Bob Andrews
2007-11-24 19:58:18 UTC
November 19, 2007, (contact information 910-270-8966, ***@aol.com)
Are Hillaryâs Promises Constitutional?
Supreme Court Must Change Judicial Rules To Rein In Out Of Control Congress
By: Conservative Presidential Candidate, Daniel Gilbert www.wethepeopleforpresident.com
Hillary is on a roll, promising $5000 for each baby and $1000 to match your retirement contribution. Well, âI have a million ideas also, but the country canât afford them all.â Hillary is not the only one in the race to use your tax money to buy votes, enrich contributors, friends and family members.
While Hillary is trying to buy votes with our hard earned money, Congress is approving funding for pork barrel projects and passing laws that benefit or restrict a certain group of citizens.
Are Hillaryâs promises constitutional? Are these pork barrel projects and the laws that affect select groups constitutional? The US Supreme Court makes that decision. We can thank the framers for putting checks and balances in place within the Constitution.
Fearful of an all powerful central government, our forefathers balanced the power of the three branches of government by dispersing power of government among the three branches. No single branch has the constitutional power to govern alone. The three branches are forced to cooperate and compromise. However, the checks and balances only work if all branches exercise their authority in a timely manner. Congress has the power to legislate, tax and spend. The President has executive power to enforce the laws. The Supreme Court has judicial power.
On practically a daily basis, two of the three branches of our government exercise their powers. Congress passes legislation and presents it to the President, who signs it into law and then executes it. The missing branch, the Supreme Court, remains silent on enacted laws, allowing them to be implemented without determining whether or not they are constitutional.
Based on what we were taught in school, you would expect that once a law is adopted and signed by the President, it would automatically be reviewed by the Supreme Court to determine if it is Constitutional before it is enacted. However, this is not the case.
In the 1780âs, the Supreme Court met to quickly establish some âjusticiabilityâ rules. As noted in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, this is one of the rules: âJudges will not render legal advice to political officials outside the context of a contested case.â This rule means that Hillaryâs promises, if passed by Congress and signed by the President, are not reviewed by the Supreme Court until a case relating to the law is brought before it. This also means a citizen would have to sue the government to force the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the law. It is hard to believe that our forefathers wanted the process of constitutional review to be forced in this manner.
Because of the nature of what it takes to bring lawsuits to the judicial system, it will be years before the citizenâs case can be heard by the Supreme Court. At best, the constitutionality of Hillaryâs promise will be decided years later, and worst case, the Supreme Court will never determine the constitutionality of the case due to the fact that in recent years, only roughly eighty cases have been heard by the court out of the thousands seeking to be heard.
Where is the balance of power? Where are the checks and balances? The Supreme Courtâs failure to determine the Constitutionality of legislation in a timely manner has allowed the other two branches of government to expand the scope and reach of our national government far beyond the limits in the Constitution. For instance, loosely interpreting the general welfare clause of congressâs power has given politicians the green light to take money from one citizen in the form of taxes and give it to another citizen. In the past forty years we have seen $4 trillion transfer of wealth from one group of citizens to another, all in the name of providing for the general welfare. Giving away public treasure to buy votes and favor goes back to the days of the Roman Empire. We have a constitution which should protect us from the vote buying schemes of career politicians. Unfortunately, we canât seem to enforce the rule of the Constitution. You do not need to be a constitutional scholar to realize that our Federal government has repeatedly encroached upon the rights of states and individuals.
Our Constitution, if interpreted correctly and timely, would deter the expansion of the central government, not add to its power. Our founding fathers understood well the dangers of an all powerful central government. During the founding of our country the threat was the English monarchy, but today the threat is a creeping federal intrusion into every aspect of our lives and it is being unchecked by the Supreme Court.
The Judicial branch needs to develop a review system which would immediately determine the constitutionality of any law before it is enacted, instead of having to wait years for the Supreme Court to overturn or change an unconstitutional law. Had a review system been in place, perhaps our right to free speech would not have been limited by the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The American people need and deserve citizen statesmen not self-serving politicians to take control of this country. There are some true statesmen in Congress but with approval ratings around 10% most Congressmen are not doing what this country needs and wants.
The solution is to elect leaders who take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously. We need leaders who will not take advantage of the lack of constitutional review to push their own agenda. We need leaders who will say to the American people that a proposed law is not constitutional and I will not vote for it. We need leaders, who before making a promise, will ask themselves, is this promise constitutional? Apparently Hillary Clinton does not.
For the reason of obtaining votes in order to get elected to the highest office in the land, Hillaryâs promises are doubtfully constitutional.
GILBERT
for President
Conservative Principles
Heartland Values
In 2000 I voted for President Bush and the Republicans. I had high hopes that with the Republicans in control of the legislature and the executive branches that real change would occur in our government. I thought that the principles that we all thought the Republicans stood for would guide the Republicans to do what is best for the country. I thought I would see a new higher moral standard. What we got was corruption, bribes, moral decline, hearings with no action, tax breaks for big business, McCain Feingold and last year 15,000 earmarks. We get a Republican majority in the Senate and a President who think that the best way to handle the illegal alien problem is to give them amnesty. And just last month we had a great break through with the North Koreans where they agreed to not do what they agreed to not do under Clinton. How much will it cost the American citizens this time?
There has to be a change in Presidential and Congressional leadership to affect change in this country. There has to be a way to get the politicians out and the statesmen in. Those politicians who vote only for the sake of the party, the lobbyist or big business have to be removed. To bring about substantial changes in the government these new statesmen must control the House, Senate and the White House.
Bio: Born 1946 in Winston-Salem, NC, married with two grown children, daughter and son
4 grandsons and 2 granddaughters, businessman, member of Biltmore Baptist Church, Asheville, NC, dad owned a small trucking company-passed away 2002, Mom worked as a cafeteria worker-passed away 1989, Eagle Scout, grew up on a farm in rural North Carolina, worked hard and long in the hot and the cold. Milked cows, slopped hogs, fed chickens, etc, graduated in 1969 from Virginia Tech with a BS in Civil Engineering, Army ROTC commission Stationed at Fort Bragg, NC, Fort Jackson, SC and Vietnam, Black Mountain Center Human Rights Advocacy Committee.
Are Hillaryâs Promises Constitutional?
Supreme Court Must Change Judicial Rules To Rein In Out Of Control Congress
By: Conservative Presidential Candidate, Daniel Gilbert www.wethepeopleforpresident.com
Hillary is on a roll, promising $5000 for each baby and $1000 to match your retirement contribution. Well, âI have a million ideas also, but the country canât afford them all.â Hillary is not the only one in the race to use your tax money to buy votes, enrich contributors, friends and family members.
While Hillary is trying to buy votes with our hard earned money, Congress is approving funding for pork barrel projects and passing laws that benefit or restrict a certain group of citizens.
Are Hillaryâs promises constitutional? Are these pork barrel projects and the laws that affect select groups constitutional? The US Supreme Court makes that decision. We can thank the framers for putting checks and balances in place within the Constitution.
Fearful of an all powerful central government, our forefathers balanced the power of the three branches of government by dispersing power of government among the three branches. No single branch has the constitutional power to govern alone. The three branches are forced to cooperate and compromise. However, the checks and balances only work if all branches exercise their authority in a timely manner. Congress has the power to legislate, tax and spend. The President has executive power to enforce the laws. The Supreme Court has judicial power.
On practically a daily basis, two of the three branches of our government exercise their powers. Congress passes legislation and presents it to the President, who signs it into law and then executes it. The missing branch, the Supreme Court, remains silent on enacted laws, allowing them to be implemented without determining whether or not they are constitutional.
Based on what we were taught in school, you would expect that once a law is adopted and signed by the President, it would automatically be reviewed by the Supreme Court to determine if it is Constitutional before it is enacted. However, this is not the case.
In the 1780âs, the Supreme Court met to quickly establish some âjusticiabilityâ rules. As noted in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, this is one of the rules: âJudges will not render legal advice to political officials outside the context of a contested case.â This rule means that Hillaryâs promises, if passed by Congress and signed by the President, are not reviewed by the Supreme Court until a case relating to the law is brought before it. This also means a citizen would have to sue the government to force the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the law. It is hard to believe that our forefathers wanted the process of constitutional review to be forced in this manner.
Because of the nature of what it takes to bring lawsuits to the judicial system, it will be years before the citizenâs case can be heard by the Supreme Court. At best, the constitutionality of Hillaryâs promise will be decided years later, and worst case, the Supreme Court will never determine the constitutionality of the case due to the fact that in recent years, only roughly eighty cases have been heard by the court out of the thousands seeking to be heard.
Where is the balance of power? Where are the checks and balances? The Supreme Courtâs failure to determine the Constitutionality of legislation in a timely manner has allowed the other two branches of government to expand the scope and reach of our national government far beyond the limits in the Constitution. For instance, loosely interpreting the general welfare clause of congressâs power has given politicians the green light to take money from one citizen in the form of taxes and give it to another citizen. In the past forty years we have seen $4 trillion transfer of wealth from one group of citizens to another, all in the name of providing for the general welfare. Giving away public treasure to buy votes and favor goes back to the days of the Roman Empire. We have a constitution which should protect us from the vote buying schemes of career politicians. Unfortunately, we canât seem to enforce the rule of the Constitution. You do not need to be a constitutional scholar to realize that our Federal government has repeatedly encroached upon the rights of states and individuals.
Our Constitution, if interpreted correctly and timely, would deter the expansion of the central government, not add to its power. Our founding fathers understood well the dangers of an all powerful central government. During the founding of our country the threat was the English monarchy, but today the threat is a creeping federal intrusion into every aspect of our lives and it is being unchecked by the Supreme Court.
The Judicial branch needs to develop a review system which would immediately determine the constitutionality of any law before it is enacted, instead of having to wait years for the Supreme Court to overturn or change an unconstitutional law. Had a review system been in place, perhaps our right to free speech would not have been limited by the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The American people need and deserve citizen statesmen not self-serving politicians to take control of this country. There are some true statesmen in Congress but with approval ratings around 10% most Congressmen are not doing what this country needs and wants.
The solution is to elect leaders who take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously. We need leaders who will not take advantage of the lack of constitutional review to push their own agenda. We need leaders who will say to the American people that a proposed law is not constitutional and I will not vote for it. We need leaders, who before making a promise, will ask themselves, is this promise constitutional? Apparently Hillary Clinton does not.
For the reason of obtaining votes in order to get elected to the highest office in the land, Hillaryâs promises are doubtfully constitutional.
GILBERT
for President
Conservative Principles
Heartland Values
In 2000 I voted for President Bush and the Republicans. I had high hopes that with the Republicans in control of the legislature and the executive branches that real change would occur in our government. I thought that the principles that we all thought the Republicans stood for would guide the Republicans to do what is best for the country. I thought I would see a new higher moral standard. What we got was corruption, bribes, moral decline, hearings with no action, tax breaks for big business, McCain Feingold and last year 15,000 earmarks. We get a Republican majority in the Senate and a President who think that the best way to handle the illegal alien problem is to give them amnesty. And just last month we had a great break through with the North Koreans where they agreed to not do what they agreed to not do under Clinton. How much will it cost the American citizens this time?
There has to be a change in Presidential and Congressional leadership to affect change in this country. There has to be a way to get the politicians out and the statesmen in. Those politicians who vote only for the sake of the party, the lobbyist or big business have to be removed. To bring about substantial changes in the government these new statesmen must control the House, Senate and the White House.
Bio: Born 1946 in Winston-Salem, NC, married with two grown children, daughter and son
4 grandsons and 2 granddaughters, businessman, member of Biltmore Baptist Church, Asheville, NC, dad owned a small trucking company-passed away 2002, Mom worked as a cafeteria worker-passed away 1989, Eagle Scout, grew up on a farm in rural North Carolina, worked hard and long in the hot and the cold. Milked cows, slopped hogs, fed chickens, etc, graduated in 1969 from Virginia Tech with a BS in Civil Engineering, Army ROTC commission Stationed at Fort Bragg, NC, Fort Jackson, SC and Vietnam, Black Mountain Center Human Rights Advocacy Committee.