Connelly

Thank you for watching over this. I was watching CSPAN the last 2 days on how the Baucus committee's work on the amendments unfolding. It was slow and the votes are generally along party lines. Senators Ensign, Kyl and Grassley made good arguments.
Looking forward to your analyses.

Dear Mr Connelly, Which large corporation or insurance company paid you off?

Isn't anyone getting the point? This is about more than health care. It is about giving up our rights and freedoms as US citizens. The more you "allow" the government to "provide benefits", the more freedoms you give up. Why do you think one socialist government after another has failed? Their citizens couldn't stand being smothered any longer. Health care can be fixed. It must be fixed. But not at the expense of our freedom.

Congress does what it is told by the Treasury Secretary and the President. The Constitution is suspended and has been since 1933. This is a FACT, not opinion.

http://sanityisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-congress-is-farce.html

As long as the U.S. is in a declared "State of Emergency", Habeas Corpus is suspended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers.

At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:

The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9;

The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment.

VOILA!!!!! We have no rights. Period.

Issued on Sept 10th, the day before the emergency would expire.....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Notice-of-continuation-from-the-President-regarding-the-emergency-declared-with-respect-to-the-September-11-2001-terrorist-attacks/

Now we know why Bin Laden speaks from the grave every Sept 10th, right on cue. So the President can extend the National Emergency.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/To-the-Congress-of-the-United-States-6-24-09/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Continuation-of-the-National-Emergency-with-Respect-to-the-Western-Balkans/


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Notice-regarding-the-continuation-of-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-the-risk-of-nuclear-proliferation/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States

The United States is officially in an ongoing (and effectively permanent) state of emergency declared by several Presidents due to multiple problems and those problems are not going away anytime soon.

There does not need to be a declaration by the President of a National Emergency, its actually part of the Constitution, but used in the wrong way. It's also included in the law.

Where does this come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America, we find the following words:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

Habeas Corpus ­ the Great Writ of Liberty. This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us with and hold us for any crime, unless they follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.

But once it was resolved, the Constitution was to be returned to its peacetime position of authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution could be suspended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it's called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called Article 48. In the United States, it is called the War Powers.

If that was, in fact, the case, we are under a war emergency in this country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal code known as the USC or United States Code, and find that statute, that law, in existence. The law was amended to include not just wars, but national emergencies, calamities or riots.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/95.html

(b)
(1) In the event of natural calamity, riot, insurrection, war, or other emergency conditions occurring in any State whether caused by acts of nature or of man, the Comptroller of the Currency may designate by proclamation any day a legal holiday for the national banking associations located in that State. In the event that the emergency conditions affect only part of a State, the Comptroller of the Currency may designate the part so affected and may proclaim a legal holiday for the national banking associations located in that affected part.


And if we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to Section 95(b), we will find a law which states:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat, 1.)".

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIK_enUS276US279&q=12+usc+95+b+1933

Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed.

Congress is not in charge of ANYTHING except for the passing of bills it is told to pass by the Treasury Secretary or President. Congress can't declare war anymore, the President can do it without their approval as evidenced in Iraq. Why else would Congress pass laws they have not even had the time to review or read? Because they are TOLD to.

Now we understand why the President and the Treasury Secretary threatened Congress with Martial Law if the $700 Billion Bank Bailout bill was not passed immediately in late 2008.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS326US326&q=congress%20threatened%20with%20martial%20law&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

Except, our Constitution never gets returned to its peacetime position of authority because we keep declaring national emergencies.

This is why we operate under the Uniform Commercial Code instead of the Constitution.

It is all about Commerce, Licensing for Commerce (Business license), and TAXES. You must have a business license to operate in commerce. If found out, you will go to jail.

They force everyone to pay into the system like this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000095---a000-.html


(1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,


Agencies he may designate.....IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA,

If you so much as TOUCH a coin, paper money, or securities (Bearer Bonds) without a business license, you are guilty.

Then we read further down in the same law...

"by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States"

This was written strictly for the IRS to seize our stuff and sell it for the benefit of the United States. Its a REPOSSESSION law or SEIZURE law. Another thing against the Constitution.

Basically, the law was amended to say that the citizens of the U.S. were now the same as enemies. In the Trading with the Enemies Act, nobody can operate (work) in Commerce without a license. We are all forced to work for "money" issued by the Federal Reserve. This is how we get trapped into paying income taxes.


Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws. ~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Now we know why he said that.

Welcome to the greatest scam in history, at least we have a front row seat.

Thank you for your enlightening posts. This is a very scary time for the US and I am grateful to you for taking the time to read the bill and explain the repercussions of such. You are a true American.

aticama: Thanks for the kind words, I get a little satisfaction when people tell me that they even understand the jibberish I write.

I just want to make people aware of the giant scam and how it all ties together.

I tried to write my Congressman but all I get back is chain-letter emails in an auto-reply.

I did make a visit a while back to State Legislator Barbara Norton's office (D-Louisiana) I told her I wanted to congratulate her on her first term in office. I then told her it was going to be her last term if I had anything to do with it.

She is the genius responsible for the rap "concert" on the floor of the La Legislature while it was in session!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEdJ_tlX2A

This type of B.S. is what's wrong with La. We have much more important issues than rapping on the House Floor, especially in this state.

My point was, I tend to not email my elected officials anymore, I would rather go directly to their office and tell them to their faces.

Where is someone like Huey Long when we need him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

The man was only Governor for 4 years. Imagine what he would have done if President. Most people don't know the true history of Huey, they only hear that he was crooked and a skirt chaser.

So was JFK but it didn't keep him from doing what was right for our country.

Jack:

Being "Illegal" is a choice, but its a choice they are forced to make. Be illegal or starve.

The problem is not with the illegal immigrants who come here to make a better life for themselves, the problem is with the AMERICANS and AMERICAN Companies that hire them!!

I'm getting a little tired of everyone blaming each other for the illegal immigration issue in this country.

Who keeps hiring all these illegal immigrants here in the U.S.? The Russians?

If there were no Americans steadily hiring them, my guess is there would be no illegals working here. There must be a job market demand for them, there are about 25 million of them here.

They are trying to scratch out a living like everyone else. Don't blame the immigrants, blame the upstanding citizens who keep hiring them. It's like the drug trade: The drug trade would dry up overnight if there was no demand for it. Don't blame the drug dealers, blame the clowns snorting up the dope. They are the ones supplying the $$$ to the dealers. If there is no demand, there will be no supply.

Liberals blame the Conservatives for all the ills of the world and Conservatives blame the Liberals for all the ills of the world. Too much finger-pointing and not enough elbow grease never fixed a DAMN thing, which is what our political system has declined to. Meanwhile, it's nice to blame someone else, we get to feel morally superior without taking the blame. I think it is safe to say the 2-party voting system is a utter failure and a new solution needs to be introduced. Quickly.

We put a probe on Mars and Venus years ago and I have seen a Polar Bear ride a bicycle in person. Nobody will ever convince me that a solution to the problem that benefits EVERYONE cannot be found. It can be, it's not that hard. But a few capitalist's in our Free Enterprise system want to make a few extra $$ of profit. If the immigrant is getting exploited for his low wage and slave-like working conditions, and Americans like us are getting exploited by sending our jobs overseas and having a less qualified and less paid guy take our place....... ..Then who is benefitting? The people hiring the illegal immigrants!!

The one benefitting from the problem is the one CAUSING the problem.

Stop listening to Faux News and the people on TV that are paid Million$ to tell you how to think. Who do you think pays the bills for the TV stations? Corporate sponsors! They pay idiots lik Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly Million$ a year to tell you how to think. They get paid to do THEIR jobs, which is telling you what corporations think you should "know".

It's an insult to your intellect if you think about it.

No, Travis, the problem IS the illegal immigrants who come here. As to whether they are making a better life for themselves or any others is another issue. Yes, Americans hire them, and yes, these people and companies need to be severely punished. Two laws are being broken here by two different groups; illegals; and employers.

As for the blame game, IMO, that serves no end other than giving someone a good vent. I’d rather invest in the responsibility game, whose going to do something about it.

As for abolishing the government, I’d be very concerned with whom we would replace it. Both parties are riddled with corruption. And we haven’t identified any heroes. I think we stand a good or better chance of cleaning it up though. First wave is 2010, the more incumbents we oust, the quicker the re-founding.

Jack:

I agree with you on the blame game. Nobody is standing up and taking responsibility but I think that falls on us and who we vote for.

The problem is the people that hire them. If nobody hired them, illegals would all turn around and head home once they figured out they were not going to make a dime here.

The elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about is the Federal Reserve. That is the root of THE problem.

To Michael
Justified by the General Welfare clause?
Why not the Commerce Clause, Michael?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Besides which, you cite only James Madison on how to read the General welfare clause. Why don't you talk more comprehensively about the conflicting views on it, and it appears that Madison's view has not been used for a while.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#General_Welfare_Clause

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

Michael:

That is good that you brought up United States v. Lopez. However, that case doesn't answer why HR3200 or any health care bill for that matter violates the Commerce Clause.

I cited United States v. Lopez in a response to your other article. I used this case to show that you have not shown why HR3200 goes beyond the Commerce Clause. That case was about the Gun-free School Zone Act of 1990, a federal statute that outlawed guns near schools. The Supreme Court said that it went beyond the Commerce clause because guns or prevention of gun violence as a local matter had nothing to do
with interstate commerce.
see http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I have also shown in another case, the Supreme court had found that a particular legislation went beyond the Commerce Clause. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). (Violence against Women act found not to be within Commerce
Clause power).

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison
and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html

However, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law against growing marijuana for medicinal purposes, which in this case was shown to be purely within the state and never entered interstate commerce, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005). Within the context of Morrison and Lopez, it should have been struck down too. Because of the Gonzales case, It is uncertain if the Supreme Court will continue to hold Morrison or Lopez.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
and
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Gonzales%20v.%20Raich&url=/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html

Moreover, None of these cases overrule other Commerce Clause cases dealing with issues like racial discrimination, labor law, securities law, and so on. Lopez and Morrison have insisted on some limit on the Commerce clause if the law has
nothing to do with interstate commerce or is non-economic. This was made uncertain by Gonzales. You do have a friend in Justice Clarence Thomas because he dissented in Gonzales in which ONLY states are allowed to govern the issue of medical
marijuana. The only conservative Supreme Court judge to do so.

However, Health care reform has a lot to do with interstate commerce. Does it not? How does regulating health care not justified by the Commerce clause because it has not interstate commerce?

If you want to characterize Health care reform as "forcing" the people to buy something, then explain exactly how.

Moreover, explain why regulating does not include "forcing" people to do something under the Commerce Clause.

Here is what the Supreme Court said about the power to regulate under the Commerce Clause: "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in
the constitution," see Gibbons v. Odgen, 22 U.S. 1, 196 (1824), available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=22&page=1.

Nothing in the political arena terrifies me more than government controlled health care.

I have spent hours, day after day, reading information and debates on this healthcare "bill" or reform. I am an retired old school hospital nurse, but the legal wording of all of this is way over my head. Most of us 'average' Americans are trying to understand the implications, and so many conflicting opinions, you can not depend on media 'fact checks' and both parties spit out accusations and mis statements. all of this to say, your columns have given me a lot of information that my common sense tells me is accurate and important to know. I trust my common sense...it has gotten me along almost 70 years with many good experiences and minimal regrets. My own son is an attorney in florida, and i trust him and know he has always been truthful with me..when he tells me the law is written for lawyers, i understand what he is saying, and so i appreciate the fact that you have shared your opinions, put your thoughts out here to help others without legal backgrounds to understand what we are dealing with now.
What it all makes me feel like is helpless...how my one vote can change anything before it is too late...but my one vote joined with millions of others can and does make a difference. My husba nd and I both went to Washington to join a march against huge spending and other issues ...we had never been to Washington, and drove there from Alabama.. I did not know what to expect, I just felt like I had to be there. I was not alone. So many others just like us were there, walking up to the Capitol, it was a peaceful march just to make a point, "we do not want government to have any more control of our lives, our money, or our healthcare."

when we watched the news, we saw national news people and Washington politicians dismiss us, even called us derogatory names, insulted us, said we were not representative of main stream America.
I told my husband to buy a gun when we got home...America is not the same place it was 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago.. we bought guns, took classes to learn gun safety, an older couple who has never owned guns. And we intend to protect our lives and rights what ever way is needed in these strange times... Are we main stream Americans now? Do we fit the "wingnut" title the liberals gave us? I invite a government representative to come on our property and tell us what we have worked all our lives for and saved will now be given to others who will not work, maybe then, when I as a 67 year old woman of the conservative south, in all my 120 pounds and grey hair, eye glasses and apron around my waist with ammunition in my pockets... the title "wingnut" will be more appropriate?

I laughed at your comment that "This means that Congress can do anything it wants by claiming it is for "the general welfare"; they could reinstitute slavery, abolish freedom of speech entirely, or take away a woman's right to vote."

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So, even if the 4th Amendment didn't enumerate an individual citizen's right to privacy, or the 2nd Amendment didn't protect the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, THE NINTH AMENDMENT DOES.

AMENDMENT X to the Constitution of the United States:

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.

Your rants jump to illogical conclusions. I feel sorry for those that follow your opinions.

Mr. Connelly is a LAWYER???? Really? Was he never trained in logic?
And - although I probably shouldn't ask - what religion does he adhere to? Surely not Christianity, because Christianity teaches something entirely different than what Mr. Connelly is proposing.
I think he's just a grumpy old man who wouldn't like ANYTHING that didn't specifically help HIM.