The Bill of Rights has been around for a long time. Some complain that it gets in the way of the Government, but that’s its purpose.
With an ever expanding Federal Government, can the Bill of Rights still get in its way? Or is the Government more effective in getting in the way of the Bill of Rights?
Here’s a link to an article at PJ Tatler about some of the consequences of our ever expanding Government:
REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?
JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch. [Emphasis added.]
This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction. [Emphasis added.]
Here are two short videos on the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
“Weaponizing” the IRS? Yep, and it seems to be proceeding apace.
Some State and local governments have also become excessively audacious in a Fourth Amendment context. According to an article posted today at Jonathan Turley’s blog,
If a recent story is to be believed, it appears that there are many things that you can demand to see in the “show me state” but a warrant is not one of them. A Kansas City man is accusing the police department of shocking conduct after he declined a demand that he allow police officers to search his house without a warrant. Eric Crinnian, a lawyer, said that an officer threatened that, if he insisted on his getting a warrant, he would come back in force, bust down his door, and shoot any dogs in the house.
. . . .
What makes this alleged threat even more egregious is that we have been a disturbing trend of officers shooting family dogs under questionable circumstances here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here andhere and here and here). It is chilling that, according to Crinnian, the first thing that this officer thought of was to threaten to shoot the family’s pets as if it were just one more minor act like kicking in a door. [I apologize for the way in which the list of links is formatted, but after reviewing the HTML code there seems to be nothing I can do about it.]
Here, here, here and here are just a few links to additional allegations of police abuse. I have “bookmarked” many more, but those linked seem particularly relevant here. Remember when the police were actually civil servants?
Conclusions Questions
The rot is metastasizing, but why and where did the tumor begin? Did it grow and spread before enough of us noticed it? If so, why? Is it already too late to excise it? If not, how?
danmillerinpanama 
Of all the examples of unconstitutional behavior of recent years, one is quirky and interesting.
One of the distortions required to get the ObamaCare passed was that it contained no new taxes; the cost of failing to buy insurance was a fine, kind of like a traffic offense. But, along comes the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice, and we find that it wasn’t a fine but was in fact a tax, thereby making it constitutional. The Administration argued before the Court that it could be considered a tax, just to protect the ACA, but since has been unwilling to refer to it as a tax. Heavy sigh.
But — and it’s a big “but” — if a tax is involved, then apparently the Constitution was violated because revenue bills are required to originate in the House, but the ACA was originated in the Senate. Or was it? Was it a tax or wasn’t it? One of the interesting cases wending through the courts (Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services) raises the question.
Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus.
I wrote here about the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision that declared ObamaCare a “tax,” and hence OK, since it could not be approved under the Commerce Clause. The decision can have more and worse consequences than had the Supremes merely distended the Commerce Clause to accommodate ObamaCare.
As to the “origination” clause, that seems no longer to matter much. Article I, Section 7 provides,
Note that Section 7 does not expressly restrict to “tax bills” the authority of the Senate to amend. Perhaps strangely, the Senate website’s interpretation of Section 7 appears to do so:
Whatever.
ObamaCare, as I recall, when passed by the House was not a “tax bill.” Even if that’s correct, it’s just a minor and hence unimportant technicalities to be ignored.
I have something to say to all the politicians and judges who have gotten us so royally twisted and screwed around, but I can’t spell it. (How do you spell “raspberry” when pronounced using only tongue and flubbering lips?)
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.