Cross-posted at the Wolves of Liberty.

When the federal government violates your rights, you’re not supposed to wait four years for new politicians in the hope that they’ll fix it. You’re not supposed to wait two, or four, or more years for some black-robed judge to pronounce that they’ve violated your rights. You are supposed to resist those violations of your liberty as they happen – and it is your state’s solemn duty to do the same…Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin’s post We Refuse over at the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) defines the core beliefs he holds as founder of the TAC:

The Tenth Amendment codifies in law this principle of popular sovereignty – that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes – and nothing more. But unfortunately, that’s not how things have been working, and very little that the government does is actually authorized by the constitution. And, this is a problem that didn’t just start in January 2009 – it’s been going on a long, long time.

He then asks the question, “What to do about it?” (emphasis mine):

Question – What do we do about it?

• Do we call and email our representatives in Congress and ask them to limit their own power?

• Do we march on D.C. and demand that the government limit its own power?

• Do we sue them in their own courts and ask their judges to limit their power?

• Do we vote the bums out in 2010, or 2012 – and ask new politicians to limit their own power?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.

Guess what – they were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out – but yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish – and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.

The problem we face today is not about personalities or political parties – it’s about power. Until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.

The emphasized text defines the very crux of the issue that surfaces when we begin to take it upon ourselves to change a party from within. To believe this actually makes a difference in the current environment of continuous growth in federal power is dangerous. The real issue that must be tackled is the growth of the federal government, how and why this growth occurred, why it is anathema to the very principles held by our founders, and what to do about it. Dr. Larry Hunter writes in The Soft Despotism of Democratic Fascism:

By all means my fellow Americans, go to the polls in November and vote out the bums who are most aggressively subverting our free-market republic and transforming it into Democratic Fascism, i.e., Democrats. But just know when you do, the people you replace them with, Republicans, are themselves subverting the American free-market republic by offering nothing but Socialism Lite as an alternative.

So many scoundrels; so few alternatives.

Had John McCain been elected president in 2008, we almost certainly by this time would have seen a version of RomneyCare enacted into law, which is a lite version of ObamaCare, an idea hatched inside conservative think tanks as a Socialist Lite alternative to HillaryCare all those years ago—can’t stand to be the Movement of No don’t you know.

A trial run of a scaled-down model of the democratic fascist healthcare reform machine was enacted into law with the Medicare Prescription Drugs (Part D) program in 2003 by a Republican president and Republican Congress: a Rube Goldberg device that conscripts the private sector to run the democratic fascist drug machinery, complete with a lite version of an individual mandate—call it contracting out tyranny. Indeed, RomneyCare and its prescription-drug prototype is precisely the template the Democrats used to forge public-private insurance and drug cartels beneath a private patina. No wonder the stock prices of the pharmaceutical companies and the biggest health insurance companies rose markedly during the run up to ObamaCare and right after it was signed into law…

…With only a few exceptions, Republicans are not demanding a roll-back of the welfare state, not talking about scaling back the size of government from its current almost 38 percent of GDP to 15 percent or less. Not more than a fraction of them talk seriously about a total repeal of the income tax (which only half the American people pay) or repeal of the Federal Reserve System, which subverts sound money and undermines economic growth, and no more than couple of them have any clue about how to restore sound money. Beyond a handful, there are no courageous Republicans calling for an end to empire and a return from our counterproductive search abroad for monsters to destroy. Fearful of their own shadows, there are not significant numbers of Republicans urging a dismantling of the domestic police state with its creeping total-information awareness system that is gradually smothering individual freedom and privacy; indeed South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is actually pushing hard for a biometric national ID card. No Republican is calling for constitutional amendments to put the federal Leviathan back in chains, the kind of chains we all can believe in.

So, once you throw out the Democratic rascals and replace them with Republican scalawags, don’t expect things to change much. While every republican in Congress voted against ObamaCare, the Grand Old Party cannot now even muster the courage to run on a platform of repealing it.

Perhaps not in this election nor even in the presidential election to follow but soon the American people will come to understand a very sad and frightening fact about the United States today: Elections no longer work to divert the nation’s decent into the soft despotism of democratic fascism; they simply perpetuate the fraud of two parties, one Establishment, democratic in appearance, increasingly fascist in operation.

I urge the reader to survey the material presented here, particularly Dr. Hunter’s expose of the scurrilous truths about current Beltway politics practiced between the two parties titled Who Lost Healthcare.

The need we all feel for action is pressing. The current target of the symptom of unconstitutional governance by a strong central power is ObamaCare. Talk of repeal is thick in the air – lawsuits and rumors of lawsuits even thicker. Talk of taking back the party from the ground up is the strategy of the day for many.

Repeal will never happen for obvious reasons. It sounds good, looks good on paper, but is impossible until 2013 due to the power of the veto pen and the realities on the ground. To over-ride a veto takes more votes in the Senate than the Republicans could hope to have under the best of circumstances in the upcoming 2010 midterms. Therefore, 2013 is the best chance for repeal and only if Obama loses the election in 2012 and the Republicans control both chambers of the legislature. Even then, we must assume and count on Republicans having the nerve to take on such an undertaking, something recent history quite clearly demonstrates as contra-indicative of GOP tendencies. Not to mention the fact that most if not all of the bureaucracy for ObamaCare will already be in place, making the repeal of the entire bill a dangerous undertaking as insurance companies and doctors – those who are still around – position themselves to work within the new framework. The damage to the existing system, already done, could be exacerbated as the entire structure is torn down. So much inertia will exist within the scaffolding and foundation of ObamaCare the momentum of this monstrosity of a bill would require great courage to take on, repeal, tear down, and replace. I don’t believe for a second ObamaCare will be repealed and putting our eggs in that basket is dangerous and negligent.

Then there is the lawsuits challenging the individual mandate. Forget for a moment the absence of any real enforcement mechanism for the insurance mandate. Many scholars believe the mandate will not be struck down by the Supreme Court. As the entire history of the Supreme Court since the days of the Marshall Court is a history lesson in how the federal powers absconded with the rights of the states and the people through judicial activism and negligence, I would not be surprised. But I will cede ground and assume that it will be struck down. What occurs then? What are we left with? ObamaCare absent the mandate is a recipe for either single-payer socialized medicine of government backed insurance cartels (fascist medicine). If the mandate cannot be collected, then by default taxes will need to be raised. As it will take years for this case to make it to the Supreme Court, the arguments in the previous paragraph still hold. Strike the mandate with Republicans in control and watch the GOP bailout a few large insurance companies creating a cartel-like environment where insurance companies now make your medical decisions for you with the backing of the government. Great system.

As for those who think taking back the party and changing it from within is the panacea to our problems, I can only point to the above information from Mr. Boldin and Dr. Larry Hunter. There is not point of reference to indicate this approach possesses any efficacy whatsoever. As indicated above, the evidence is quite to the contrary. There is also this to consider:

Further evidence of Federal lucre and its consequences can be found in many aspects of welfare programs enacted in past century and the beginning of this century:

• As of 2003, Medicare we underfunded to the tune of $27 trillion, four times the national debt at that time. This funding crisis was in terms of future obligations versus projected tax receipts. No wonder a Value Added Tax is now being discussed. Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven found in 2003 that an average male that reached age 65 will receive $71,000 more in benefits from Social Security and Medicare that he had put in. Contrast that with the average twenty-five year old male expected to pay $322,000 more in taxes that he would ever receive.

• Prior to Medicaid, doctors provided services to the poor for free or at reduced rates. Prior to Medicaid poor families had higher hospital admission rates than those in wealthier brackets and both were almost on par with each other concerning the number of doctor visits per year. Medicaid ended that and resulted in a massive decline in reduced-cost and free services to the poor as the government’s payments for medical care for the poor now compensated doctors and hospitals for services once rendered at reduced rates or pro bono. Medicare and Medicaid basically transferred income from the middle-class taxpayer to middle-class health-care workers and the sudden stimulation of demand played a large role in raising the cost of healthcare. The free-market, effectively chocked off by government regulation and welfare services, was unable to work to lower cost and increase consumption by allowing for natural market competition mechanisms.

• A study in 1960 by Charles Murray concluded the Great Society lead to stagnation for the poor.

• Budget cuts are a myth. Even during President Ronald Reagan’s tenure the rate of increase in government spending slowed but continued its upward trend. While defense spending played a large role, non-defense spending was 17.5% of GDP in 1985 compared to 10.1% in 1965. In the aggregate there was neither tax nor budget cuts during the Reagan era. Spending grew faster than taxing, but both lines continued to grow. While some welfare spending was cut slightly, some spending increased by as much as 18% from 1981 to 1989.

• Of even greater surprise is that even though Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, taxes overall actually increased in the decade of the 80s, with some increases negating and then offsetting the reductions of 1981. Social Security taxes in the early 80s were among the largest in U.S. history.

• The Tax Reform Act of 1986 increased taxes by closing loopholes and eliminating some tax credits. Federal taxes averaged 18.9% of GNP during the 80s, compared with 18.3 for the 70s and 18.2 for the 60s. Even under Reagan, federal government grew.

• One of the greatest twists on logic in DC is the idea of cuts. Under President Clinton’s seven year budget proposal the President called for a $500 billion dollar increase in federal spending while Republicans called for a $350 billion dollar increase. I can look at that sentence all day and I still do not see the work cut. There is no reduction in federal spending by either Clinton or the Republicans. Yet the liberal press was able to tout the tired old line of Republican cuts and tie them to popular federal programs, leading 47% of Americans to believe Republican cuts too deep. Again, what cuts? When Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed a 6% annual growth in Medicare spending and Clinton a 7.5% growth, the liberal press and political commentators went apoplectic over the proposed cuts to the Medicare program proposed by Speaker Gingrich.

• Both parties are guilty of this political double speak, redefining the meaning of the word cut to mean a reduction in how fast the government grows.

All of our current solutions are nothing less than men gathered around a campfire screaming into the night to scare away the predators. Lawsuits, repeal, changing the party from within – all take time, none are guaranteed or even likely to make a difference either to ObamaCare or the issue of federal lucre symptomatic of a practically supreme centralized government that should not even possess these powers to begin with. The real change needed is the use of education and information. For example, did you know the final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, cut the states? Did you know that nullification has been successfully used by the states to stop a federal law at the boundaries of that state? Do you know what nullification is?

Back to Mr. Boldin from the TAC, who continues (emphasis mine):

Question – What do we do about it?

Jefferson and Madison gave us the answer. In response to the unconstitutional attacks on liberty that were the Alien and Sedition Acts, they secretly authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Here are a few excerpts that really define exactly how things are supposed to work when two or more branches of the federal government conspire against the constitution and your liberty.

the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [by the Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy

So while it might be important to call, petition, demand, march, sue and vote bums out, because they’re all bums, there’s much more we’re supposed to do. When the federal government violates your rights, you’re not supposed to wait four years for new politicians in the hope that they’ll fix it. You’re not supposed to wait two, or four, or more years for some black-robed judge to pronounce that they’ve violated your rights. You are supposed to resist those violations of your liberty as they happen – and it is your state’s solemn duty to do the same.

Mr. Boldin then provides information on nullification resolutions and laws within the states:

• Already a dozen states have passed 10th amendment resolutions reaffirming the Constitution as the founders and ratifiers gave us.

• 25 states have passed laws and resolutions nullifying the Real ID act – stopping it dead in its tracks in most of the country.

• 7 states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts – nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations in their states.

• 14 states have now passed laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana

• 3 states have already passed Health Care Freedom Acts to ban federal health care mandates in their states.

• Other states are considering nullification laws on cap and trade, the misuse of state national guard troops, monetary policy and much more.

However, even nullification has its own issues as it also relies on state politicians to rescue us from the federal government and re-instate our rightful position as the real power brokers within our states. Probably one of the most accurate truisms concerning politicians was made by President Reagan:

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

From Shane Musgrove writing at the TAC:

Are the States and their representatives any better? My assumption is that some, if not many, fall into the same political traps, yet not so deeply nor to the same extremity. I believe with great hope along with many others that there are representatives at the State level who do take these matters as genuinely concerning and view it as their responsibility to protect their citizens from what we can now define as “federal lawlessness.” I commend you on your courage, will, integrity, and your strength.

Now, as Linscott said, “You cannot expect the problem to fix the problem,” referring to the federal government, so we emphatically hope that these problems will be answered at the State level. So, the answer to the perplexing philosophical statement is none other than the States, their representatives, and the people that vote them into office.

Therefore, what follows is in essence, “A Call from ‘We the People’ to All State Representatives.”

As a preface, it is a responsibility of the States to assert their rights, specifically in times such as these. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that responsibility and accountability exists among State representatives rather than open-ended, unmoving opinions based on political philosophy and liberal views of the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, an oath is taken in all States in some form of an edict to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.” In addition, it should be noted that this call for responsibility is void of any form of violence or sedition, lest the leftist accusations of “inciting violence” and “hate” come forth with great force.

Therefore, let it be said: For legislators who are weakly or mildly concerned with these problems and see your duty as a representative half heartedly, resign.

For governors who do not have the courage to stand and fight for State rights in accordance with the following words from James Madison, resign.

Strong words, but are they enough? Looking at the list of states with non-binding resolutions vs. the list of states we need to actually nullify via law not only ObamaCare but any other attempt at federal over-reach before this country falls off the financial cliff, I am not convinced. That is why it is incumbent upon us to initiate a program of massive non-violent passive-aggressive resistance in the spirit of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. As Gandhi once said:

40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.

This is true of our situation as well – a few elites in Washington can not make a majority of American’s accept something they are unwilling to endure. Shortly after the War of Independence, our founders looked for the source of the problem that allowed tyranny to fester and thrive, a tyranny so abusive the only way to abolish it was to remove it by force. Wisely, they recognized the sovereignty of Britain lay in the hands of a few, concentrated in the Parliament itself. As they set about creating a new form of governance, our forefathers rejected the very idea of a strong central sovereignty, the United States of America was to be a Union of sovereign states, and the role of the federal government limited by definition. Despite liberal revisionism, the fact remains the Constitution was not ratified by national referendum, but by individual conventions in each state. This fact is indisputable and definitively makes the case that the Uniting of the States was not intended to be a under a strong federal power, but rather that of thirteen sovereign states under a limited federal government.

Since its ratification, our Constitution, under constant assault by activist judges, corrupted legislators and Presidents, is now turned on its head. Thomas Jefferson noted that:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

The very nature of man is corrupt and today, after more than two centuries of the corruption of power we find a small island off the coast of France replaced by a city called Washington DC.

This state of affairs cannot be allowed to stand. At risk is the future of this country and its people. Our goal is to educate and the taking back of this country through non-violent civil disobedience and the constitutionally sound tool of nullification. Over time I will outline the tactics and continue to define the philosophy of this approach. Never will we rely on the assistance of those whose stake in this fight is the loss of the addictive and corruptive power gained at our expense. One may as well attempt to force a crack addict to part with their beloved drug. Until the Statists are utterly destroyed under the weight of truth and knowledge this Republic is in danger of utter ruin. If is only through self-power that we can win this fight.

This is the hill we live or die on.

In other news and opinion:

Michelle Malkin on establishment Republicans: John S. McCain, Will You Please Go Now?

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Brion McClanahan writes on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution:

When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional “scholar” David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.

In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.

As more states are joining in, it is worth noting that so-called constitutional scholars do not really exist. The constitution is not a very difficult document to understand. The real meaning of the phrase “constitutional scholar” should be replaced by “constitutional case law scholar”. However, a close look at what such a scholar actually knows about the origins of the constitution and what the founders intended it to mean makes it abundantly clear that many so-called scholars are not, in fact, scholars in the sense of understanding both the foundations and subsequent evolution of the document’s impact on this country, nor modern deviation from the original intent of the founders. One by-product of the modern study of constitutional law, is that for many in the field case law and precedents are primary while the foundations and history of the document are glossed over or entirely ignored. What does that tell us? It tells us that, since the foundations have been mired and replaced by 200 years of nationalist judges, many current scholars in in the field are actually completely clueless. Ask them about the Marshall Court around 1810 and onward and you will get a list of cases along with commentary, but mention that it was Marshall who took the sound defeat of nationalists at the Philadelphia Convention and turned it into a victory and you will be met by a blank stare or a nationalist talking point that exposes the naivety of the speaker. You also will not hear any mention of why America in 2010 looks a lot like America in 1776 in reference to the many being lorded over by the few. Brion McClanahan continues (emphasis mine):

Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct…

…The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding [emphasis added].”

The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.

As stated earlier, the constitution is not a difficult document. So grab your nearest copy and look for the words “national healthcare” or any synonymous phrase. The fact you will not find such working indicates national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. How embarrassing for Engstrom. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to display a complete ignorance of the constitution. Read the whole article. Here I wish to point out a few other pertinent items (emphasis mine):

By the time the Constitution was debated in the several State ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, the “supremacy clause” galvanized opponents of the document. The Constitution, they said, would destroy the States and render them impotent in their internal affairs. The response from proponents of ratification illuminates the true intent of the clause. William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina and proponent of the Constitution, responded to attacks levied on the “supremacy clause” by stating that:

This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations [emphasis added].

Davie wasn’t alone in this opinion. Future Supreme Court justice James Iredell of North Carolina argued that, “This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution [emphasis added].”…

…Ultimately, the three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which 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.”

Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.

The crux of the article that will shape the debate as ObamaCare lawsuits wind their way to the Supreme Court is well articulated (emphasis mine):

Several other constitutional “scholars” have weighed in on the debate in the last week, and each has invoked the “supremacy clause” to defend their opposition to State action against healthcare. Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel went so far as to suggest that the States are not reading the Tenth Amendment correctly. In perhaps the most outlandish statement of the debate, he also said, “Any talk of nullification bothers me because it’s talk of lawlessness.”

I guess Mr. Siegel has failed to consider that Idaho bill HO391 was passed by a legitimate legislative body elected by the people of the State. That would make it lawful.

Brion McClanahan recalls a very telling quote by a great patriot:

Of course, this debate ultimately boils down to loose interpretation verses strict construction. Thomas Jefferson had the best line on this issue.

When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”

Herein lies the crux of the matter – the blank space. The blank space that has been filled in for 200 years by those who would create an ecosystem ripe for the growth of tyrannical rule and contempt fo the unwashed masses. How else does one explain the lucre and arrogance of Congress and the President force-feeding ObamaCare to an unwilling public? The burning question is, will the Supreme Court side with the other two branches?

For two centuries the judicial branch acted the enabler to the Congressional addiction to power. Two centuries to grant Congress virtually unlimited powers. Two centuries for a judiciary promising to uphold the constitution while crossing two fingers together behind their collective backs. Each finger represents the usurpation of powers that belong to you and me. One finger is the Supremacy Clause and one is the Commerce Clause. It will be very telling as ObamaCare lawsuits make their way through the maze of the court system to see if the judiciary will finally imply it understands its own role in shredding the constitution or whether they will continue to conspire with the executive and legislative branch in a triumvirate of tyranny.

This battle will prove once and for all whether tyranny rules our land. I doubt it will resolve the issue of state’s rights vs. nationalism. An entire compendium of cases since 1810 would need to be undone and power wrested from the federal government either by the people along with their states, or by the people under their own power through non-violent passive-aggressive massive civil disobedience. My money is on that later requirement.

Highly recommended article: What Would Jefferson Do? Nullify Now!

More news and opinion:

Dean: Of course ObamaCare is wealth redistribution!

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

The American Center for Law and Justice released its analysis of the White House dissident data collection program where the White House asks citizens to spy on each other and turn in any fishy emails or “casual conversations” that contradict or otherwise expose the lies coming from the White House and its political allies concerning ObamaCare. Here are some of the high points (any emphasis is mine):

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. . . . [I]t is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (citation omitted).

Throughout our nation’s history, Americans have used their freedom of speech to express their viewpoints on important social issues of their day. While the venues have evolved over time—from soapbox oratories on the village green to blogs and email blasts—the First Amendment’s protection of issue advocacy has remained robust. Citizen participation in town hall meetings and similar events to discuss social issues and
legislative proposals pre-dates our Nation’s founding and continues to the present day. When such meetings are opened up for citizen questions or comments, members of the public should feel free to ask difficult questions and make their opinions known. This form of non-disruptive participation in the government decision-making process is fully protected by the First Amendment. “There is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).

“[I]nteractive communication concerning political change”—such as citizen feedback at a town hall meeting—is “core political speech” for which the First Amendment’s protection is “at its zenith.” See Buckley v. Am. Const. Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 186-87 (1999) (citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422, 425 (1988)). Americans have the freedom to speak out for or against legislative proposals or other government action at town hall meetings and elsewhere without fear of retribution or surveillance by the government. As the Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights . . . was to take government off the backs of people.” Schneider v. Smith, 390 U.S. 17, 25 (1968).

The White House’s invitation to the public encouraging citizens to report “fishy” speech opposing the President’s health care policies is an egregious form of viewpoint-based government surveillance of private political speech.

Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order “to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)).

The Supreme Court has observed:

“Historically the struggle for freedom of speech and press in England was bound up with the issue of the scope of the search and seizure power.” History abundantly documents the tendency of Government—however benevolent and benign its motives—to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. . . .The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. at 313-14 (citation omitted).

The Court has noted in cases involving national security concerns that the President and other Executive Branch officials must act in a manner consistent with the First Amendment:

Implicit in the term “national defense” is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. For almost two centuries, our country has taken singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution, and the most cherished of those ideals have found expression in the First Amendment. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the
subversion of one of those liberties—the freedom of association—which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.

United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967). The White House’s justification for engaging
in a surveillance program of private expression is much weaker in this situation because, unlike
the President’s interest in the protection of our national security, his interest in intimidating or
monitoring his critics is not compelling.

The First Amendment provides broad protection for citizen issue advocacy at town hall meetings and in various forms of grassroots issue advocacy. The White House’s ill-advised citizen surveillance program runs counter to the core principles upon which this country was founded and raises serious constitutional concerns. President Obama should rescind and withdraw Mr. Phillips’s program and assure the public that the White House welcomes a healthy, robust debate on the President’s health care reform policies.

Looks like the courts don’t agree with Nancy Pelosi’s comment that town hall meeting protesters are un-American. Sorry Nancy, you lose on that one. Stupid move, by the way, but I offer my thanks for your assistance is really whipping up the opposition. We couldn’t have done it without you.

And from the above analysis, it looks quite clear to me that Obama is treading on thin ice. In my opinion, the actions of Obama, Macon Phillips, and White House lawyers are unconstitutional and possibly even criminal. Words like disbarment and impeachment come to mind. Watergate and its repercussions come to mind. I don’t think this is over by a long shot and may very well be Obama’s biggest mistake to date.

Sign the ACLJ petition to demand a retractionhere.

TO: President of the United States, Barack Obama

As a concerned citizen, I respectfully demand that your Administration rescind the troubling citizen-reporting program recently set forth by your White House Director of New Media.

Creating a program that requests individuals to report on their neighbors, co-workers, family members, and friends who express personal opinions in opposition to your policy choices is not the way to encourage “openness” and “transparency.” It is tantamount to policing ideas. Such a program will only stifle free and open debate among the citizens of this great country.

This nation was founded on a belief in the necessity of free and open discourse on the important policy and political issues of our day. Your program is counter to these core principles and raises serious concern among the American people. We respectfully, yet urgently, request that the program be withdrawn and that you preserve and protect the First Amendment rights of the citizens of America.

In other news and opinion:

Tracking Terrorists on the Internet: Bad
Tracking American Citizens on the Internet: Good

Fishism alert. The White House is reversing a nine-year-old policy forbidding the use of tracking cookies on those who visit federal websites.

Even the ACLU is alarmed.

The liberals must really have a green thumb. Their proclivity for planting is amazing: Figures… Dems Are Now Planting Fake Doctors at Town Hall Meetings . The stench of desperation is starting to overwhelm me. Such a blatant violation of the First Amendment could very take down the Obama presidency. Talk about Waterloo.

Is there a Woodward and Bernstein team ready to take this on? Pulitzer Prize anyone?

Feds to tour Michigan prison where Gitmo detainees could go

Selective outrage of the MSM

Billie Jean King: Obama’s distortions are “cute”

Mr. Postman – The Obamacare Remix

Rasmussen: Toomey leading Specter by double digits after townhalls; Obama approval at 47%

From Glenn Reynolds:

SALENA ZITO: Rasmussen poll: Toomey crushing Specter, Sestak.

UPDATE: Obama at record low: “Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.”

Geez, I wonder why?

Breaking: Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision. Not impressed really as the Senate Finance Committee bill is a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. Don’t buy the co-operatives are a good compromise argument. To really kill the bill in the Senate, see here.

Harry Reid: Town-hall protesters are “evil-mongers”. Quick, someone call George Romero. I can see it now: Night of the Living Scary Mean Republicans. Spooooky.

Health care town halls will press on, could get heated. Ya think?!