United Liberty
Headlines
-
Barney Begs to Be Senator Frank
www.weeklystandard.com -
US economy adds 155K jobs, rate stays at 7.8 pct
finance.yahoo.com
Religious doctrine is NOT a basis for law
Fri, 01/04/2013 - 4:07pm | posted by Brian Lehman
Despite having no faith of my own, I am fine with those who do. If you want to live your life according to the teachings of a holy book or religious leader, I’m fine as long as you cause me no harm. I honestly could not care less if you believe in no god or twenty, given none of those gods are telling you to hurt people. But it is a different issue entirely when you try to suggest that our laws should reflect the doctrines of your particular church.
The conservative argument against marriage equality has long been couched in talk about “harm to children” and “destroying traditional marriage”, but in reality it has always been based on a simple idea - my religion doesn’t approve of homosexuality, therefore our laws cannot condone it. As it has become more and more apparent that same-sex marriage causes no harm whatsoever, anti-equality forces have gotten more desperate.
Take this post at the Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog. Ostensibly about a new marriage equality law in Illinois, the author mentions the actual law only in passing before launching in a defense of marriage buttressed only by the words of a Catholic priest (who, incidentally, had some interesting things to say when a gay pride parade was moved to pass by his church). Does this priest have any special knowledge on the subject of marriage? It doesn’t appear so. His expertise clearly lies in one thing - the teachings and doctrine of his church.
Mother Jones: FreedomWorks isn’t a grassroots organization promoting Liberty…they really want to fight cancer
Fri, 01/04/2013 - 3:04pm | posted by Jason Pye
Mother Jones, best described by Erick Erickson as a far-left magazine eager to destroy everyone on the right, just released another leak of “internal docs” relating to FreedomWorks’ challenging the organization’s billing as a grassroots outfit – then charging that they are bankrolled and run by big-money donors.
Mother Jones essentially claims FreedomWorks is astroturfing:
FreedomWorks, the national conservative group that helped launch the tea party movement, sells itself as a genuine grassroots operation, and for years it has battled accusations of “astroturfing”—posing as a populist organization while doing the bidding of big-money donors.
These are pretty common charges. During Tea Party protests in 2009 and 2010, leftists and the mainstream media frequently made charges of astroturfing. God forbid people actually be pissed off enough with Washington to actually take a stand.
Some of the comments on the Mother Jones article encapsulate their argument even further:
— “Good Lord this is scary. We must stay on top of these people.”
— “It all boils down to the money.”
Wait! It gets better:
Cato Institute: Rushed FISA debate a disservice to Americans
Fri, 01/04/2013 - 1:54pm | posted by Jason Pye
In the waning days of 2012, the United States Senate pushed through renewal of FISA for another five years. As privacy advocates in the chambers sought to improve the legislation with sensible amendments to address privacy concerns, others, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), fear-mongered or otherwised avoided addressing tough questions about how FISA had been used to collect data on innocent and unassuming Americans.
In a new video from the Cato Institute, Julian Sanchez explains — with some video of privacy advocates in the Senate — why the debate over FISA deserves a more in-depth, serious discussion:
A Compact for America to Rein in Government
Fri, 01/04/2013 - 1:20pm | posted by Cato Institute
Written by Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. Posted with permission from Cato @ Liberty.
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that the one thing missing from the newly minted Constitution was some kind of limit on federal debt:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.
Now that Washington has kicked the can on our out-of-control spending yet again, isn’t it time to reconsider Jefferson’s wish?
It may be easier than previously thought, through an ingenious spin on the balanced budget amendment (BBA). Compact for America, a Texas-based nonprofit advised by the Goldwater Institute’s Nick Dranias, is advancing an agreement among the states — called an “interstate compact” — to transform the constitutional amendment process into a “turn-key” operation. That is, a single interstate compact can consolidate all the state action involved in the Article V process: the application to Congress for an amendment convention, delegate appointments and instructions, selection of the convention location and rules, and ultimate ratification. It then consolidates all the corresponding congressional action, both the call for the convention and ratification referral, into a single omnibus concurrent resolution.
New York Times column on the Constitution: Just get rid of it!
Fri, 01/04/2013 - 11:30am | posted by Tom Knighton
Louis Michael Seidman is a constitutional law professor who doesn’t think we need to listen to the Constitution. At least, that’s the case he laid out late last week in the New York Times when he said:
AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?
First, I have to assume that Seidman knows exactly why revenue bills have to originate in the House. Now, that serves less of a purpose now that voters choose senators directly, rather than the state legislatures, but it did serve a purpose.
Now, Seidman makes reference to “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions” of the Constitution, yet makes little effort to actually identify these provisions with one exception. That’s right, boys and girls, he does as all who oppose ideas like constitutionality do, and that’s point to slavery.
Rand Paul appointed to Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Fri, 01/04/2013 - 11:15am | posted by Jason Pye
A few months ago, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), son of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), took on Mitt Romney on the issues of foreign policy and presidential war powers after the Republican nominee said he could unilaterally go to war with Iran. While he supported Romney, Sen. Paul showed the divide between the freedom movement and the status quo of the Republican Party.
Sen. Paul will have a chance to make further his impact in the discussion on these important issues thanks to his appointment to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
The GOP side of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be drastically altered in the new Congress that began today, with four new members on the minority side led by Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the new ranking Republican.
Corker takes over for Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and he will have a roster of Republican members on the committee that is diverse and powerful. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) joins the committee for the first time. McCain is no longer the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, due to term limits, but remains on SASC as a rank and file member. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the new ranking Republican on SASC, relinquished his SFRC seat to make room for McCain.
Paul Broun introduces Audit the Fed
Fri, 01/04/2013 - 10:08am | posted by Jason Pye
Ron Paul may no longer be in Congress, but other conservative members are stepping up to carry issues he pushed in the past. On Facebook yesterday, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) announced that he reintroduced legislation to audit the Federal Reserve:
Today I reintroduced H.R. 24, the “Audit the Fed” legislation originally authored and championed by former Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). My plan is to pick up right where Congressman Paul left off. Our economy is far from recovering, and the recent fears regarding the potential impacts of the ‘fiscal cliff’ and its aftermath prove that the American people must continue to demand transparency from the entity charged with ensuring stable economic and monetary policy.
You can read the official statement from Rep. Broun’s office here.
The legislation will open up certain information to the Government Accountability Office excluded from audits in subsection (b) of 31 USC 714, including agreements and transactions with foreign central banks and discussions between the Treasury Department.
The House overwhelmingly passed the Audit the Fed bill last year. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) refused to bring it to the floor for a vote, despite his past support of more transparency of the Federal Reserve.
Crazy Uncle Joe strikes again
Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:18pm | posted by Jason Pye
Vice President Joe Biden, who has a proclivity for saying incredibly dumb stuff, struck again today during the swearing in of Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). During the photo op, Sen. Heitkamp’s husband was instructed to drop his hands to his side; to which Biden replied, “Spread your legs, you’re gonna be frisked”:
H/T: NRO
Spread your legs, you’re gonna be frisked.
John Boehner re-elected as Speaker of the House
Thu, 01/03/2013 - 3:10pm | posted by Jason Pye
Despite (unsourced) rumors of his resignation and demise, John Boehner (R-OH) was re-elected as Speaker of the House this afternoon as the 113th Congress convened for the opening of its first session:
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was reelected Speaker of the House on Thursday after a week of rumors of a possible GOP revolt.
Boehner won a bare majority in a vote that saw nine Republicans vote for other GOP members, and several others who abstained from voting or voted “present.” Two years ago, Boehner won all 241 available GOP votes.
In a vote that opened the 113th Congress, Boehner received 220 votes, compared to 192 for Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the minority leader. Fourteen members voted for other candidates or present. Boehner needed 218 votes to win reelection.
Stories broke yesterday afternoon that Boehner would resign during a meeting with the House Republican Conference. That obviously didn’t happen. Then the rumor was that enough conservative members had said that they were ready to vote to oust Boehner in today’s vote. Again, that didn’t happen.
Here’s how the dissenting members voted:
Defectors from Boehner included Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who voted for Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho). Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) and two freshmen, Reps. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) and Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), all voted for Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), but Cantor himself voted for Boehner.
Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) voted for outgoing member Allen West (R-Fla.). Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) voted for former Comptroller General David Walker. Speakers of the House do not have to be members of the House, although historically they all have been.
On Digital Privacy, Congress’ Offer Is This: Nothing
Thu, 01/03/2013 - 2:02pm | posted by Cato Institute
Written by Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the Cato Institute. Posted with permission from Cato @ Liberty.
It had the makings of a shockingly reasonable legislative bargain: Two outdated federal privacy statutes would be reformed together, removing some unnecessarily stringent restrictions on sharing video records while finally imposing a clear warrant requirement for government searches of e-mail and other private files stored in the “cloud.” Then Congress, perhaps in homage to Darth Vader, decided to alter the deal: A bill weakening the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 has been sent to the president for his signature, but without the corresponding badly-needed reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
