles north of the Mexican border. The closest big city is Tucson, 60 miles northeast. The town itself is barebones—a smattering of old buildings, some dating back to the 1800s. It is surrounded by swathes of yellow grassland.

To get groceries or cash a check at the bank, residents often have to drive north to Green Valley, or even further, to Tucson. And to do that, they have to pass by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoint, where they’re inevitably asked if they’re U.S. citizens. . .

While the weight of border patrol’s operations is felt heaviest along the southwest border of the U.S., the “no man’s land” Ragan is talking about actually extends much further into the country. In the “border zone,” different legal standards apply. Agents can enter private property, set up highway checkpoints, have wide discretion to stop, question, and detain individuals they suspect to have committed immigration violations—and can even use race and ethnicity as factors to do so.

That’s striking because the border zone is home to 65.3 percent of the entire U.S. population, and around 75 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population, according to a CityLab analysis based on data from location intelligence company ESRI. This zone, which hugs the entire edge of the United States and runs 100 air miles inside, includes some of the densest cities—New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. It also includes all of Michigan and Florida, and half of Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a prior rough analysis by Will Lowe, a data scientist at MIT.

“It really is kind of a constitution-free zone,”says Patrick Eddington, a policy analyst who has been compiling data on border patrol’s internal checkpoints at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank. “I guess the best way to phrase it is that in this area, [border patrol agents] are being allowed to nullify people’s rights.” (Read more from “Who Lives in a ‘Constitution-Free’ Zone? Well over Half the U.S. Population” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Constitution Put ‘in the Shredding Machine’ by State Supremes

Pennsylvania’s 2018 congressional primary season is now in limbo after the left-leaning state supreme court ordered a new congressional map far more favorable to Democrats and Republicans take the issue to court, arguing the decision is in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the congressional district map was excessively partisan and, therefore, unconstitutional. The court gave the GOP-led legislature just days to present a new map. If Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf rejected the map, the court said it would draw the new map, which is exactly what happened . . .

Under the previous map, Republicans won 13 of 18 House seats. With the new district lines, experts believe Democrats have a good chance of winning 11 or 12 seats this year.

In 2016, GOP Rep. Keith Rothfus won re-election with 62 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district. He is now being assigned to a district that would have been carried by Hillary Clinton two years ago.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.” (Read more from “Constitution Put ‘in the Shredding Machine’ by State Supremes” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

San Juan Mayor Feuding With Trump Turned Her Back When Asked to Swear to Uphold the Constitution

A 2013 video shows the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico, turning her back when asked to swear to uphold the Constitution.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump called out Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor, for her “poor leadership ability” in a tweet. The day prior, Cruz had been critical, saying, “If anybody out there is listening to us, we are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency.”

Cruz first became mayor of San Juan, the capital of Puerto Rico, in 2013. When taking the oath of office, Cruz delayed repeating the words that she would “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,” turning her back to the woman administering the oath for a long moment.

The English and Spanish versions of the oath read as follows:

I, Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto, as mayor of San Juan, solemnly swear that I shall uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against any domestic or foreign enemy; that I will render fidelity and adherence to them; and that I assume this obligation freely and without mental reserve or purpose to evade it; and that I will perform well and faithfully the duties of the position or employment that I am about to exercise. So help me God.

Yo, Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto, como alcaldesa de San Juan juro solemnemente que mantendré y defenderé la Constitución de los Estados Unidos y la Constitución y las Leyes del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico contra todo enemigo interior o exterior; que prestaré fidelidad y adhesión a las mismas; y que asumo esta obligación libremente y sin reserva mental ni propósito de evadirla; y que desempeñaré bien y fielmente los deberes del cargo o empleo que estoy próximo a ejercer. Así me ayude Dios.

Article VI, Section 16 of Puerto Rico’s Constitution states, “All public officials and employees of the Commonwealth, its agencies, instrumentalities and political subdivisions, before entering upon their respective duties, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”

After turning her back and pausing, Cruz does swear to defend the Constitution, and then enthusiastically repeats to uphold the Puerto Rican Constitution.

“During June of this year, when the leading newspaper in Puerto Rico polled people on the island about her performance as mayor, she had an abysmal 24 percent approval rating,” says Ken Oliver-Méndez, former assistant secretary of state of Puerto Rico.

“She is known for maligning and stoking sentiment against the United States, and people know that if it were up to her, Puerto Rico would not even be part of the United States. She has said on record that in her party, there is no room for people who believe in the permanent union of Puerto Rico and the United States,” Oliver-Méndez, director of Media Research Center Latino, added. Oliver-Méndez, who previously headed the speechwriting team of former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño, unearthed the 2013 video.

Cruz called Trump’s visit to Puerto Rico to survey the damage of Hurricane Maria “insulting,” Politico reported.

“This was a PR, 17-minute meeting,” Cruz said. “There was no exchange with anybody, with none of the mayors. And in fact, this terrible and abominable view of him throwing paper towels and throwing provisions at people, it really—it does not embody the spirit of the American nation, you know?”

On Twitter, Trump defended his stance of the visit to Puerto Rico.

The Daily Signal requested comment from the San Juan City Hall and the office of Rep. Jenniffer González-Colón of the New Progressive Party. González-Colón is Puerto Rico’s only representative in Congress. (For more from the author of “San Juan Mayor Feuding With Trump Turned Her Back When Asked to Swear to Uphold the Constitution” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Americans ‘Ignorant’ of Constitution ‘Wanting to Turn to Violence’

A new survey shows huge swaths of the American public don’t know the most basic tenets of their government, and a Hillsdale College politics professor says the lack of knowledge is playing a huge role in the politics of outrage and violence, since the perpetrators have no idea how the United States is supposed to work.

Earlier this month, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania released a survey showing a dismal comprehension of constitutional basics. A third of Americans could not name a single branch of government. Another 27 percent could only name one. Only 26 percent could list the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

When asked to name one of the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, 37 percent could not name any. Forty-eight percent did come up with freedom of speech, but when asked to name another, only 15 percent could name freedom of religion, 14 percent cited freedom of the press, 10 percent knew of the right to assembly and just 3 percent were aware of their right to petition the government to address their grievances.

Hillsdale College Politics Professor Adam Carrington says these numbers are consistent with what he’s seen in recent years.

“Polls have shown this consistently. This is not an anomaly. This is a consistent lack of knowledge of that by which we are supposed to govern ourselves. So it’s a fundamental and massive problem,” said Carrington. (Read more from “Americans ‘Ignorant’ of Constitution ‘Wanting to Turn to Violence'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bill Nye Makes a False Claim About the US Constitution — Again

Bill Nye the “Science Guy” tried to claim the Constitution supported the concerns of thousands of scientists and environmental activists who took to the streets on Earth Day to protest the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts to federal agencies.

“If you suppress science, if you pretend climate change isn’t a real problem, you will fall behind other countries that do invest in science, that do invest in basic research,” Nye told CNN Saturday as the “March for Science” took place.

The march took place in dozens of cities across the world, and the main march took place in Washington, D.C., Saturday. Nye spoke at the rally where thousands carried signs deriding skeptics of global warming and cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other bureaucracies that fund or conduct scientific research.

“And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts,” Nye said.

“Useful arts in 18th Century usage would be what we call engineering or city planning or architecture,” Nye said. (Read more from “Bill Nye Makes a False Claim About the US Constitution — Again” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Constitutional Amendment That Would Drain the Swamp

Congressional reform begins with stopping Congress from spending us into oblivion—and that begins with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

To make that happen, I propose using a tool our Founders gave us—the Article V amendment process.

Some of the Founders themselves recognized the need for such an amendment. For example, Thomas Jefferson first proposed an amendment in 1798 to keep Congress from borrowing money. Twenty trillion dollars in debt later, we can understand why.

On top of that, we need to put more limits on federal power, which can be done with the budget, and term limits on members of Congress.

I propose these solutions as someone who has experienced Congress’ business-as-usual corruption firsthand. I know they can work. And I know what won’t work.

What won’t work is expecting Congress to fix the problem on its own. Congress is not going to force itself to balance the federal budget and eliminate deficit spending, because the congressional leadership has little incentive to do so.

We need to give them that incentive.

Congress came close to passing a balanced budget amendment as recently as 1995. Voters swept Republicans into a congressional majority in 1994 based on the Contract with America, which promised a vote on a balanced budget amendment.

The House passed the amendment easily. Fourteen Democrats joined with 52 Republicans in the Senate, but it wasn’t enough.

The amendment failed to clear the two-thirds requirement when Republican Sen. Mark Hatfield sided with the remaining Democrats to defeat the effort by one vote.

One vote would have sent the amendment to the states to be ratified. Polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans favored the amendment. Looking back now at the trillions in debt we’ve accumulated since then, that was a pretty expensive vote.

It was even closer than it looked. Some Democrats had said they would vote for the amendment if Congress were barred from dipping into the Social Security trust fund to balance the budget. The Senate couldn’t agree to that.

The first balanced budget amendment was proposed in Congress in 1936. In 1982, in the Reagan era, the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment, but it failed to get the needed two-thirds approval in the House.

And there are proposed balanced budget amendments in Congress right now, but they are going nowhere, because most congressmen think they get reelected by spending more. They will continue to do so until Americans make them stop.

>>> Check out Rep. Ken Buck’s new book, “Drain the Swamp: How Washington Corruption is Worse than You Think.”

Forty-one states have some sort of balanced budget requirement; 33 of them are required to have balanced budgets by their state constitutions. If the states can balance their budgets, so can the federal government.

At the simplest level, a balanced budget amendment would require Congress—and the president—to spend only the money actually received as revenue.

With a balanced budget amendment in place, it would be illegal for the federal government to run an annual budget deficit, except in extreme cases of war or national emergency, and then only with the approval of a supermajority in Congress.

The president could not propose it, the House could not offer to do it, and the Senate could not approve it.

A balanced budget amendment would result in the following key benefits to the American people. It would:

Restrict the ability of congressional leaders to manipulate the budget process for personal and political gain.

Lower the national debt.

Attract investment by improving America’s bond rating.

Bolster the American dollar.

Free up credit, otherwise taken up by government borrowing, for job-creating private investment.

Stop the immoral burdening of our grandchildren with debt.

Force Congress to make the tough, but necessary, budget decisions it has been putting off for far too long—$20 trillion too long.

A balanced budget amendment would force Congress to finally do its job of actually taking responsibility for the nation’s finances.

Agencies would come under closer scrutiny, because every dollar would matter. Government would be more responsible because it would be on a financial leash, and ineffective, wasteful, and unaffordable programs would have to go.

And, as part of the balanced budget amendment, we would need to ensure that fees and fines are accounted for in the general budget—no more shadow budgets.

Some have worried that a constitutional convention would become a “runaway” convention and dramatically change the Constitution. But that’s not how it works. A constitutional convention is called for a specific purpose and it would only have authority to propose amendments related to that stated purpose.

Even then, any amendments would need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, hardly an easy accomplishment.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted that Article V was intended by the Founders to serve as a popular check on Congress and the federal government:

The Founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power. … The Founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy.

I do not have a lack of trust in the American people. …. The people do not feel that their wishes are observed. They are heard but they are not heeded, particularly at the federal level. …. The one remedy specifically provided for in the Constitution is the amendment process that bypasses Congress.

On no issue is this more applicable than the need for a federal balanced budget amendment.

Note: This condensed excerpt is from Rep. Ken Buck’s new book, “Drain the Swamp: How Washington Corruption is Worse than You Think.” (For more from the author of “A Constitutional Amendment That Would Drain the Swamp” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is There a Constitutional Crisis in the USA No One Is Addressing?

Everyone is so smitten with high tech and other political correctness ‘awareness’ goings on, no one is paying attention to the fact our Constitutional Rights, especially those emphasized in the first ten amendments, aka the Bill of Rights, originally proposed and then written by James Madison, are being overlooked, denied and, basically, thrown to the winds as if they did not exist!

As I hear the drumbeats of what’s going on around the country with regard to all sorts of consumer and taxpayer issues, I think I understand how all these crises are being rolled out simultaneously so everyone thinks they are the new norm. Well, let’s think again! I say. We still have the U.S. Constitution, which is the basic law of the USA, and also we have individual state’s Constitutions which, in most cases, parrot some of the rights in the U.S. Constitution. So, what’s gone wrong, you say?

Well, there are two perfect examples in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The first occurs in a sleepy little Borough of Pottstown. Pottstown’s ‘city fathers’ apparently enacted a biannual rental inspections policy requiring rental properties to be inspected, even against the renter’s wishes!

Question: Doesn’t that type of inspection require a warrant based upon probable cause? According to KYW 1060 radio news reports, those inspections can include moving beds, looking into closets—actions which are “off limits for government” unless there is “probable cause.”

Dorothy and Omar Rivera, who rent a home from landlord Steven Camburn, filed a lawsuit against the borough to prevent such inspection. Coincidentally, their landlord also joined in the suit! The Riveras contend such inspections are unconstitutional; they are represented by an attorney with the Virginia-based Institute for Justice.

So, which Constitutional rights are the Riveras concerned about? According to Dorothy Rivera, “I’m a private person. I’ve done nothing wrong, and I don’t want people snooping around my house.” Add to that the fact their landlord says, “Everybody deserves privacy. If there’s no real probable cause, they should not be entering a house that is occupied.”

Meagan Forbes, the plaintiffs’ attorney, says, “People should know about how intrusive these searches are.” However,

In the lawsuit, attorneys claim that Pottstown’s policy is too broad, allowing for inspectors to conduct “highly-intrusive, wall-to-wall searches for compliance with on-the-spot standards that inspectors are free to make up as they go along.”

What’s going on in Pottstown regarding rental property inspections is NOTHING compared with what’s happening to every Pennsylvania utility customer who is supplied electric, natural gas and water with more than 100,000 customers.

Customers’ appliances and usage are being monitored, collected and SOLD to third parties unknown to consumers without their knowledge and consent, nor a legal warrant to collect such personal information. Check out Onzo and what that algorithm does with smart meter data and information.

AMI Smart Meters surveil and collect information, plus interact with customers’ appliances 24/7/365 in total violation of Amendments IV, V, and XIV §2 of the U.S. Constitution, including the Pennsylvania Constitution art. 1 §1.

And the most egregious part about the AMI Smart Meter snooping without a warrant is that AMI Smart Meters and their incessant snooping are mandated ‘supposedly by law’ by an erroneous interpretation of the PA Public Utility Commission’s “belief” interpretation of HB2200/Act 129 (2008), which actually was enacted in reality as an Opt-In Smart Meter bill as publicly published of record in section 2(i) below:

HB2200 §2807(f)7(2)

(2) Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart meter technology as follows:

(i) Upon request from a customer that agrees to pay the cost of the smart meter at the time of the request.

(ii) In new building construction.

(iii) In accordance with a depreciation schedule not to exceed 15 years.

Furthermore, PA State Senator Fumo is on record in PA Senate Journal October 8, 2008 (pp. 2626-2631) stating, “In addition we did not mandate smart meters, but we made them optional.”

However, the piece de resistance is this most damning of admissions by the PA PUC’s Office of Communications’ Dave Hixson in his letter to Thomas A. McCarey dated March 22, 2017 wherein Hixson says:

As I stated in my earlier email correspondence with you, the Commission believes that it was the intent of the General Assembly to require all covered electric companies to deploy smart meters system-wide.

[CJF emphasis added. Thereby supposedly and illegally, the PA PUC made smart meters mandatory—not the state legislature!]

But that’s not all!

Every U.S. state—bar none, except those states which provide opt-outs from AMI Smart Meters—are breaking federal law! Did you know that? The federal law which individual states are violating when they mandate smart meters is Public Law 109-58, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, §1252 Smart Metering. Nothing is said about AMI smart meters being mandated! That would be unconstitutional, I contend, so that’s why “mandated” is not in the language! However, the feds offered a few ‘carrots’ i.e., grants and monetary incentives, to those utilities that would implement AMI Smart Meters. What does that tell you? Follow the money!

In essence, sleepy little Pottstown is “small potatoes” compared with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in denying Constitutional rights to citizens.

What’s going on in your state?

Have you looked into your state’s AMI Smart Meters ‘law’; how AMI SMs are snooping on you; and that you don’t have to have them retrofitted; plus how your constitutional rights are being abrogated? (For more from the author of “Is There a Constitutional Crisis in the USA No One Is Addressing?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

REINS Act Will Check Executive Overreach, Restore Constitutional Balance

As a new Congress begins, Republicans have made it clear that regulatory reform is a priority that puts the interest of all Americans first, especially concerning the economy.

It’s been said that sometimes government rules “have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.”

It is in fact President Barack Obama who made that statement in 2011 in his appeal “to strike the right balance” in executive rulemaking.

In an outstanding contradiction to the spirit of these words, the current administration brought our regulatory burden to a bloated $1.88 trillion in 2015—meaning that on average, each U.S. household is bearing an annual economic weight of $15,000. This underscores the reality that unchecked regulations smother business and family finances without distinction.

That’s where the REINS Act comes in.

Federal agencies currently have the power to make “major rules”—ones that have an economic impact of $100 million or more—without the oversight of Congress or the signature of the president. The REINS Act would put in place meaningful checks on agency overreach by requiring congressional approval and the president’s signature for major rules.

Absent these checks, we fall victim to oppressive regulations like the Department of Labor’s overtime rule, which hurts the very people it is trying to help and imposes unworkable burdens on businesses, universities, and employees.

In 2015, the Department of Labor raised the salary threshold under which people are eligible for overtime from $23,660 to $47,476. While the rule seems like it would provide more overtime pay to more people, the economic effect is that it smothers job creators.

With their administrative resources consumed by tracking more information with less flexibility, it turns out that businesses have to cut jobs as a result of the overtime rule. Even if businesses raise salaries above new overtime levels to avoid additional administrative costs, they are still left with less money to pay salaries overall—which means they can support fewer jobs.

As it stands, the Congressional Review Act of 1996 represents the only recourse Congress has for reversing harmful rules without having to scale the great wall of the filibuster. All but one of the joint resolutions of disapproval that Congress has passed under the Congressional Review Act have been vetoed by the president.

As a tool for checking executive overreach, the Congressional Review Act is begging for improvement, which the REINS Act offers by amending the original legislation.

If the overtime rule had been subject to a vote by Congress before it was enacted, as the REINS Act would require, American workers could have been spared the consequences of the heavy-handed and poorly-crafted regulation. Yet support for the REINS Act is not merely practical—it is also constitutional.

Article 1 of the Constitution assigns the responsibility of lawmaking to a House and Senate made up of elected officials, and it does so in order to ensure that the people who are affected by federal laws and regulations have a say in how those rules are made.

Without the balance that the REINS Act offers, Americans and their economy remain subject to the decisions and missteps of unelected bureaucrats, who seem agonizingly unable to “strike the right balance” between helpful and harmful rules.

Executive agency overreach is, at heart, a constitutional issue, and one that the REINS Act remedies in a way that reformers in both parties should be able to support. If made law, this legislation would require agencies to submit their major regulations for congressional approval before they could go into effect, and both chambers would be required to accept or reject the rule within 70 legislative days.

The president’s signature would also be required for any of Congress’ joint resolutions on a major rule to take effect. Agency regulations with economic impacts of under $100 million would remain unaffected by the REINS Act.

The bill is not retroactive, so Republicans haven’t devised it as a way to blot out the actions of a previous administration and the agencies it oversaw. It’s also not unwieldy from a legislative perspective, adding only 50-100 votes to the congressional calendar each year.

What we’ve done is to craft a way to move forward with legislative business and restore accountability to the legislative process while better protecting our economy from suffocating regulations that Americans never voted to enact.

The current president has said balance in federal regulations is necessary, and President-elect Donald Trump has said the REINS Act will help guarantee that balance, promising that he would sign this “major step toward getting our government under control” were the bill to reach his desk.

The REINS Act brings transparency, accountability, and constitutional balance to the branches of government regardless of which party controls those branches, and it returns power to the electorate by making sure that their votes have a voice in major federal rulemaking. (For more from the author of “REINS Act Will Check Executive Overreach, Restore Constitutional Balance” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.