You are here
I don't exactly have fond memories of my constitutional law ("con law" in law student speak) classes at the University of Texas. Ironically for everyone except lawyers, you don't spend a lot of time reading the Constitution in a first year con law class. Why? Because the joke's on you if you think the Constitution has anything to do with modern constitutional law! Haha! The Constitution means what the court says it means, silly. At least, that is what we are taught.
The recent debate about Obamacare highlights a significant issue that is yet on the radar screen but will be when the Courts make their decision on whether Obamacare is constitutional or not. What is at risk is the Constitution and its meaning. Over the past several decades, there have been movements toward a “living constitution,” essentially tearing up the constitution decision by decision. Over the past years, we have seen private property
That poor soul from the other day who insisted Lincoln never said that blacks shouldn’t be voters or jurors, or intermarry with white people, or that he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, still thinks the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes state nullification unconstitutional.
The Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. It reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
“Grand Old Partisan” takes this to mean: Read more »
I have stated in past articles that Texas needs to sue the DOJ because Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
My Dreams are finally coming true!
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, on behalf of the State of Texas, has Sued Eric Holder and the Department of Justice! Greg Abbott, in his legal motion, directly challenges the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in response to the DOJ rejecting the Texas Voter ID Law.
With the Supreme Court already set to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act this year in a case out of Alabama, this challenge from Texas is more ammo needed to get the Supreme Court to declare
We must stand up for Religious Freedom because our First Amendment is under direct attack. A STAND UP for Religious Freedom Rally will take place throughout the United States on Friday March 23, 2012. Every city has a different designated location. Check to see where your city is gathering by following the link to the website Standup for Religious Freedom. Read more »
The Constitution does not mandate that all the big decisions will be made by the Courts and bureaucrats and only the inconsequential will be made by the Legislature.
Wonder how many photo ID’s Holder required in the “Operation Gunwalker” he enabled?
Breaking news Monday morning (Texas Tribune here, Washington Post story here) is that the Obama Administration has refused to allow — under the 1965 Voter’s Rights Act – the implementation of the Texas voter ID law passed by our elected Legislature last May! Read more »
We used to call it a “Mexican standoff,” but that could be considered bigoted these days. Or at least non-PC.
“Obama Standoff” is a better description for a specific condition – one that’s becoming more common and hitting us more frequently. In the “Obama Standoff,” the Obama administration demands that Texas, some other State, or any individual or organization of individuals with a conscience, violate their own laws, Constitution,
Genesis 2:25 v Genesis 3:7
Much has been said about shame and the shameless. We should have known that the shameless elite would give rise to the ARROGANT.
Faith and Freedom Rally - February 18, 2012
How is it possible that the Health and Human Services mandate of January 20, stating that, “After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs,
Mr. Speaker, the Administration is bullying religions. Yes, the government has required some religious organizations to violate their tenets and provide certain health care coverage for their employees--or else.
After an immediate backlash by the American public, the administration promised that it would make some changes; but the same day that it made this promise, it finalized the original mandate as-is with no changes. The original edict is now in effect. The big announcement about a change resulted in nothing, only more words. Read more »