Posts Tagged ‘States Rights’

presents…

Three important and compelling videos for our monthly Movie Night.  Although each video is brief, they are meaningful, educational and inspiring.

• John McManus of the John Birch Society, presents a very educational 30 minute video,“Americans for America,”

This video explains the various forms of government across the political spectrum.  In an easy to understand way, John also lays out the differences between the various forms of monetary systems in the world, from the controlled economies of communism to free market capitalism.

• Daniel Hannan, Member of the European Parliament (MEP), speaks before the most recent CPAC gathering last February in Washington D.C. In this 27 minute video, he provides an outsider’s look at the United States of America and what she has to offer the world. In this intense and compelling address, he reminds Americans of our blessings and the dangers we face.

• Allen West, the heroic first-term congressman from Florida’s 22nd district, answers a reporter’s question about what he meant when he referred to 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as “Communists”. Congressman West is a patriot who is unafraid to call it as he sees it. This 4 minute video clip will make you want to stand up and cheer!

This FREE event to be held on 
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 7 p.m.
Washington Twp. Offices, Ruby Room
57900 Van Dyke, Washington Twp, MI 48094

Romeo Area Tea Party presents Paul Kersey, Director of Labor Policy at the
Mackinac Center for Public Policy in a discussion of “Right to Work.”

Paul Kersey became director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in September 2007, having served as the Center’s senior labor policy analyst since December 2006. As director, Kersey leads the Center’s Labor Policy Initiative and researches labor and employment issues.

Kersey holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics from the University of Michigan-Dearborn. In 1993, he received his Juris Doctor from the University of Illinois.

After practicing law in Livonia, Mich., for several years, Kersey served on the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform and Oversight Committee. He then spent three years at the National Right to Work Committee as director of state legislation. In that role, he analyzed and responded to labor legislation in all 50 states.

Come hear Paul’s presentation of the “Right to Work” issue on:

MONDAY

April 23, 2012 – 7:00 PM

The Palazzo Grande 54669 Van Dyke (south of 25 Mile Rd.)
Shelby Township, Michigan 48316

Admission: Free

From the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry.

Rare is the occasion when the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather to hear three days of arguments, and rarer still is when it is for a case like Obamacare — one that cuts to the core of the Constitution and whose outcome could fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people. But today the Court will do just that when it open its doors and begins weighing the arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s seminal health care law.

Were the American people to vote on the issue, they would fall decidedly against Obamacare, as recent polls have shown. But for the Court, the decision is not as cut and dried as an up or down vote, but one that involves the interplay of a series of issues raised by those who are challenging Obamacare — more than half the States of the Union and a collection of interested organizations and private parties — and those brought by the Obama Administration, which is defending the law. And they come to the Supreme Court after conflicting appellate court rulings which have left undecided the question of whether Obamacare is permissible under the Constitution.

The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to impose the individual mandate on the American people, forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

If the Court holds that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it can strike down the individual mandate, leaving the justices to then decide whether all or part of Obamacare should fall along with it.

If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today — facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America’s health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What’s more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.

There are other issues, too, besides the individual mandate. Even before the Court reaches that subject, it must broach the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, a 145-year-old federal tax law which could bar the Court from evenhearing a challenge to the individual mandate. Under that law, one cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. If the penalty for violating Obamacare’s individual mandate is considered a tax under that law, then the challenge could not be brought at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Obamacare’s challengers and even the Obama Administration agree that the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn’t prevent the Court from hearing the case, but the issue will still be heard, and some think that the Court could rely on the Act as a way of avoiding having to answer the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.

If the Court finds the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t apply, it will move on to the individual mandate. Its decision on that issue brings with it a whole other set of problems — namely, if the Court finds that the mandate is unconstitutional, it must next decide the issue of severability — whether Obamacare will operate as Congress intended if it is stripped of the mandate, or whether all or parts of the law must be struck down with the mandate. If the Court finds that the mandate is severable, the Court can strike it down and leave it up to Congress to clean up what’s left, or, as the Obama administration has recommended, it can strike down the mandate and related provisions of the law that depend on it. Finally, if the justices find that the mandate is not severable, then it will throw out all of Obamacare, and it will again be up to Congress to enact real market-based health care reforms that bring down costs while increasing access to care.

There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress’s decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government’s conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington’s whims. If the states don’t comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare’s weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.

America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law, to consider the precedents and the policy, and to issue a decision that will have implications far into the future. Will Congress be limited by the Constitution, or will its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended? Will Americans’ liberties stand? Will Obamacare fall? No matter the outcome of the Court’s ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act.

Read the original article on the Heritage Foundation’s blog here.

Every once in awhile the “Drive by Media” goes so far out of its way to push their agenda that the definition of “Absurd” is realigned.  Recently, it appeared that the “power” inferred by the value of a national TV audience was intoxicating enough to drunken the judgment of the likes of George Stephanopoulos, and Ivy League (Columbia University) graduate.  The rational of his recent query in the New Hampshire presidential debate, did not exist.

With Presidential candidate Mitt Romney clearly leading polls in New Hampshire, it was time for the biased media to take aim at the front runner.  Surely, history proves sure that whenever a leading candidate in the republican primaries emerges, established media sources target them in coordinated unison.  Established media types all use the same playbook, so their choices are limited.  Its like blind faith, without the faith.

On Saturday (January 7th),  so clever was the attempt of ABC NEWS anchor George Stephanopoulos, in his efforts to “trip up”  Mitt Romney, that the ABSURDITY of his question was apparent.  Not since the “Lost Weekend” of John Lennon has time stood so still, when Candidate Romney enlightened the audience as to the ridiculousness of the question regarding; States Rights to (potentially) Ban Contraception, as defined by the Supreme Court in a 1965 ruling (Griswold v. Connecticut).  Certainly, Stephanopoulos dug deep into the archives of current events, as he was only four at the time of that ruling.

So, what was the point?

Exactly!

The only purpose of George’s question could only have been to create a new talking point for the ABC Sunday morning “talking head” show, “This Week with… (I miss David Brinkley)“.

No.  There was no value to the question, nor Romney’s answer, which only clarifies the absurdity of the lost three minutes of time ABC paid for.  But, we promise.  If you watch the actual video evidence presented here, you won’t loose your entire weekend, nor will you be attended to for eighteen months by May Pang.  You will, however, be reminded of the “absurdity of it all”.

The following is an action alert from the Eagle Forum:

Time is running out to save the Edison light bulb! Unless Congress takes action to repeal the so-called “efficiency standards” enacted under a liberal Congress, as of January 1, 2012, it will be illegal to sell the 100-watt incandescent light bulb.

Please call your Senators and Members of Congress and urge them to ensure that the light bulb ban is repealed!

If you need some encouragement to call, watch this video of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul telling Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Dr. Kathleen Hogan, how he feels about government “busybodies” telling us what types of products we must buy for our homes!”

Click here to see the full Eagle Forum Action Alert.

Note: The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt. All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

Related Articles:
Washington Times Article “Save Edison’s Light Bulb”
“FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It”-U.S. News and World Reports

Regards,
Phil Dyer-RATP Communications Team

Michigan Update:

Path to ‘Light Freedom’ Bill Passage Still Unclear published at Mackinac Center’s Capital Confidential.

Are we a “Rule of Law” Country, or a “Rule by Discretion” Country?

Working its way through the approval process in the U.S. House of Representatives, new legislation concerning immigration is aimed at preventing the executive branch from interfering with the enforcement of current immigration law. The bill, named the “HALT” Act, or the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation” Act, was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith with these comments (via  July 18, 2011 Legislative Update, FAIR website),

“Congress has defeated amnesty for illegal immigrants several times in recent years but this has not stopped President Obama from trying a backdoor amnesty. Over the course of the last year, the Obama administration has ignored the will of Congress and the American people by using executive branch authority to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S.”

Read more about  H.R. 2497, the “HALT” Act, by clicking on the picture below to visit the FAIR website.

What a ridiculous question!

Both Governors Snyder and Granholm seek a new Bridge to Canada between Detroit and Windsor.  The “Bridge Issue” has raised intense feelings on both sides of the fight (as well as the border).  By and large, conservatives oppose government funding of a new bridge at this time.  This conservative stand seems to hold steady, regardless of which government pays for the bridge: 1) the State of Michigan, 2) the U.S. Government, or 3) the Canadian government.

For months the RATP has considered the “Bridge Issue” and had wished to present its members with plenty of facts, so individuals could make up their own mind.  There is no shortage of studies “for or against” the Bridge Issue.  Imbedded here we provide but a few of the many research links we have found on the topic.  We caution you, that you must consider the source of each study as a premise for the study’s conclusions.

For Fiscal Conservatives, we present the “Bridge Question” in the following simple analogy.  Try to recognize the components of the Bridge Issue as you read our analogy.

The RATP Bridge Fable

Suppose you belong to a family of six.  You and your spouse have four children who are reasonably close in age to each other.  Most of your children are about thirty years-old in the present day.  Back in 1995 your oldest child had just received their first State of Michigan driver’s license.  At that time, the family was planning to add at least one car to the driveway.  In a very short time you have more cars and build an additional one car bay on your existing garage.

As time passed, all of your children learned to drive, graduated high school, went on to college and eventually left the home.  (No, this isn’t a reality show.  It’s a fable, but let just pretend for the moment.)

Through the years your driveway became cluttered and that extra garage really helped with all your extra stuff.  Today though, you merely pay more taxes for the extra garage and your driveway is only challenged on a few weekends or holidays.  Most of the time, there is plenty or room in the driveway to spare.

This morning your spouse approached you with a request to widen the driveway and add another bay onto the garage.  The thought was to prepare your home for all the cars your grandchildren would drive when they come to visit.  You’ve already paid off the previous addition, but you continue to incur annual property taxes and on going maintenance caused by the previous expansion.

Meanwhile, you’re closing in on retirement and money is in short supply.  The company you work for has cut out all overtime.  You get by every month, but mostly because the kids have moved on and your expenses are reduced.  You continue to make payments on all the other promises you’ve made, which includes helping to pay off some of those student loans.  The bank is willing to loan you more money for the project.  The talk around the holiday dinner table includes the promise of many grandchildren.  What do you do?

STOP !!  This is just crazy!

Now reread the story above making the following substitutions:

1)       The State of Michigan is your Family of Six.

2)       Each bay of the garage is a border crossing.

Note: Michigan added a span to the Blue Water Bridge in 1997

3)       The passage of NAFTA is you child’s Driver’s License.

4)       Your annual Property Taxes is the annual Bridge maintenance costs.

5)       Cars in the drive are cars on the bridge.

6)       The Bank is the Federal Government (pay me now or pay me later).

7)       Those Student Loans are the Federal Debt.

No body’s pregnant!  You’ve got more room now, than every before!

From what we can discern from all the Bridge Studies we’ve reviewed, even the proponent’s own data indicates a 25%-30% reduction in traffic volumes.  The question must be raised, “what exactly is the point of our fiscally strapped government(s) in seeking to build a new Detroit Windsor bridge?

The best research link we could find on the subject is U.S. Government’s own Bureau of Transportation Static’s interactive query site.  Click here to do your own research, by border state, individual border crossing location, date range, vehicle type, etc.  Use this tool to quickly raise your own questions about the issue.  From this research tool, consider the following basic points.

Since the implementation of NAFTA in January 1994, total boarder crossings by trucks in Michigan remain virtually unchanged, peaking in the 2004-2005 era.  Meanwhile, bus traffic is down 30+% peaking in 2003-2004 and personal vehicle crossings have declined steadily by 40% over the same time frame.  Note: That time frame includes the addition of a second Blue Water Bridge span, while all Michigan border crossings declined.

It is widely recognized that the US House of Representatives has “the power of the purse,” which Wikipedia defines as “the ability of one group to manipulate and control the actions of another group by withholding funding, or putting stipulations on the use of funds.”  The House had the opportunity to tighten these purse strings recently, with an amendment offered by Rep. Guinta from NH.  The subject at hand was Project Labor Agreements, or PLAs, which are described and supported here, and opposed here.  

Only weeks into his presidency Obama had issued an Executive Order that stated, “it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.”  Further on in the Order, large-scale is defined as “where the total cost to the Federal Government is $25 million or more.”  Other terms mentioned in this Order, such as “encourage” and “consider requiring,” appear to leave some discretion to the person(s) doing the procuring and hiring.  However section 3(a) states, “executive agencies may … require the use of a project labor agreement by a contractor.”

Writing for Michigan Capitol Confidential about the amendment in question, Ken Braun covers the following: the vote results (a tie), statistics for union vs. non-union labor, a link to Competitive Enterprise Institute, and their “Labor Scorecard.” 

There have been 2 more votes since Braun’s piece, so Miller’s score has moved up, from an “F” to a “D.”

My own “in-a-nutshell” understanding is that if PLAs are mandated, essentially only union members will be hired.  Removing the PLAs will prevent discriminating between union, and non-union (or merit) shops. Just 1 in 5 construction workers belong to a union.

Responding to the pushback from conservatives, Ms. Miller posted the following on Facebook,  

“My response to today’s edition of the Michigan Capitol Confidential”

by Candice Miller on Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 11:10am

In today’s edition of the Michigan Capitol Confidential, a vote of mine was called into question and I would like to take this opportunity to respond.

No current federal law mandates the use of project labor agreements on projects that are partially funded with federal dollars.  The Guinta amendment would have been a mandate on state and local governments that they not enter into project labor agreements on such projects. 

I take a state’s rights view of this issue and would leave the determination on whether or not to use project labor agreements to state and local units of government who are directing these projects.  My vote against the Guinta amendment was not a vote in favor or PLA’s, it was a vote in favor local control and flexibility to make a determination without federal interference on what works best for them.

Will Congresswoman Miller reintroduce an amendment, that would narrow Guinta’s proposal to the federal level of government-funded projects, and protect the right for managers of federal projects to chose, to have the “control and flexibility” to hire non-union, merit-shop workers for federal construction projects?  By voting to defeat this amendment Rep. Miller voted to use the power of the purse to put “stipulations on the use of funds,” funds that would be used to hire only union workers, who make up 14% of the construction workers. 

As part of the Tea Party movement, we encourage our members to keep close watch on current legislation and their representatives’ voting record, and to give them feedback (Ken Braun’s ‘Politician Puppy Training’).

Read the links, gather some more information, and contact your representative to let him/her know this issue is on your radar.

Candice Miller     202-225-2106  Washington office

                            586-997-5010   district office

Thaddeus McCotter     202-225-8171  Washington office
                         734-632-0314 and 248-685-9495    district offices

Governor Snyder presented his 156 page $47 Billion State Budget for 2012 on Thursday, February 17th.  Watch here as Governor Snyder discusses his proposal with Channel 7 anchor Stephen Clark, at length.  You might say, “If everyone’s complaining, it must be balanced.”

Download the Governor’s Budget plan here.

Click here to read the Governor's 2012 Budget Summary

There will be many news stories covering the governor’s proposed budget, of which we cannot present them all.  The links below are a few of the early reactions of the proposal.

Battle Creek Enquirer, Kalamazoo News Channel 3, Saginaw News Channel 5, and The Macomb Daily Newspaper

“Yes, Virginia, there is a  Sane Constitutional Judge.” 

Virginia, your little friends are wrong.  They have been affected by the skepticsm of our politically-correct, elitist,  tossing-aside-traditional-values  age.  They cannot believe except what they perceive, or wish.  They think that nothing can be which is not fair and tolerant in their little minds.”

My apologies to Francis P. Church and his editorial affirming a child’s belief in Santa Claus, published in The New York Sun in 1897.  (Click here to read more ). 

Recently, many in our country have begun feeling that our Constitution, including many of the principles our Founding Fathers put down on paper, is outdated or just plain uncaring.  For example– Individual Responsibility.  Instead of a family member providing for their own family, and making medical and financial choices, this now falls to (or was grabbed by) the government, according to the divisive Healthcare legislation recently passed.  The infamous Obamacare replaces personal  responsibility with  the Individual Mandate. 

In two states, challenges to the Overreach of Obamacare have been successful.  In Virginia, a favorable ruling from a U.S. District Court, followed by success at the ballot box in Missouri.  Will the Individual Mandate  be found unconstitutional, and will this be the death of the unpopular new law?

Writing for MyHeritage.org, Amanda J. Reinecker tackles the question of whether these recent state-level events are the end, or beginning of a battle, and who appears to be winning.

Read It At…