Nobody Questions? (Letters sent to state congress members with request to post for all to see )

Thank you for using Congress.org Mail System.
>
> Message sent to the following recipients:
> Senator Shelby
> Message text follows:
>
> Brenda Prosser
> Mobile, AL 36695-9323
>
>
> November 14, 2009
>
> [recipient address was inserted here]
>
>
> [recipient name was inserted here],
>
> Dear Senators:
> 'Nobody Questions ?
>
> "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man,
> but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
> --Thomas Jefferson
>
> Never before has there been more evidence of outright contempt for our
> Constitution than under the current liberal hegemony presiding over the
> executive and legislative branches of our federal government.
>
> The protagonist of this Leftist regime is, of course, Barack Obama, who
> promised his constituents, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn
> the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are
> fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations
> from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was
> our time". Obama proclaimed, "Everywhere we look, there is work to be
> done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we
> will act -- to lay a new foundation for growth."
>
> In his inaugural speech, Obama declared, "The question we ask today is not
> whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works,"
> signaling his rejection of the old paradigm, which pitted the conservative
> position, "government is the problem," against the liberal position,
> "government is the solution."
>
> Thus, by virtue of his election to the presidency nearly one year ago, he
> believes he has the authority to establish a new paradigm to
> "fundamentally transform" our nation by creating "a new foundation."
>
> However, if we are a nation of laws with a national government limited by
> our Constitution, and, indeed, we are, then Obama has no legal authority
> to "transform" our government.
>
> Those who laid our constitutional foundation were very clear about its
> limits on government.
>
> Our Constitution's principle author, James Madison, wrote, "The powers
> delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few
> and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as
> war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
>
> Concerning the legislature's authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted:
> "[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they
> please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and
> subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the
> whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress
> with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and
> as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do
> whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to
> be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly
> within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these
> powers could not be carried into effect."
>
> Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be
> done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no
> longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one,
> subject to particular exceptions."
>
> What is the constitutional authority for Obama's proposals now being
> debated in Congress?
>
> For example, amid all the acrimony over Obama's transformation of health
> care, the debate should not be centered on which plan is better, but
> whether constitutional authority exists for any of the plans under
> consideration. Unfortunately, such inquiry is scarce, and hardly noted.
>
> Last week, however, three leading Democrats in Congress were asked during
> news conferences to cite the constitutional authority for their healthcare
> proposals. To a one, they responded with answers that betrayed unmitigated
> arrogance and a disdain for our Constitution second to none in our
> nation's noble history.
>
> "Are you serious? Are you serious?" replied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
> when asked specifically about the constitutional authority for Obama's
> health care proposal. Pelosi's spokesman later clarified, "You can put
> this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious
> question." (Apparently, there was an echo in the chamber.)
>
> Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer attempted to answer the
> question by demonstrating his illimitable ignorance on the subject: "Well,
> in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad
> authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy
> health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health
> care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional
> responsibility."
>
> Perhaps Hoyer should take a basic civics course on the "General Welfare"
> clause in Article 1, Section 8, as written by James Madison. On the
> limitations of the Constitution, Madison wrote: "I cannot undertake to lay
> my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to
> Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
> constituents..."
>
> Finally, Democrat Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
> Committee (where Rule of Law once prevailed), responded to the question of
> constitutional authority by insisting, "We have plenty of authority. ... I
> mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that. Where
> do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The
> federal government does that on federal highways." (No, actually, the
> states set speed limits, and only misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause
> by judicial activists could be construed to give the federal government
> such authority.)
>
> As for Obama, his publicist, Robert Gibbs, claimed, "I won't be confused
> as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of -- I
> don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the
> veracity of [questions about constitutional authority]."
>
> For sure, nobody will confuse Gibbs with a scholar of any stripe. And, we
> would remind Gibbs that when the Clintonistas attempted to nationalize
> healthcare (18 percent of the U.S. economy) back in 1994, the bi-partisan
> Congressional Budget Office issued this piece of analysis: "The government
> has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of
> lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate ... would
> impose a duty on individuals as members of society [and] require people to
> purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal
> government." In order to divine the real source the Left claims as its
> authority for "fundamentally transforming the United States of America,"
> consider this congressional inquiry from last March. Republican Rep.
> Michele Bachmann dared ask Obama's tax cheat Treasury Secretary, Timothy
> Geithner, "What provision in the Constitution could you point to gives
> authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March
> of '08?"
>
> Geithner responded, "Oh, well, the -- the Congress legislated in the
> Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new
> authorities." Bachmann tried again: "Sir, in the Constitution. What in
> the Constitution could you point to gives authority to the Treasury for
> the extraordinary actions that have been taken?" Geithner's response:
> "Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is -- is -- has
> been using authority granted by this body -- by this body, the Congress."
> The "authority granted by this body, the Congress."
>
> In every successive Congress since 1995, conservative Arizona Republican
> Rep. John Shadegg has sponsored the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359), which
> requires that "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite
> statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of
> each portion of that Act."
>
> There is no legitimate constitutional authority for almost 70 percent of
> current federal government programs, and, thus, no authority for the
> collection of taxes to fund such activities.
>
> Though Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
> the United States," and every member of Congress has pledged "to support
> and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> foreign and domestic," and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same,"
> many have forsaken their sacred oaths.
>
> In doing so, they have inflicted grievous injury upon our Constitution,
> thereby placing our Essential Liberty in eminent peril.
>
> In May 1775, at the onset of the hostilities that gave rise to our
> Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the Second Continental
> Congress adopted a resolution calling on the states to prepare for
> rebellion. In its preamble, John Adams advised his countrymen to sever all
> oaths of allegiance to the Crown.
>
> Since that time, generations of American Patriots have honored their
> oaths, shed their blood, given their lives -- but not to the crown of any
> man or a partisan sect. Instead, these sacrifices have been made to
> support and defend our Constitution and the Rule of Law.
>
> Put simply, there is no authority for a "constitutional rewrite" by Barack
> Obama, Pelosi, Hoyer, nor any revisionists. Such contempt for our
> Constitution, such willful violation of their sacred oaths is a disgrace
> to the selfless dignity of generations of Patriots before them.
>
> Under such despots, we are being unlawfully taxed without lawful
> representation.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Brenda
> 251-633-4953
>
>
> Brenda Prosser sent this message via Congress.org, which uses the
> Capwiz·XC system. Congress.org is a free public service of Capitol
> Advantage and Knowlegis, LLC. You may access Congress.org here:
> http://congress.org
>
>