Supreme Court To Take Up Gun Rights Case

The Supreme Court passed over major gun issues this past year. The Court had an opportunity to look at several cases that would have given it a chance to clear up some issues regarding the Second Amendment. The Court decided that it was better to leave things murky.

The Court did though, take up a case of a felon who has firearm issues. A former border patrol agent was convicted of a felony and had to surrender all his firearms. He foolishly surrendered them to the government rather than transferring them to his wife or another family member (or just selling them).

He wanted his guns back so that he could sell them or transfer them to his wife. The government will not let him have them back.

I feel for this guy in that those firearms are his property and he should have been able to sell them to get money for his family. Instead the guns are in the hands of the government which means he will likely never see them again.

Unless, of course, the Supremes decide that he has a right to his firearms so he can dispose of them in a manner more beneficial to his family.

I am glad the Court took this case but I am left wondering why it passed on all the cases that affect LAW ABIDING citizens who are being infringed upon by out of control state and federal governments.

Guns Save Lives

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Are Minorities Brainwashed Into Inferiority Complex?

The Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that banned affirmative action. The Michigan law basically states that race will not be used as a factor in determining who gets into college. In fact, the Michigan law does not allow colleges to ask the race of the applicant.

The race baiting poverty pimp, and government informant, Al Sharpton is rallying the black folks to do whatever it takes (you know, like riot and protest) to reverse this huge injustice. But what huge injustice is there? We are told that we need equality and a long hard fight was waged for that equality. The Republican Party led the way in ensuring that civil rights were made into law. While one can debate if it was necessary or Constitutional, the fact is we passed a lot of civil rights laws.

So if we want equality why do people of color have to be “more equal” based on their race? Should not one get into college (or anything else like the White House) based on merit and not skin color?

Not according to Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters who think that affirmative action is the only way to solve past injustices. In other words, there needs to be a continual advantage for people of color because of inequalities that existed before many of them were born.

One does not solve racial inequality by reversing the racism by giving a leg up based solely on skin color.

Then again, how would Al Sharpton make any money?

It is bad enough that Al uses the issue to provide a solution for a problem that does not exist but what is worse is that many people of color have been told for so long that they are inferior to white people that they seem to believe it. Why are there threats of riots and other civil unrest over the Court’s decision? Why are people fighting for an act that basically says people of color can’t make it on their merits so they need extra help?

It would seem to me that if people believed in equality they would jump at the chance to prove they are on equal footing and worthy of consideration based solely on their abilities. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., they should be judged not on the color of their skin but on their merits and abilities.

The problem is that many of these folks have been told for so long that they are not as good (and that is the message of affirmative action) so they need a little extra help.

When a state like Michigan says that race will not be asked and will not be used to determine admission folks who have been brainwashed into believing they are inferior get riled up by the race baiters, whose sole job is to keep people down by making them think they are inferior, and act on emotion.

If your scores are not good enough to get you in then your color had nothing to do with it. Perhaps if people (of all colors) spent more time learning and less time listening to people like Sharpton or skipping school to get involved in drug and gang activities they would achieve the scores necessary for admission.

Here is a wake up call. You do not need special treatment to get into school. You have the ability to achieve as well as anyone else regardless of color. There are many highly successful people of color who chose to study and do well in life and you can do that too.

First though, you need to tune out the likes of Al Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters. They will continue to drag you down while they get rich exploiting you (and Al might rat you out for something).

Affirmative Action is a bad program that needs to go away. It causes all kinds of problems.

Look at what happened when we got the Affirmative Action president…

I wonder if Harry Reid will call Al and those he incites domestic terrorists?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Was Arizona A Sacrificial Lamb?

One would like to think that any court, especially the Supreme Court, would rule based on the Constitution. In an ideal world the judges would look at a case and compare it to what is allowed in the Supreme Law of the land and then decide if it passes muster or not.

Unfortunately, our country is not like that as many judges ignore the Constitution in order to push a political or idealistic agenda. For instance, there is no way that a case involving the right of an American citizen who is not otherwise disqualified (criminal, mental illness, addiction, etc) to own a gun should be shot down by any court. The fact that Second Amendment cases have been 5-4 decisions in our highest court speaks volumes about how some justices view the Constitution and the citizens who own that document.

Today the Supreme Court struck down three of four provisions of the Arizona Immigration Law, a law that was written with the same wording as the federal law and one that did nothing more than enforce ALREADY existing federal law.

Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority on this and there might be a good reason. Justice Kagan recused herself because she was Solicitor General and was involved in the case against the law. If Roberts votes the other way the decision is split at 4-4 and the lower court ruling that invalidated the entire thing would be upheld. At least this way Roberts ensured that the most important part of the law, that which allows police officers to check immigration status, was upheld.

There is another take on this that I have heard and it is that Roberts voted this way because Obamacare is going to be overturned (or parts of it are) and Roberts wants to be able to show the Arizona case as proof that he is thoughtful in his process and that overturning Obamacare was not political.

It is sad that this takes place but the Court has been a political entity since FDR fiddled with it. Justices are selected based on their political ideology and less so on their judicial qualities. Presidents put people on courts not who will uphold the Constitution but who will provide political decisions in a party’s favor. If justices ruled by interpreting the Constitution (and this means reading what the Founders wrote about what it means and not some liberal living document mumbo jumbo) then there would be no issues and there would be fewer 5-4 decisions.

There would also not be a necessity for justices to vote one way to demonstrate that their decisions are not political. There would be no outcry over judicial activism and we would not have Barack Obama and his liberal minions berating the court and trying to intimidate them.

Another case decided today mirrored the Citizen’s United Case but at the state level. It was decided the way the CU Case was. What are the odds that this happened as a slap in the face to Obama for calling out the Court in his SOTU Address?

Supreme Court Justices are supposed to interpret law in accordance with the Constitution and base their decisions ONLY on that document. There should be no reference to foreign law or public feeling or opinion polls and there darn sure should not be decisions that run contrary to the words of the Constitution and those who wrote it.

We have these things because nine people sit on a court and play games.

As an aside, Justice Scalia wrote agreat dissenting opinion in the Arizona Case. His was well reasoned and followed the Constitution. It is too bad others could not do this as well.

I think that Roberts voted the way he did in order to keep the entire law from being shot down because of the split. But I can’t help but wonder if he feels as if this were a blessing because now he is on record as voting with the liberals on the Court in favor of Obama’s position so that when Obamacare is shot down (if it is) he will have cover.

It is a shame that our system of government has come to this and unless changes are made we will soon hit a death spiral from which we cannot recover.

On Thursday of this week we will know how Obamacare plays out. We will know if the Court takes its job and its duty to the Citizens seriously or if they have committed us to the loony bin of a banana republic.

Time will tell. I think at least part of the law will be struck down but with politics instead of adherence to the Constitution the MO of the SCOTUS, one can never tell.

Justice Kagan recused herself from this decision because of her role as Solicitor General. She should have recused herself from Obamacare but since she was placed on the Court by Obama to uphold it you can bet she will vote on it.

Though it might get interesting if she did recuse. That would make it a 4-4 and things would really be boogered up.

We will see Thursday if we are a nation of laws or a nation of men.

In Arizona Sheriff Arpaio already answered regarding law…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Obama: So Transparent Anyone Can Donate

Barack Obama claimed his regime would be the most transparent in history. Why, we would be able to see through it all because he would hide nothing from us.

Then, of course, he set about hiding things. He is not transparent and he does the very things that he scolded George Bush for.

Hell, he even threw in the individual mandate after chiding Hillary Clinton about how it was wrong during the Democrat Primary in 2008.

But I might have to change my mind about Obama’s transparency. Barack Obama is so transparent that anyone can donate to his campaign.

Barack Obama’s donation page is not set up with the usual security that helps to prevent people from illegally donating money to his campaign. He did the same thing in 2008 and it is believed (and documented by some web sites such as Atlas Shrugs) that illegal donations flowed freely into his campaign.

The same thing is happening now.

As reported here, the campaign takes illegal donations and people are demonstrating how easy it is. How much more of a flag does one need than the name Illegal Contributor? How much more of a flag does one need than having an address as the State Penitentiary? If the website used the credit card verification code (like the Republican’s sites do) then this donation would have been flagged as potentially illegal. The code would not have matched the address.

But Obama does not want illegal donations stopped. If they do not flow into his campaign he will not be able to get huge sums of money from illegal donors both here and overseas.

Practically all of us know how the Democrat media would be playing this if a Republican were getting illegal donations and did not have security in place. The cries would be heard around the world.

Obama, who was an alleged Constitutional Law professor, excoriated the Supreme Court during one of his State of the Union Addresses. It involved their decision on campaign contributions and Obama was not happy with it.

Isn’t it amazing that the same Democrats who scream about unlimited donations have no problem with allowing unlimited illegal donations to flow into the Obama campaign?

Let me decipher. What Obama was saying when he railed against that decision was; hey, we don’t like the idea that you allowed everyone to receive as much money as we do. How dare you level the playing field?

The case Obama did not like was Citizens United.

In November the citizens are going to unite to send Mr. Transparency packing.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


The Constitution Trumps ALL Other Reasons

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case against Obamacare and the initial impressions from most thinking people are that it will not stand. The impression is that the individual mandate will not pass Constitutional muster and that the entire law might be struck down. The left realizes this and has begun its attacks. They have been chastising Justices for being unwilling to read a 2700 page law to determine which parts can be saved.

This anger comes from the same people who did not read it before they voted to pass it.

There is speculation that Obama already knows how things will shake out and I think that if he does it is because Justice Kagan leaked the results of the vote to him.

He made his first public statements on the issue yesterday and he discussed how it would be unprecedented for this law to be ruled unconstitutional. He discussed how justices are unelected and he said that the bill was passed by a “strong majority” in Congress.

This is all bluster and to me indicates he knows how the vote went and he is positioning himself to run against the Republicans who challenged this and the “activist” court that threw it out.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, period. In that document the Supreme Court is charged with making sure the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches are within the confines of it. The Court is not activist if it rules that the Constitution was violated. An activist court is one that makes its own rules or laws. One that follows the Constitution is not activist no matter how much Obama claims it is. It would be an activist Court if it went through the legislation and decided piece by piece which parts are OK. That is for Congress to do. The Court only needs to decide Constitutionality of the mandate and then decide to scrap the entire law or not. Congress should handle the aftermath.

It also matters not one bit how many members of Congress voted to pass a bill. If every single member voted to pass a bill establishing the Catholic Church as the official church of the United States it would be unconstitutional. You can bet that Obama and every other person screaming about the majority in Congress who passed Obamacare would be lining up to oppose such a ruling because it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Obama would not say the Court should not overturn it because it was passed by a strong majority, he would be screaming about violating the Constitution.

We have a Supreme Court to ensure that majorities of any kind do not violate the Constitution and pass laws that affect people in violation of our law. That is their function and they are tasked with that duty.

One thing is certain; the number of members of Congress who voted on something is not a criterion the Court uses to determine if an item is Constitutional.

James Clyburn (D-SC) has suggested that Obama run against the Supreme Court. As Obama pointed out, they are unelected but his public statements leave the impression he is doing just that.

Perhaps, but it will do him no good. If Obama is concerned with majorities, a large majority of Americans (larger than the majority that passed Obamacare) oppose Obamacare and those folks will not be swayed by some argument that runs contrary to the idea that the Supremes upheld the Constitution.

Liberals will generally support Obama but are fed up with high unemployment and gas prices so they might stay home on Election Day.

Blacks, of course, will support him in overwhelming numbers no matter what he does.

The important take away is that the Constitution trumps all other items and that the Supremes are tasked with ensuring that document is upheld by the other two branches of government. This is why Obama does not like the Constitution and why he feels it is an outdated document.

It is also why he ignores it.

The true activists on the Court are the liberal justices whose work involves social engineering. They do not follow the Constitution and they work to uphold liberal ideas with little regard for the Constitution.

These justices Obama does not refer to as activists.

Obama says rejection would be unprecedented but he is wrong (hyperbole anyone). I would like to say it is unprecedented that something that is so obviously unconstitutional would go down to a 5-4 ruling.

Sadly, a 5-4 ruling is the norm as liberals ignore the Constitution in favor of social engineering.

Obama is proud of them even if he does not understand the Constitution.

Maggie’s Notebook has an interesting article.

The Daily Caller has an article about Obama’s hollow threat to the Supremes…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog