Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Sen. Kennedy on ‘settled’ law
Senator Kennedy’s assertion (Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2005) that Commerce Clause jurisprudence is settled is laughable for many reasons.
1. First and foremost, Commerce Clause jurisprudence was “settled” in favor of freedom and liberty until the Supreme Court of the 1930s gutted the doctrine in order to make way for a socialistic, big-government nanny state. Continue reading Sen. Kennedy on ‘settled’ Constitutional law
Sunday, June 26, 2005 Five Disgraceful ‘Justices’ on the US Supreme Court in Kelo vs New London (125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)) With the Supreme Court eviscerating the freedoms protected in the Constitution this week with its abandonment of the Founders’ intent in writing the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment, every protection becomes that much more important. Continue reading Five Disgraceful Supreme Court Justices on Kelo
April 15, 2005 McCain Feingold Unconstitutionality
The Internet was exempted from the McCain-Feingold regulations in a 4-2 vote by the FEC in 2002, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the decision during the Fall of 2004. Two things that need to be made perfectly clear:
1. Several people have advocated impeaching the Judge. But the problem is not Judge Kollar-Kotelly. Continue reading Free Speech – McCain Feingold Unconstitutionality
Monday, November 22, 2004Enumerated powers, not enumerated libertyThe United States was founded on the principle that we are a country of enumerated government powers not of enumerated individual liberty. Anyone in grade school knows the theory. Anyone in the real world knows that the practice has no bearing on the principle. The Founders created a system to protect that liberty, however as the 20th century showed, a tireless minority in search of power will pervert such a system and then defend their lust for power over you to the death. Continue reading Enumerated Powers, not Enumerated Liberties
November 20, 2000
The Florida Supreme Court faces a clear choice: Whether to act in place of the Florida Legislature and re-write a statute, thus ignoring the will of the people who voted for the legislators who enacted the legislation, or whether to follow the expressed will of the people by upholding the law as written. The choice is judicial activism versus constitutional jurisprudence. If the Florida Supreme Court does indeed re-write the statute, there will no longer be any such thing as a “law.” Continue reading The Rule of Law or the Rule of Whim?