There has been a flurry of activity in the Supreme Court as the U.S. Department of Justice and other litigants have filed petitions seeking review by the nation’s highest court of the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is no doubt that the Court will agree to hear most of these cases. But one case might not make the cut.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has challenged the Obamacare provision that mandates individual Virginians must purchase a health insurance policy approved by the federal government.

The Virginia suit was decided on the merits, in favor of Virginia, in the district court, but was then reversed on appeal by the 4th Circuit Appeals Court. The appeals ruling was NOT on the merits (or Obamacare probably would’ve lost), but on the ground that Virginia had no legal “standing” to sue. This panel, all of whom were appointed by a Democratic President, ruled that . . .

• Virginia wasn’t harmed because the individual mandate doesn’t require the Commonwealth to do anything. 
• Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional federal laws.

Had these appeals court judges NEVER heard of the Tenth Amendment?

Can the various states move to protect, that is interpose or even nullify, those laws which . . .

• impeded on the individual liberties of their citizens, AND
• are beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution?

Enter Bond v. United States. This recent June, 2011 decision has potentially monumental OPPORTUNITY written all over it. 

In a 9-0 decision the Court held that not only states, but also individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision could be a dramatic leap forward for liberty, reversing decades of decisions tracing back to the 1930′s.

Back then, Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with more Justices who’d rule in favor of unconstitutional New Deal programs. In 1936, in order to protect the integrity of the high court, Justice Owen Roberts, the swing vote, started ruling in favor of FDR’s programs. It is called “The stitch in time that saved nine.”

While these rulings may have prevented Roosevelt’s judicial manipulation scheme, they eviscerated the limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. They quickly brought us to the point that a man growing food in his own garden could be regulated by the FEDERAL government, because even though he wasn’t selling anything, his actions affected interstate commerce.

Talk about tortured logic! 

Since then, the logic has been tormented and stretched further, so that now the Obamacare forces are arguing that a FEDERAL mandate on individuals, requiring them to buy a private good or service (a health insurance policy), is constitutionally permitted under the interstate commerce clause.

Shouldn’t the various states intercede on behalf of their citizens? Can’t they see to it that their rights are protected from federal overreach? Can the states block an unconstitutional mandate?

The 4th Circuit said NO.

And the Bond decision just might be the reversal tool we’ve been waiting for. Bond is a green light from this Supreme Court for INDIVIDUALS, as well as states, to bring more cases under the Tenth Amendment.

In Bond, individuals are essentially being given standing. Old precedent held that Tenth Amendment arguments could only be raised by states. But here’s how the Court ruled in Bond . . .

“Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.”

In other words, individuals have a right to use their state government, to stand up to federal usurpations of power.

Indeed, Virginia interposed on behalf of its citizens. The state passed the Virginia Health Freedom Act, which prohibits any act by any person, even the federal government, to compel any Virginia citizen to purchase a health insurance policy.

We believe the Commonwealth’s petition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of Obamacare should be approved, over the 4th appeals court’s objections. Do you?

Providentially, our attorneys wrote a friend of the court brief in the Bond case. 

They are quite familiar with the controversy and the decision. They stand VERY ready to prepare an excellent brief.

Right now, we believe that . . . 

• Virginia needs all the help they can get in order to get the Supreme Court to take up their case with the other anti-Obamacare lawsuits
• The Commonwealth’s arguments are unique and important as to the constitutionality of Obamacare

But, we ALSO believe there’s something MORE at stake here . . .

. . . the future of state nullification as a tool to protect our rights.

A friend of the court brief could be very helpful to Virginia’s odds, if only we had the resources to file it.

Usually, when the Downsize DC Foundation presents an amicus brief project, we have partners already LEADING the project. Thanks to your generous support, we come in a supporting role, and pitch in.

But not this time! Sure, we will still have partners. But in this case, this project will NOT happen, unless WE take a LEADING role — which means we must contribute nearly three times the amount we normally do to the production and printing of this brief.

And to compound matters, we have to know what we’re doing by Friday, close of business.

Urgently, we need at least two people willing to invest $1,000 or more. We also need at least 100 responses of varying size.

• EVERY donor to this brief, who includes their email address in the contribution, will receive a pdf of the brief we submit to Supreme Court.
• Every donor of $200 or more will get the same printed and bound version we send to the Supreme Court.

And your contribution to this effort by the Downsize DC Foundation is TAX-DEDUCTIBLE. 

But if response seems weak, I’ll have to let our attorneys know we failed… that we can’t take the lead. And in that case . . .

We won’t trap your money. In order to slash your risk . . .

IF we fail to fund the brief, we will return your donation, AUTOMATICALLY, IF and ONLY IF you leave a comment in the comment box on the donor form or bottom of your check that reads, “Return if Virginia amicus brief is not filed.”

So there’s no reason to wait and see if we make it.

Of course, Downsize DC Foundation relies on your support, so if you choose to give unconditionally, in support of our other educational efforts, it will be appreciated. 

And if you’re sending a check (the mailing address is on the online contribution form), please hit Reply to this message and let us know the amount that’s on the way, so that we can add it to the count by Friday.

Will you help us fight Obamacare, and advance the cause of state nullification?

Thank you for your love of the Constitution.

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA into law. DOMA, which President Obama has recently (and unconstitutionally) declared unconstitutional, said that the United States federal Government recognized marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. It also said that no state would have to recognize the gay marriage of another state. Thus, an Alabama gay couple could not be married in Massachusetts and return home as newlyweds.

In 2008, Californians passed Proposition Eight, a measure barring gays from marrying in the Golden State. The proposition had passed narrowly in the general election and was later struck down by federal judge Vaughn Walker. A similar measure had previously been declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.

Still, all the talk about how government defines marriage begs another question: should the government define marriage?

In several interviews, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has expressed the idea that “love is bigger than government” and argues that government should recognize civil unions between any two consenting adults and that the term “marriage” should be saved for churches and the private sector.

This is an idea that Libertarians should embrace. Americans have become hung up on the term “marriage”. Still, public opinion poll has showed time and time again that the vast majority of Americans support basic rights for gay and lesbian individuals including legal and sometimes financial benefits. Granting every adult, consenting couple a civil union would allow all citizens the rights they deserve as far as their partners are concerned. Additionally, it would continue the support of separation between church and state.

For too long, the American People have allowed their government to define what is and what is not marriage. A couple who love each other shouldn’t need the State’s permission to bind themselves legally and equivalently together. Civil Unions would grant equality to law abiding citizens and would promote freedom for all individuals regardless of their political, professional or marital positions.

Imagine if Nancy Pelosi wanted to run for governor.  If she decided to run as a “Clean Elections” candidate, every time her opponent would raise a certain amount of money from private donors, she would receive the same amount from taxpayers.  That’s right, publicly funded elections.

This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him or her.  The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits.  The system curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics.

Here is a nice video illustrating how this works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiMKzvJdGY

Read more about the case here.

He’s testifying against the Justice Department today after being forbidden to do so. From Doc Vega, the Dallas Tea Party Examiner:

Despite news coverage of this lack of response thanks Eric Holder’s discriminatory direction. New Blank Panthers who threatened voters and verbalized racial slurs, clearly in violation of the law, were never charged. Not only was Chris Adams characterized as a disgruntled employee, but he was forbidden by his former employer to testify if subpoenaed by the US Commission on Civil Rights.  Adams left and the story died. Adams was quoted as accusing fellow employees as making comments such as , “this is payback.”

Now Chris Coates, Section Chief, and a vigorous, award winning, litigator for the DOJ, his career has spanned more than three decades, now intends to testify against his former employer. Coates resigned months ago unable to rationalize politicizing his department’s primary purpose. In opposition to the blatant conflict of interest  that has been orchestrated by Eric Holder, Chris will appear in court despite obvious pressure exerted upon him to remain silent.

This crucial testimony will uncover the illegal abandonment of duty based upon racial bias and in violation of civil rights laws. Coates testimony will necessitate proceedings against the Department of Justice. As before with Christian Adams, their defense strategy will probably entail trying to discredit Coates by portraying him as yet just one more disgruntled attorney who is making unfounded allegations. The only other possible defense would be to feign ignorance of the internal policy of the DOJ that had dictated an illegal leniency for black offenders. Either defense will prove preposterous. To depict Chris Coates, one of the most prolific defenders of civil rights as a right wing protester to an ideological argument will not bode well for Obama or Eric Holder. It will expose them!

Will the main stream media cover this new development in this story? Shouldn’t this be something the American people are made aware of? There are a few reasons they could sweep this under the rug again.

Could it be that the media is just liberal-leaning and delivers the news much like today’s Justice Department selectively litigates cases? Could “white guilt” be the culprit? Where is the objectivity? Whatever the reason for the media stonewall, the age-old axiom of “blind justice” does not apply to Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

You can read Chris Coates damning testimony from Pajamas Media while we all wait and see if the main stream media does its job.

Interestingly, on Election Day November 2008, the members of the New Black Panthers raised cane with voters at a polling place in Philadelphia wearing uniforms and brandishing billy clubs. The same Justice Department, after looking into the matter, dropped prosecution of the people involved, leading federal prosecutor J. Christian Adams to resign from the Justice Department in protest.

If it had been white supremacists intimidating voters by waving Bibles in the air they would have prosecuted them; if it had been Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragons (the late Robert Byrd excluded) intimidating voters with burning crosses they would have prosecuted them; if it had been Aryan Nation members toting guns they would have prosecuted them. But it wasn’t, it was an angry horde of black supremacists intimidating voters and trying to distract poll workers so that A.C.O.R.N. members could vote illegally, and that was okay.

By practicing federal intimidation of states, our Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, is using its own form of racial profiling – or should I say racist profiling – to decide who and who not to prosecute.

Welcome to Obama’s America 2010.

He’s so similar to George W. Bush, and in some cases worse (drone bombing fetish?), on foreign policy that I expect to hear him start mis-pronouncing the word “nuclear” any day now.

He, like his fellow progressives, believes government is the solution to all the problems of the world. Will it take someone hurling a shoe at him to wake him up to the fact that the government doesn’t have such a great track record when it comes to solutions? That probably wouldn’t work. He’d just accuse the shoe-thrower of being a Right-wing extremist and/or a Tea Party racist and/or a domestic terrorist and/or a misguided soul who has been brain-washed by “my opponents” to believe that government is the problem.

Then he may calm down a bit and suggest that perhaps he just needs to explain things better so the stupid peasants that live around his DC castle and beyond understand that the proper role of government is to be involved in every aspect of their lives.

For instance, let’s investigate the health welfare individual mandate.

Virginia (my home state) passed a law that went into effect yesterday. The law exempts Virginians from the mandate. Virginia has also sued the federal government claiming the mandate is unconstitutional. Here is the latest on this lawsuit (from Reuters):

RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) – The state of Virginia and the government were pitched in a legal battle in a federal courtroom on Thursday that could lead to the undoing of the massive healthcare reform law passed three months ago.

Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Richmond heard the federal government’s arguments to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Virginia that contends the healthcare law’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance is unconstitutional.

Before President Barack Obama signed the radical overhaul of the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry into law, Virginia’s legislature passed its own law that took effect on Thursday that says no one could be mandated to buy health insurance.

While the judge will only decide if the suit can proceed — a decision Hudson said he would render within 30 days — the court heard the first airing of arguments that could make their way to the Supreme Court as some states resist implementing the law.

States “resisting” federal law is just a modern day more politically-correct version of nullification.  There are several states participating in this effort. Virginia is not alone.

If the case is not dismissed, both sides will return to court on October 18 for a summary judgment. If it is dismissed, Virginia will likely appeal and keep the suit in the courts. Regardless, other lawsuits will proceed, including one filed in Florida by more than a dozen states. In July alone, the federal government will have to argue in court twice, once in California on July 16 and once in Michigan on July 21.

Legal analysts say there is a good possibility one of these cases will reach the highest court in the country, but most say there is only a slim chance that the Supreme Court will rule in the states’ favor.

This version of nullification, successful or not, is the best method available to fight back against federal government overreach. The question is are there enough judges with the stones to uphold these “nullification” lawsuits in the courts? I hope we all get a chance to find out.

Then Lisa Lambert, the article’s author, asserts  something that left me, a normally mild-mannered human, screaming at my computer screen in anger. Here it is:

In its argument, the U.S. government said the requirement to buy health insurance falls under the Commerce Clause, the constitutional provision allowing the federal government to regulate commerce between states. Also, the Constitution says that the federal government’s power is higher than the states’.

What?

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the federal government’s power is “higher” than the states? I’m curious how many people who read that sentence will believe it is true. I’m not sure it is a blatant or malicious lie, but it is simply untrue. Then again if our lawmakers can cite the Commerce Clause to regulate any and everything under the sun maybe she’s right. Maybe the supreme law of the land in 1789 really has morphed into being just a “god-damned piece of paper” in 2010.

The Commerce Clause reads, “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”. (NOTE: The definition of “regulate” in 1789 was to “keep regular” or to “keep in proper functioning order”. The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders never intended for it to permit government direction and control of commerce.)

Now, “among the several States” defines the scope of the clause. It applies to interstate commerce. Since current law is such that health care is purely intrastate commerce (we can’t purchase health insurance across state lines) how can the Commerce Clause apply?

The judge deciding whether to permit the case stated his own dilemma with applying the Commerce Clause to the health welfare mandate.

[Judge] Hudson seemed skeptical of the idea that everyone in the country participates in the commerce of healthcare, saying that this could establish the paradox that a form of economic inactivity – not buying insurance – would be considered an economic activity.

This seems promising to me that the judge will ultimately permit the case to proceed. We’ll know that within the next 30 days.

The mandate is not set to go into effect until 2014. This gives any presidential candidate opposing Obama in 2012 political ammunition. All one would have to do is sign on to support Ron Paul’s bill (H.R. 4995) to repeal the health welfare mandate and then campaign on repealing it prior to it going into effect in 2014.

Imagine the GOP primary debates in 2011-2012. I envision all the GOP candidates fighting over supporting Ron Paul’s H.R. 4995 all the while Ron Paul sits back as the bill’s sponsor relaxed and ready for the next question.

It’s January of 2011 and a lone man stands on a street corner holding a sign in Ames, Iowa. The sign says, “Yes, You Will!” There is a picture of a man below those words.

It is either…

…a picture of Obama with a crown on his head and a whip in his hand.

Or a photo of a smiling Ron Paul with the phrase “run in 2012″ below the picture.

In either case, I’d be left smiling on the outside and hopeful on the inside.

Here are the results according to the SCOTUS blog:

• Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
• Gun rights prevail
• The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
• Stevens dissents for himself.  Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
• The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
• The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
• Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
• Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
• The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn’t affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local regulation.
• Full Opinion is here.
• It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito’s opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
• The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.

The ramifications of the opinion will play out in the gun rights vs. gun control debate going forward.  This case (McDonald v. Chicago) was filed the day after the Heller decision was announced back in 2008. It will be interesting to see what new cases get filed given the results of this case. The gun rights lawyers are taking a step by step approach in their fight for the right to keep and bear arms.

This is pretty much what was expected. It appears Justice Thomas is the only one with the guts to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause which would have had far-reaching implications for law outside of the gun rights world. More later as the analysis begins.

Dr. Paul was kind enough to take time out of his insane campaign schedule to answer some questions for us. Check out Rand Paul’s second interview with Liberty Maven below.

And don’t forget to participate by donating during the money bomb!

Donate at RandPaul2010.com now.

LM:  Immediately following your landslide victory over Trey Grayson in the primary, the left-leaning media began attacking you and the attacks have not eased up. Thinking back, prior to your primary victory you probably anticipated being attacked from the left, but did you believe the attacks would be so unrelenting and national in scope as they have turned out to be? Do you fault yourself for inviting the initial attacks a bit, by agreeing to go on Rachel Maddow’s show the day after your victory?

Rand Paul: Our election night victory was spectacular. We won by 24 points. Over 500 people gathered for our victory. We had satellite TV trucks from every network and did 15 national interviews the next day. But it didn’t take long for the media to decide that they were going to be less than neutral after our victory. Since then it has been relentless attacks from the left-wing media in Kentucky and the left-wing media nationally. I joke with people that it was like Dickens wrote in the Tale of Two Cities: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. But the good news is that the polls still show us with a double digit lead, despite all of their attacks. I think the mood of the country is for reigning in big government, for controlling the deficit, and for bringing attention back to a government that should be restrained by the Constitution.

It’s always easy to look backwards and say I could have, or should have done one thing or another. In retrospect, going on a Left-leaning network that apparently had an agenda since they had been discussing it all afternoon and misconstruing my position was probably not a good idea.

LM: Do you believe that there will still be a “Tea Party” movement in 2013 if Obama is defeated by a Republican in 2012?

Rand Paul: I think the Tea Party Movement has staying power. I think it is an extraordinary movement because it wasn’t started by any one political leader or famous person. It truly started by itself in every individual city in Kentucky and every individual city across the country. One of the problems of it getting bigger is that they all are not connected, but it is also one of the beauties and powers of the movement is that it has so much spontaneous involvement of individual citizens around the country.

Whether or not it will last beyond that, I think it will have influence in the November elections and from that will decide. I think that it’s had a great influence in nominating Mike Lee in Utah and Sharon Angle in Nevada, and nominating me here in Kentucky. So there are at least three big statewide races that I think the tea party had great influence in.

LM: Last week the financial regulatory effort made headway with the Dodd-Frank “compromise” bill. The stated goal of the bill is to prevent another financial crisis. President Obama touted the new agency created by the bill by saying, “Now there will be one agency whose sole job will be to look out for you.” His remarks remind me of Reagan’s famous quote: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Do you believe the newly created regulatory agency will truly be independent?

Rand Paul: No, and I would have opposed it had I been in Congress at the time. I think one of the things that the bill does is codifies and extends the government’s promise to bailout businesses that fail and I think that is a bad idea. I think that it’s great in capitalism that companies make profit, but when they are doing a poor job they should suffer from their poor decisions, not the tax payers.

LM: Do you believe the bill will be successful in thwarting the next financial crisis?

Rand Paul: No, and I think it may encourage more bad decisions and more crisis [and it will] allow businesses to make decisions where they do not have to suffer from the repercussions of bad decisions.

LM: I have described your candidacy as a kind of gateway drug for conservatives who may deem your father’s beliefs too extreme. I say this because you seem to have a unique ability to unite many libertarians and many neo-conservatives under the same umbrella. It is probably way too early to ask this question especially since you haven’t been elected to the Senate yet, but many of us in the liberty movement consider you to be a potential future presidential candidate. Much has to happen between now and that possibility, but is it something that you may consider should the opportunity present itself? Would you rule it out?

Rand Paul: Right now I have to focus on winning my first political office, so it’s hard to think about any other office. I do want to be part of a national movement that changes the way our government operates and right now I have to keep focused on the first objective and that’s winning the senate seat in Kentucky.

LM: Monday (June 28th) the Supreme Court is going to offer their opinion on the McDonald case. The case will decide if the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall, you have come out in support of applying it to the states.

Last year the Senate narrowly voted down an effort to institute nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity among those states that have concealed-carry provisions. Would you support such an effort if it came to the Senate floor again? How do you think the Supreme Court will rule in the McDonald case?

Rand Paul: I hope the McDonald case will find that we do have a 2nd Amendment right not to have cities or states prevent gun ownership. I do support concealed-carry legislation.

LM: You helped establish an eye clinic to operate on the less-fortunate and under-privileged in Kentucky. That is not something the Left and your opponent like to mention between their attacks on you, for obvious reasons. I realize the information is available on your website, but could you elaborate more on the clinic, your role in establishing it, its ongoing activities, and how it has helped people?

Rand Paul: I’ve been a member of the Lions Club for 17 years. About 15 years ago I formed a clinic called the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic. We see patients who don’t have insurance for routine eye exams as well as help them to buy eye glasses. In addition we do surgery for people who don’t have insurance at either a discounted rate or sometimes no cost. We’ve also brought children up from Central America and done surgery at no cost for them through our Lions Eye Clinic. It’s a way I see of giving back to the community.

LM: In my day job I fix computers and networks. I don’t have a single certification to do so, yet somehow the computers end up fixed. Recently, you have been attacked because you are no longer “board certified” in your profession as an ophthalmologist, yet you have a fledgling practice and have performed countless successful surgeries. Why are you not board certified and what does it have to do with you being a good or bad Senator?

Rand Paul: I took my board certification when I finished my training and passed it on the first try. I passed my boards three times during my residency. But I had a dispute with the board because I felt if re-certification was good for the public that all ophthalmologist, regardless of age should re-certify. They made a rule then only the younger ophthalmologists would re-certify. I made the point that if re-certification is good, perhaps the older physicians may need re-certifications more than the younger ones.

I’ve been practicing for 17 years, I’ve done over 5,000 cataract surgeries and have given good quality service to my patients here in the community and I think that is recognized. I think people take political cheap shots at me because it’s easy to take shots at me because the polls show they are well behind us and probably can’t beat me. They will continue to attack me in a personal nature and I think that is unfortunate that this type of activity occurs in politics.

LM: The media has treated you as a villain and your opponent Jack Conway has been treated with kid gloves thus far. Your primary campaign demonstrated that you fight back when you get attacked. Conway has had some questionable business dealings and campaign contributions as evidenced on the Jack Conway 2010 web site. Do you believe the media will eventually reveal these Conway flaws with the same vigor they are using to find fault and nitpick every single word you have ever said? Aren’t the Left the ones who want to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine?

Rand Paul: I think we’ll have to do a lot of the description of my opponents record through paid media, because I don’t think that the print media in Kentucky will objectively look at his record. There are several things that are troubling in his record. I think one of the most troubling is that he’s been deciding the utility rate cases, whether your rates go up or down, while receiving contributions from the utility companies. This appears to me to be a conflict of interest and shows very poor judgment from someone who is in office. I also think his reputation and past as a malpractice attorney suing doctors will not be very popular once that is well known in the state.

It’s kind of interesting that the Left feels that talk radio is so conservative now that they want to force radio stations to give them equal time. It doesn’t sound very much like they’re in favor of the 1st Amendment with trying to institute the Fairness Doctrine. I’m absolutely opposed to the Fairness Doctrine.

LM: There has been a litany of anti-freedom laws passed and unconstitutional policies made in recent years. Obama has continued many of the Bush policies regarding foreign policy. I recall Judge Andrew Napolitano saying, in an interview prior to Obama entering office, that he had hoped that Obama would be good on civil liberties and overturn (as he promised during his campaign) the Patriot Act or at least allow it to sunset. The Judge’s hope was unfounded when it was extended again. What is your position on the Patriot Act in particular, and executive power as it pertains to civil liberties, in general?

Rand Paul: I think that one of the tragedies of the 20th Century is that Presidential power has grown dramatically and Congressional power has correspondingly diminished. I think that the Patriot Act was a mistake, because I think that the 4th Amendment is a precious part of the Bill of Rights and we should protect the 4th Amendment. We don’t want to have unreasonable search and seizure of our houses without a judge’s warrant. That is a very important safeguard that was diminished by the Patriot Act. I think that the American people, if we were allowed to explain to them that the necessity of the 4th Amendment in protecting you from an overzealous government, would be on our side on this issue.

LM: You have the first big money bomb of your general election campaign coming up on Monday, June 28th. In addition to the money you will raise on that day, how much money overall do you think you’ll need to raise in order to beat Jack Conway in November and become U.S. Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky?

Rand Paul: We’ll need to raise between seven and ten million dollars in the next three to four months, which is a daunting challenge. I think we can do it if the Liberty movement will continue to support our money-bombs.

———-

This ends our second interview with Dr. Rand Paul. As he says, he’s going to need 7-10 million dollars to win. We liberty-lovers can help him on his way by donating right now.

A shining example of a major party with phony principles is the “defense” of civil rights in America by the Democrats. You see, the Democrats want to protect civil rights. Countless party leaders have spoken out in outrage over the discrimination against minority groups. The Democrats of today support the right of marriage for all people, regardless of their sexuality. They want equal pay and equal opportunity for people of all backgrounds when it comes to employment or housing. In fact, according to their website: “Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in.” Few Americans would argue with the underlying principle: equal opportunity for all, and discrimination against none.

However, the same Democratic Party that wants equality of opportunity in marriage or the workforce would willfully overlook that equality when it comes to other choices that individuals might make. The philosophical principle of equal opportunity must necessarily mean free choice, lest it be inconsistent and hypocritical. Freedom to pursue the job that we want or the familial structure that we are most comfortable with must mean the freedom to choose what foods or drinks that we want to consume, or the freedom to decide manner in which we defend our own property, or the freedom to select the most appropriate form of health insurance for our families (even if it means no health insurance at all). As it turns out, though, the party that champions civil rights actually defends just a small subset of rights – those which will rally its base, scream injustice, and are not uncomfortable to defend.

A prominent and current front for the assault on American civil liberties by the liberal left is the epidemic of restaurant smoking bans that have swept through the country. Presently, 38 states have imposed smoking bans in restaurants or bars, with the number on the rise. The indoor smoking bans have been a predominantly Democratic issue: California became the first state to enact such a ban in 1995, and the practice spread next to the liberal bastions of Delaware (2002), New York (2003), and Connecticut (2003). Among states who have refused to implement such bans are Republican strongholds: Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky.

The angle you’ll never hear from the left, of course, is that the protection of the personal choices of smokers and restaurant owners are just as fundamental to the concept of freedom as the protection of the personal choices of homosexuals. Who is government to force a restaurant owner into banning a practice that might make his customers happier? Furthermore, in the absence of such legislation, aren’t non-smokers who wish to breathe easier perfectly capable of patronizing an establishment where the owner, and not the government, bans the practice?

When it comes to your right to consume substances, though, the smoking ban is just the latest in a line of ever-expanding government prohibitions on the choices of non-violent Americans. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most prolific Democrats of the past century, signed the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 into law, leading the way for the permanent criminalization of the drug. After Ronald Reagan created the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 1988, Democrat Bill Clinton one-upped him by making the director a Cabinet-level position five years later. And, although current president Barack Obama downgraded the office from its Cabinet perch, Joe Biden criticized the Bush administration in his introduction of the new “Drug Czar,” stating that he was “a little disappointed the last eight years it hasn’t gotten the attention that it should have gotten.”

This seldom-mentioned front of personal liberty is, in fact, perpetually berated by liberal politicians in new, creative ways. Congress recently took up a proposal to implement a federal tax on soda, an idea that first came from Democrat David Paterson when he proposed such a tax as governor of New York. New York City, one of the most liberal populaces in the nation, currently imposes a draconian trans-fat ban city-wide, and recently held discussion on a bill that would ban the use of salt in restaurants as well. All of these measures are blatant violations of civil liberties: the implication that individuals do not own their own bodies or that they must be protected by a paternalistic government from making bad decisions is as absurd as it is frightening.

Nor do the Democrats seem to be bothered with protecting the property rights of Americans. In the highly publicized Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London in 2005, the 5-4 decision went in favor of the City of New London, CT to take the homes of city residents in order to build a tourist and shopping haven that would entice tax revenues. Of the 3 Supreme Court justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents, all 3 voted to uphold the blatant violation of property rights, justified by the “eminent domain” clause in the Constitution that was implemented specifically to restrict the government’s authority to take land, not to enhance or enable it. In response to the outrage caused by this decision, the case prompted 42 states to pass legislation which restricted the ability to invoke eminent domain for private use; of the 8 states which did not reinforce the property rights of their citizens, 7 of them had Democratic governors.

As of today, the lots taken from those citizens sit empty, unused by the government that unjustly stole it and providing no benefit, public or private, to anyone. Furthermore, the case represented a situation where the left, sympathetic in their rhetoric towards the poor, took from the poor to give to the wealthy developers and Pfizer, a large pharmaceutical. As Judge Andrew Napolitano explains in his New York Times bestseller, Lies the Government Told You:

“In Kelo, Uncle Sam is saying that the government can take away your land, simply because it doesn’t value the way you use it. Kelo also gives the government an easy target, by allowing the government to infringe unduly upon the rights of poor people. Many of these people worked very hard to buy these homes, to achieve their own version of the American Dream. Who is the government to take it away?”

Simply put, the leadership of the Democratic Party in recent history has stood for their own version of rights, primarily because they don’t understand what rights are. The right to own property, speak freely, and make our own personal decisions are not granted to us by the government – individuals are born with these abilities inherent to them. Mainstream Democrats have been hoodwinked into thinking that the “equality” their leaders speak of is the meaningful equality of opportunity that prevails in a moral society, while they have in fact been granting favors to certain groups – non-smokers, property owners, gun owners, and others – with the intent of equalizing wealth rather than opportunity.

If only the other major party were doing any better…

The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling — which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions — and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.

The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.

The Judge later appeared on Fox Business News with David Asman to discuss the topic. Check it out below. It appears that Justice Alito’s “Not true” was more right than the snake oil salesman Obama would ever admit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RbLbeGi8GM

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

While this is good news for hopeful gun rights activists it raises questions for die hard Constitutionalists. The dirty details of “incorporation” reveals some divisions among us. I’ve previously discussed my own thoughts on “incorporation”, but I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint. The question came up earlier this year when the states rights argument was utilized by the anti-gun rights Senators in reference to the Thune amendment that would have permitted concealed carry reciprocity between the states.

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court has a very good chance of voting in favor of 2nd Amendment incorporation. Perhaps, the more interesting thing, similar to Heller, will be what the majority opinion says at the conclusion of the case.

Last week McKinley appeared on Fox Business News channel after an editorial was published in the Wall Street Journal about his lawsuit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JupDBKZNrl4