Friday, June 25, 2010

Limited Government - Unlimited Rights by RoseAnn Salanitri

The Tea Party movement in the United States is raising awareness and inspiring conversations regarding that very extraordinary document we call our Constitution. The Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez (the Committee) has been the catalyst for many of these conversations as arguments both for and against recall can be read all over the internet and in many media venues across the nation.

The Committee’s explanation that they have elected to initiate the recall against Senator Menendez due to his unconstitutional votes on healthcare and illegal immigration is often met with confusion. Additionally, many also believe that the recall itself is unconstitutional. Therefore, it has become apparent that a more detailed explanation is in order.

Our Founding Fathers wrote two extraordinary documents which serve as the basis of our system of government. The first was our Declaration of Independence, which acts as our mission statement and the second is our Constitution, which acts as our by-laws. Our mission statement describes our heart and what makes us unique, while our by-laws describe the do’s and don’ts of how our federal government operates.

The Declaration of Independence clearly asserts that our rights come from God and not government. It states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.”

It goes on to say that the purpose of government is secure our God-given rights:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among them…”

And that government receives its rights from the consent of the governed:

“… deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

This unique perspective established the basis of designing a system where the powers of government are limited and defined but the rights of citizens are unlimited and not necessarily defined. Therefore, it is important to realize that any argument from silence concerning the Constitution should support the rights of the citizens or the states and does not support undefined powers of the federal government. The only rights given to the federal government are defined and cannot exceed those written within the Constitution. These government powers are referred to as “enumerated (or specified) powers,” and apply only to the federal government. The states, however, are free to adopt laws and establish powers as they see fit. In other words, restrictions were put on the federal government.

Understanding these principles is paramount to understanding the constitutional argument of the Committee. If our rights come from God and our Constitution limits the powers of the government, then it is reasonable to argue that since the right to recall is not mentioned in the Constitution (one way or another), it’s absence should support the Committee’s right to recall. Again, recall is not mentioned in the Constitution, which only defines how the federal government functions and limits its power. In the State of New Jersey the citizens voted by 76.2% to amend their state constitution to include recall in 1993, after Governor Jim Florio angered the citizens of New Jersey by raising taxes, which he vowed not to do while campaigning. The citizens of New Jersey understood that elections gave them the right to choose their representatives but recalls gave them the tool to keep their representatives accountable. According to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, the citizens of New Jersey were clearly exercising their constitutional right to state sovereignty.

When the Constitution was submitted for ratification in 1787, the states were fearful that certain rights were so important that they had to be specifically spelled out. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton thought it was unnecessary to spell these rights out because the federal government’s powers were limited. They further feared that if any rights were specified that it could be argued that those that were not specified were not protected. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were suggested as the solution to the problem.

The Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, this Amendment clearly states that just because certain rights are not specifically defined in the Constitution, does not mean that they don’t exist.

The Tenth Amendment reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”

Once again, our founders went through great pains to be sure it was understood that the people of this country and their respective states retained all sovereignty in matters not specifically belonging to the federal government and defined within the Constitution. All restrictions were placed on the federal government and not the states. The citizens and the states retained all other rights. This is a foundational principle of our Constitutional Republic.

While it was exceedingly important to our founders to limit the federal government, they also understood that in order to operate effectively, the federal government had to possess certain rights in order to carry out functions of a national nature. Article One, Section Eight lists these powers. They are to be uniform throughout the United States and are for the purposes of providing for the “general welfare” and “common defense.” They are as follows:

1. To regulate interstate and international commerce;
2. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization;
3. To establish uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies;
4. To coin money and establish its value;
5. To fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting
7. To establish post offices and post roads;
8. To promote the progress of science & useful arts by supplying
copyrights & patents;
9. To establish Federal Courts;
10. To govern the District of Columbia;
11. To purchase real estate for needful buildings;
12. To make laws necessary to carry out the execution of the defined
powers;
13. To define and punish Maritime and international crimes;
14. To declare war;
15. To make rules for and to fund the Military Services.

When the Committee refers to Senator Menendez’s votes for things like healthcare being “unconstitutional”, they are referring to the enumerated powers listed above and claim that these powers do not provide for government-run healthcare or a host of other usurpations that have developed over the past several years.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” The Committee believes that the out-of-control government we are now experiencing has assumed undelegated powers, and is therefore unauthoritative and should be void and of no force. It is the underlying principle behind the recall movement and the Committee’s desire to restore government limits and state sovereignty.

To further make the point, below are listed just a few of Senator Menendez’s votes that the Committee doesn’t believe are authorized under the Constitution:

• Voted not to notify parents of minors who get out of state
abortions
• Voted for partial birth abortion
• Voted for human cloning
• Voted that tax money should pay for contraception
• Voted for healthcare to pay for abortions
• Voted to send federal funds to “sanctuary cities”
• Voted not to declare English as the official US language
• Voted not to build the fence along the Mexican border
• Voted not to send the National Guard to protect our southern border
• Voted to give illegal aliens social security
• Voted to give permanent residence to “undocumented workers”
• Voted not to enforce immigration laws
• Voted to confiscate firearms
• Voted to give the children of illegal aliens college tuition money
• Voted to keep the marriage penalty tax
• Voted to continue TARP funds
• Voted to increase national public debt
• Voted to develop a “global” strategy to eliminate poverty
• Voted to protect the rights of terrorists
• Voted to apply the Geneva Convention to terrorists
• Voted for government-run healthcare

It is a bit ironic that Senator Menendez would try to protect his career by hiding behind the Constitution when it is apparent from his voting record that the Constitution is of little value to him. Make no mistake about it, we are in a battle whose outcome will determine whether or not a nation of the people, by the people and for the people can survive upon this earth. It is our hope that this article has answered some of your questions and that you will join us in this historic battle to preserve our liberties and freedoms for ourselves and for generations to come.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Old news/ New news

Within the last two weeks I have received numereous e-mails that are over a year old, but are being treated as new happenings. We really have to address this issue. People, there is more than enough coming out of Washington on any given day that can, and should, be passed on to our fellow members so that we don't keep recycling old news. And, sadly, some of this old news is just as false today as it was when it was first circulated. Please, check your sources and go to any online verification site you are comfortable with to make sure you are not just recycling.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Game On!

On January 22nd lawyers representing The Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez filed their brief supporting the Recall initiative. The court requested that the same brief be served to Senator Menace--Menendez. In an article dated January 26th that was posted on NJ.com and Politico, Senator Menendez, on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he heads, revealed his strategy to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-type conservatives. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32003.html.

Since the recall effort was initiated by “tea-party-type conservatives” (myself included), it is probably logical to assume that we finally got the Senator’s attention-something we couldn’t do in a summer filled with faxes, petitions, rallies, phone calls, and letters. While his Democratic Party constituents may view his strategy as a way to preserve their party and their careers, others may see it as a transparent effort to preserve his own career by dividing the movement that seeks to unseat him. It’s the old “divide and conquer” philosophy that has worked well in historical battles, and it reveals the heart of a man who is more interested in political preservation than listening to the will of the people he represents. The question remains whether or not this strategy will work here in NJ.

One thing we can be certain of, an alliance between TEA Party patriots and the Republican Party would be a force that most likely would defeat Menendez at the ballot box. While many within the TEA Party movement are just as disappointed with the Republican Party as they are with the Democratic Party, I’ll refer to another old philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Libertarian, or any other affiliation, we need to keep our focus on the challenge before us. We need to unite against a common enemy elitist who has undermined our prosperity and trampled over our Constitution. We can sort out our differences later.

On behalf of the Committee to Recall Senator Robert Menendez, I ask all NJ patriots to join forces to defeat our common enemy and restore the principles of government that prospered us and protected our liberties. Massachusetts (and America by extension) may have claimed a victory with the election of Senator Scott Brown – now it’s our turn to send the elitists packing – and victory is within our grasp!

Monday, January 25, 2010

Education is Key

I am a nanny for two young children, aged 7 and 9. Already, their perception of America is twisted - the public schools simply aren't telling the tale of America. Their version is twisted, watered-down, and corrupted. No wonder that by the time the average American reaches their teen-age years, they're disenchanted with their country. Not only are we used to taking our 'liberties for granted,' but by the time we're becoming old enough to vote and grow truly interested in politics, we're chock-full of the problems with the US government, and of the bonuses of other forms of government, like communism and its ilk.

It is imperative that we do our best to educate people about the true story of the United States, and to show them the true vision that our Founding Fathers had for our country. It is important that teens and kids can see that our government isn't idealistic, or simply a dream. They have to see that our country is worth fighting for, is worth taking some heat from their friends for, is worth the time spent learning about it.

And that all begins with parents, grandparents, and family members. Stay on top of what you're kids are learning in school; make sure to point out the outright fallacies or flaws in the teachings. Show them documents authored by our Founding Fathers; let them see the real, glorious vision that the US is - and most of all, let them see that the vision is obtainable, as long as they are willing to participate, and to fight for the government they want. This is a government run for the people, by the people - but in order for it to work, the people must be educated, and the people have to want it.

After all, every truly strong political leader knows that the key to a country is its youth. And if we can get the youth on our side, if we can get them to the point where they will purposely talk with their friends and share their views, if we can inspire pride in the USA in the youth to such a degree - well, then, we'll have won the 'battle,' and perhaps even the 'war.'

Friday, January 8, 2010

America Rising - With Special Kudos to the States of Nebraska and Louisiana

If you have been following the Health Care debacle, you are well aware of the special negotiations and back door deals that have been stricken to impose the liberal ideologically driven health care bill upon the American people. Two state senators in particular exemplify the worst of what has befallen our great nation–elitism and career insurance. While elitism is easy to understand, being the attitude of “I’m superior to you and know better than you; therefore, my opinion should not be questioned”–career insurance is a more subtle character flaw. It pretends to do what’s good for those it represents, when all the while it is really only concerned with getting re-elected and furthering its own career.

Admittedly, I don’t know much about either Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska or Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, but I can tell you something about the patriots that live in their states. Both Senators fell victim to the temptations and pressures the White House and the democratic congress were imposing upon them-or were they merely more adept at making deals? The truth is that we simply don’t know their motivation (or their weakness, as the case may be). It is possible they gave in to pressure; it is also possible they struck a good deal for their state in hopes of bringing home the bacon and thereby securing their subsequent elections with their constituents. However, they didn’t count on the integrity, patriotism, and constitutional understanding of their citizens.

In the good state of Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson’s poll numbers have exponentially declined, rending a death blow to his chances for re-election; and in the good state of Louisiana, the Secretary of State has just approved the petitions to recall Senator Mary Landrieu. These states deserve the admiration of the rest of us, as they rose above personal gratification and special sweetheart deals to support the greater good of our country. In other words, they didn’t sell out! Let this be an example to all of us and to the elitists in Congress. We the People can reclaim and restore the principles of republicanism at its finest if we look beyond our own short term interests. We need good men and women in congress and in all branches of government. Men and women who aren’t afraid to make good decisions based on what is right- and not on what might ingratiate them with their base (like the bridge nowhere in Alaska). The New World Order and the socialistic liberals may have thought America was in their grasp-that we would be willing to surrender our autonomy and sell out our country and our ideals for free healthcare (like we believe that really exists), or any other pot of gold at the end of the illusionary rainbow, but they didn’t count on patriots-the likes of which live in Nebraska, and Louisiana, and I’m happy to say in my home state of New Jersey. The truth is America and our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not dead–we are rediscovering and recommitting ourselves to the principles that made this country great in the past and will prosper it once again in the future – as long as we remain strong. Therefore I say – Long live America!

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Justice or Revenge?

There has been much chatter on the news and on the blogs about President Obama’s decision to send 9/11 mastermind and co-conspirators to New York City for trial. Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced and defended this decision by pretending to take the high road – offering to take the heat this abysmal decision would inevitably generate. Taking the Attorney General at face value, one might think he was noble and standing up for his perverted version of justice. After all, doesn’t everyone deserve the privileges United States citizens enjoy – as if it was some kind of God-given right? Shouldn’t these war criminals that admittedly plotted the murders of innocent victims be afforded protection under our Constitution? Eric Holder and our President seem more concerned with the rights of these terrorists than the rights of the victims and their families. To add insult to injury, this farce parading itself as justice will unravel just blocks from the World Trade Towers massacre. And if history repeats itself, we can expect a swell of new terrorist recruits who are inspired and motivated by the publicity and promulgation of terror ideologies these trials will display.
Citizens and those who were in leadership in New York City at the time of the massacre, along with surviving victims and the families of those who did not survive, all voiced their protest to this travesty. However, the administration turned deaf ears to their protests – just like they turned deaf ears to the Tea Party protests. But should we expect something different from a President who bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia?

As if all this isn’t bad enough, it is hard to dismiss the possibility that the Obama administration is more interested in putting the Bush administration on trial than affording justice to these self-professed war criminals. It is the only thing these dastardly libs have to gain. We all should realize at this point that our dear President is intolerant of any criticism. Remember Joe the Plumber - just an average citizen who spoke out against the principles of Marxism? Joe was persecuted mercilessly by Obama lackeys. Coincidentally, President Bush came out of retirement this week and gently spoke out against the Obama financial policies. And coincidentally, scarcely a day or two later, the current administration announces that these trials will be held. I don’t know about you, but I don’t much believe in coincidences. For the last year or two, those in the spotlight have been bending over backwards to give the President the benefit of every doubt. And like many who bend over backwards, they have gotten a swift kick in the posterior. What kind of president disregards the wishes and well being of his citizens in favor of those who assaulted his country in a most egregious manner? Certainly not one that is a patriot.Justice or revenge? You decide.

Taxation Without Representation

Taxation without representation isn’t a new phrase. It’s one we usually associate with the Revolutionary War. However, in 2009, it may be time to start shouting this protest phrase once again. As is the case with the recent Tea Parties, which derive their name from our founders’ protest against high tea taxes levied by England, some things old seem to be new again. And – as was the case prior to the Revolutionary War - the people living on this continent in this country are once again being taxed without proper representation. This time, however, is more insidious since we all erroneously believe that we do have representation in the form of elected officials. But do we?

Anyone who has read a recent newspaper, watched a news show, or listened to talk radio knows that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is a Democrat. As Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi enjoys a certain amount of power – power that she isn’t afraid to use and power that she most certainly does abuse. Among her most recent abuses is her recently discovered “lock out” tool. Ms. Pelosi has discovered that she can (and does) lock out Republican congressmen and women from deliberation over the highly controversial Healthcare Bill. In the 5th District in NJ, as in other districts around the country, our congressman is a Republican, which means the 5th District of NJ was not represented during the Healthcare deliberations. Ms. Pelosi also tried to lock out protesters from entering the Capital Building last week as 30,000 citizens gathered to speak to their representatives. Some persisted and managed to access the Capital building in spite of Ms. Pelosi’s efforts. But nonetheless, Ms. Pelosi did her best to separate citizens from their representatives.

If Ms. Pelosi denies us or our representatives from participating in our government, then those living in those districts that have been deprived of representation, are paying federal taxes without having representation. This is nothing other than taxation without representation and this type of elitist attitude by those in government is what inspired the Revolutionary War. Perhaps it’s time for another revolution or perhaps we can still snatch what is left of our Constitutional rights from the hands of these despicable ideologues who have high jacked our system of government and totally disregarded the Constitution that they swore to uphold and protect. It seems to me that we have a few options left: demand Nancy Pelosi be removed as Speaker of the House or stop paying federal taxes until our representation is restored. While these actions may seem radical, they pale compared to the radical actions exercised in our Capital building today.