Kansas Legislature Working To Enhance State Sovereignty Under The Tenth Amendment

Commentary—Rick

Today, I wish to report on two proposed Amendments to the Kansas Constitution, which, if passed by the voters of Kansas, will ensure the sovereignty of Kansas to protect our rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

ONE: In March of this year, the Kansas Legislature overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to protect our individual rights to gun ownership. The Resolution, SCR 1611, was sponsored by Senator Tim Huelskamp, Senator Mike Peterson, and others, and was approved by the House. It will go to a vote of the citizens of Kansas in November 2010!

With this proposed constitutional amendment, we shall ensure we have an individual right to gun ownership in Kansas, stating that our state has the sovereign right to uphold the individual rights of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regardless of unconstitutional laws and activist judge’s decisions contrariwise. This is a great victory for the 2nd Amendment in Kansas!

This is a Firearms Freedom Act, similar to that passed by other states. For information on what other states are doing, Click here.

TWO: Tuesday, Oct. 27, Kansas State Legislators announced a Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment as they traveled in areas throughout Kansas from Wichita, to Emporia, Topeka, and Overland Park. Americans for Prosperity supplied a bus that transported them from city to city.

The state sovereignty resolution will send a message to the federal government, and it is a powerful message when other states are sending the same message. The Health Care Freedom Amendment, however, does much more than send a message. If passed, it will be an amendment to the Kansas Constitution, acting to preserve the freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care. See what other states are doing. Click here.

Mary Pilcher Cook is leading the fight in the Kansas Senate to defend Kansas State Sovereignty and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. She has a resolution, SCR 1615, and needs your support. To read a letter from Mary and to add your name as a signature, visit her special page showing the letter, including a link to the bill. To add your name to the letter, please e-mail us at tenthamendment@pilchercook.com and include your name and city! Thank you.

Go to her web page for more information: Click Here.

Gun Rights Organizations File Lawsuit To Stop Seattle Ban

Second Amendment Foundation
Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:44pm EDT
For Immediate Release: 10/28/2009
BELLEVUE, Wash.--(Business Wire)--
The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms, arguing that the ban violates Washington State`s long-standing preemption statute. They are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors. Read Article Here.

Today’s Liberals are Not Really Liberals

Commentary

I originally posted this on my other blog, Ricks pro-life, anti-euthanasia, and related, on June 27, 2009. In light of what is now happening in our government, it is appropriate to re-post it on my pro-constitutional blog.

Let’s get this straight! Today’s so-called liberals are far from the classic liberals we knew from fifty years ago. The liberals today are in the far-left, more properly referred to as “progressives.” Progressives have been the ones responsible from the beginning of the Constitutional United States for a gradual departing from the Constitution itself until today we are rapidly destroying it.

“Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9].
(Above numbers refer to sources of the wikipedia article.

Our recent progressive presidents were Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and presently, Barack Obama. President Obama is, according to the Russian Newspaper, Pravda, is bringing Marxism to the U.S. with amazing speed.

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. Read article in Pravda.

Progressives are supported by unions, gays, feminists, pro-abortionists, and promote universal health care, radical environmental programs, and a strong central government.

Classical Liberals? No way. They are radical far-left progressives that want to destroy Capitalism and replace it with Socialism, pure and simple. Along with this change, they will gain total control of our lives from the time we rise until the time we retire at night. It seems like we saw this before in the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and presently in the Islamic nations.

The administration claims that charges that they are 'socialist' is not true.

Unconstitionally Appointed 'Pay Czar' Dictates Pay for Bank CEOs

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: After the Obama administration's pay czar Kenneth Feinberg pushed outgoing Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis to return the $1 million he has made so far this year and forego the $1.5 million he is set to make next year, the White House today called Feinberg a "forceful advocate" for American taxpayers. (Read article on ABC Web Site here).

I am in favor of limiting the salaries of CEOs of any company, bank or otherwise, that have received TARP funds. However, a czar, especially one that was unconfirmed, should not be making unconstitutional demands on limiting the salaries of company executives.

John Harrison, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, said czars have no legal power and therefore do not violate the Constitution and would not need to be confirmed by Congress. http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/124181.html

I would agree if Feinberg is only making 'suggestions' and can not legally enforce his demands. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, sent a letter to Obama last month raising questions about his appointed czars.

The letter, co-signed by five other Senate Republicans, said 18 “czar” positions, which have not been confirmed by the Senate or established by law, fall into a gray area that raises “serious issues of accountability, transparency and oversight” and circumvents Congress’ “constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’”
Sen. Collins questions constitutionality of czars Click here for story.

Arbitrary decrees by unconfirmed czars establish dangerous trends. The Obama administration should use constitutionally legal means of controlling the salaries of CEOs of companies receiving TARP funds.

What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?

In searching for material for an article I wanted to post on this subject, I found the following by Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners Foundation. It covers the subject and I present it here from the web site of Gun Owners of America:

by Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President, Gun Owners Foundation

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?

Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons. Read Article by Larry Pratt.

In searching for the origin of what I think was a 'backhand slap,' mentioned in the Biblical 'Sermon on the Mount,' I came across Wikipedias's explanation, which I think pretty much covers the origin and meaning:
Turning the other cheek:

“At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.” wikipedia article.

Rick's Blog.

Another Second Amendment Case Goes to the Supreme Court

Posted: 09/30/09, from Gun Owners of America
Written by John Velleco
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 21:17

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the City of Chicago's ban on handguns, a case that will test the reach of the Second Amendment.

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The Second protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

That ruling shattered years of anti-gun revisionist history and misinformation that claimed the Second Amendment protected a "collective" right of the states to maintain something like the National Guard. . . Read Article Here.

The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court

[from The Heritage Foundation]
by Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves

The idea of establishing an international court to prosecute serious international crimes--war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide--has long held a special place in the hearts of human rights activists and those hoping to hold perpetrators of terrible crimes to account. In 1998, that idea became reality when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted at a diplomatic conference convened by the U.N. General Assembly. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was formally established in 2002 after 60 countries ratified the statute. The ICC was created to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the as yet undefined crime of aggression. Regrettably, although the court's supporters have a noble purpose, there are a number of reasons to be cautious and concerned about how ratification of the Rome Statute would affect U.S. sovereignty and how ICC action could affect politically precarious situations around the world.

Among other concerns, past U.S. Administrations concluded that the Rome Statute created a seriously flawed institution that lacks prudent safeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping authority without accountability to the U.N. Security Council, and violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over the nationals and military personnel of non-party states in some circumstances. These concerns led President Bill Clinton to urge President George W. Bush not to submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent necessary for ratification.[1] After extensive efforts to change the statute to address key U.S. concerns failed, President Bush felt it necessary to "un-sign" the Rome Statute by formally notifying the U.N. Secretary-General that the U.S. did not intend to ratify the treaty and was no longer bound under international law to avoid actions that would run counter to the intent and purpose of the treaty. Subsequently, the U.S. took a number of steps to protect its military personnel, officials, and nationals from ICC claims of jurisdiction."

The article is rather lengthy, but you can read it here.
If you wish to help the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice), fight this effort to put our citizens, i.e., American Soldiers, under the juridiction of the court, please click here.