Preserving our Nation by Upholding the Constitution

The Constitution creates a republican, representative form of government that is granted limited, enumerated powers in order to ensure that individual liberties and freedoms are jealously guarded.  As a Member of Congress, I have a solemn duty to uphold these principles and to remain acutely aware of limitations to the government’s reach and power.  In support of that effort, I have joined the Congressional Constitution Caucus, which is dedicated to preserving the true intent of our Founding Fathers.  As Benjamin Franklin left the final meeting of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was approached by a woman who was curious as to what the new government would look like. Franklin replied, “A republic, Madam. If you can keep it.” The Constitution creates a republican, representative form of government that is granted limited, enumerated powers in order to ensure that individual liberties and freedoms are jealously guarded.  Specifically, the 10th Amendment states that “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.”  As a Member of Congress, I have a solemn duty to uphold these principles and to remain acutely aware of limitations to the government’s reach and power. In support of that effort, I have joined the Congressional Constitution Caucus, which is dedicated to preserving the true intent of our Founding Fathers. This bipartisan caucus provides an educational forum regarding Constitutional principles and fosters discussion of the appropriate role of the federal government. What steps do you think Congress should take to be reminded of its duty to uphold the principles of the Constitution and the limited nature of government?   Ronald Reagan Statue Unveiled in London From The Independent 4 July 2011 A statue of former US president Ronald Reagan has been unveiled to mark 100 years since his birth. Foreign Secretary William Hague paid tribute to Mr Reagan at the ceremony at the US Embassy in London this morning. He said: "It is a great honour for me personally to take part in a ceremony for a man who changed the political landscape at the time I first became involved in it." He was joined by former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as the 10-foot bronze figure was revealed. Ms Rice represented the late president's widow Nancy Reagan at the ceremony, which coincided with the US Independence Day celebrations. Mr Hague said: "He joins the ranks of great men and women whose statues adorn our London streets; Nelson, Wellington, Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, Edith Cavell and Nelson Mandela. ...Statues bring us to face to face with our heroes long after they are gone. Ronald Reagan is without question a great American hero; one of America's finest sons, and a giant of 20th-century history. You may be sure that the people of London will take this statue to their hearts. "Those who stop and look will be reminded of President Reagan's extraordinary achievements, and all that he stood for as a man and a leader of men and women." He added that Mr Reagan's great political ally, former prime minister Baroness Thatcher, could not attend the ceremony. Mr Hague said: "She has asked me to say these words to you: Ronald Reagan was a great president and a great man - a true leader for our times. He held clear principles and acted upon them with purpose. "Through his strength and his conviction he brought millions of people to freedom as the Iron Curtain finally came down. "It was a pleasure to be his colleague and his friend, and I hope that this statue will be a reminder to future generations of the debt we owe him." The statue of Mr Reagan was commissioned as part of a year of celebrations to mark what would have been the 100th birthday of the former US president. It will stand alongside existing statues of other illustrious American presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin D Roosevelt. Although the embassy is moving from its central London home next year, the statues will remain at their current Grosvenor Square location. The statue was commissioned by the Reagan Memorial Fund Trust. Mr Reagan died in 2004 at the age of 93, having served as US president between 1981 and 1989. To acknowledge Mr Reagan's contribution to the end of the Cold War, a piece of the Berlin Wall will be installed in front of the statue. Lady Thatcher once said he had "a higher claim than any other leader to have won the Cold War for liberty and he did it without a shot being fired".   Letter from Mayor Alan P. Krasnoff (4 July 2011) We all know the story. In July, 1776, work that had begun as an effort to seek common ground came to an end. Chafing at rules imposed from afar, a group of colonists came together in Philadelphia to declare independence from the will of a tyrannical king and overbearing Parliament. In the face of the obvious consequences that might follow, I can only imagine how much courage it must have taken to sign a document challenging the most powerful nation on earth to what would surely be war. Yet they did, and nearly 245 years later, we are blessed to be the inheritors of a call to freedom that continues to echo around the world. But with that blessing comes a responsibility, which is to ensure that—by using them—our hard-won freedoms remain secure for ourselves and our children. You do that by being a part of a political process that can sometimes seem contentious at every level but which, in the end, always seems to leave us stronger and committed to a course of action that will guarantee a brighter future for everyone. For that, I just wanted to take a moment during this July 4 holiday to say thank you for your commitment to our country, our city and our party. Alan Shut Down: Arizona's Idea to Restrict Political Speech Thursday, June 30, 2011 09:13 AM By: George Will The fate of Arizona's Clean Elections Act, which the Supreme Court on Monday declared unconstitutional, was foreshadowed March 28, during oral arguments. Lawyers defending the law insisted its purpose was to combat corruption or the appearance thereof. The court has repeatedly said this is the only constitutionally permissible reason for restricting the quantity of political speech. The law's defenders insisted its purpose was not to "level the playing field" by equalizing candidates' resources, which the court has declared an unconstitutional reason for regulating speech. But Chief Justice John Roberts replied: "Well, I checked the Citizens Clean Elections Commission website this morning, and it says that this act was passed to 'level the playing field' when it comes to running for office." Game over. Given the clarity and frequency with which the court has stressed the unconstitutionality of laws empowering government to equalize candidates' speech by equalizing their resources, Monday's ruling was predictable, but gratifying. Also predictable, but depressing, were four justices (Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor) finding no constitutional flaw in a law that did this: It made public funding available for all campaigns for state offices — but did so in a way flagrantly punitive to persons relying on voluntary private contributions. Recipients of tax dollars were limited to spending such dollars — but they got extra infusions of them to match spending by candidates relying on private contributions, if such spending exceeded the amount Arizona's government deemed proper. So, these matching funds were a powerful incentive for privately funded candidates not to speak — not to solicit funds to disseminate their advocacy. Even spending by independent groups supporting a privately financed candidate trigger such infusions to opponents. This, even though the court has said that independent expenditures are core political speech and "do not give rise to corruption." There is evidence supporting what is intuitively obvious — that the matching funds provision was intended to suppress speech by candidates relying on voluntary contributions, candidates who knew their speaking would trigger tax dollars for their subsidized opponents. An internal memo for the Clean Elections Institute, which defends the law, contentedly noted that a privately funded candidate "may think twice about raising additional funds in a race against a Clean Elections candidate," so "it can be argued that millions of dollars in spending never takes place." Hence the law's purpose is to curtail political speech. When Arizona Democrat Janet Napolitano, now secretary of homeland security, was running for governor, she joked that President George W. Bush, in effect, held a fundraiser for her. When he spoke at a fundraiser for her privately funded opponent, she received $750,000 in matching tax dollars. Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, noted that the "professed" purpose of Arizona's law is to encourage candidates to accept taxpayer funding. However, "how the state chooses to encourage participation in its public funding system matters, and we have never held that a state may burden political speech — to the extent the matching funds provision does — to ensure adequate participation in a public funding system." The Arizona law's fate was also foreshadowed in 2008, when the court held unconstitutional the "Millionaires' Amendment" in the McCain-Feingold law regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech. The amendment, written by incumbents to protect incumbents by punishing challengers wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns, said: When a wealthy candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold (the government's opinion of the proper amount of political speech), the candidate's opponent can receive contributions triple the size of contributions otherwise legal. Because wealthy candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, the Millionaires' Amendment mocked McCain-Feingold's pretense of disinterested concern with corruption, and it illuminated the element of incumbent protection in most campaign regulations. The Arizona law's fate actually was sealed in 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified; 220 years later, one wonders: When will people eager to empower government to regulate speech about itself abandon the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech? Will their long losing streak in the Supreme Court ever convince them that the First Amendment requires debate about government without government's regulatory intervention? During oral arguments last March, a frustrated Breyer, who is permissive regarding regulations restricting political speech, said: "It is better to say it's all illegal than to subject these things to death by a thousand cuts." Yes. Because it all is illegal as long as the First Amendment exists. George Will's email address is georgewill@washpost.com. © Newsmax. All rights reserved.     Fridays with Erick Erickson

I may be one of the few people in America convinced the Republicans will beat Barack Obama, but I really think that is the case.  It is not easy to say that just because the unemployment rate is over some number that the President will be beaten. But when the unemployment rate is so high and inflation is on the rise and the take home pay of Americans brings home less and less, yes, I think the President is beatable. More so, the President has no real solutions to fix the economy.  Reporters keep asking Republicans what they will do to create jobs.  The answer should be obvious.  "Nothing!"  In fact, I think Americans are finally starting to embrace that answer.  The truth is, as we are seeing, there is nothing the President can do to create jobs except get government out of the way. The Democrats' solution is to spend more, tax more, and punish the successful.  Republicans must be willing to do less.  An Ohio State University economic study shows that Barack Obama's stimulus plan saved or created many government jobs and killed many private sector jobs.  This is the Republican message -- government can do nothing to create jobs and much to kill jobs. Obama is beatable because at the end of the day it is still about the economy.— Erick Erickson Disclaimer:  This Commentary and News page is provided for political though and discussion only and may or may not represent the views and beliefs of ERRWC Membership. ERRWC disclaims any liability for commentary contained herein.