America Rising


It is gratifying there are Patriots in America displeased with an unconstitutional SCOTUS. Justin Smiths shares some thoughts on the Obamacare subsidy ruling and the Same-Sex Marriage ruling.

JRH 6/28/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

America Rising

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/27/2015 9:30 PM

“The Liberties of Our Country … are worth defending at all hazards … We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors … purchased … with toil … and expense of treasure and blood. — It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation … if we should … be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” – Samuel Adams

Two-hundred and thirty-nine years of freedom and liberty and the American Heritage, as that “shining city on the hill,” a beacon and a place of safety for all peoples that offers a glimmer of hope for a better future and a better tomorrow, are coming to a grinding halt. With Congress moving America towards transnational fascism (TPA) and the Supreme Court acting in a lawless fashion concerning Obamacare – King v. Burwell – and the issue of same-sex marriage, the “land of liberty” is facing the greatest challenges of its entire history.

The majority of Americans stand for American interests to be first and foremost in our foreign policies, and we oppose globalism. We believe this country has the right and obligation to secure Her borders, Her sacred Heritage and Her values. And we believe in a small constrained federal government, with its inevitable corruption confined within the limited role set for it by the Founding Fathers.

When the Supreme Court can arbitrarily decide to provide alternative and false meanings to words written and passed by our elected representatives and ignore other laws, in order to align with the goals and agendas of whoever happens to be in power, we are on the road to tyranny, like it or not.

As noted on June 25th by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia _ a true Son of Liberty:

(On Obamacare) “We should start calling this SCOTUSCare … this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The summersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax … ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

On June 26th Scalia stated his concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision removing state bans on homosexual/gay marriage:

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy … Today’s decree says that … the ruler of 320 million Americans coast to coast is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

In Katie Pavlich’s Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right, the observation is made that Chief Justice John Roberts’ accusation that the Court acted “out of preference” is “an interesting description considering he did the same thing on King v. Burwell.”

Former Governor Mike Huckabee’s assessment on this egregious mess coincides with Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent. Huckabee said: “They [the Justices] didn’t rule on any existing law. They simply redefined marriage”; and Roberts stated: “The majority’s decision was an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

Marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is a part of America’s core traditional value system. Our ancestors were mostly Christian, and, as such, the majority of Americans have understood marriage as set forth in the Bible. They also hold fast to God’s commandment in Leviticus 18:22 _ “Man shall not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination.”

The Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage is nothing less than an attempt to force Christianity out of America’s public square and underground, as the Far Left moves to culturally transform America. Chief Justice Roberts pointedly observed: “As a result the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

All of these disgusting anti-liberty, anti-American developments moves me to tell the fascist Progressives of both parties “You don’t belong here.” Go find a place where the people welcome the idea of a permanent ruling class. There are plenty of them out there, but it’s not here.

Take your tools in the press, your sycophant followers, the poltroons and quislings, your socialist pipedreams and your Hell called “Utopia”. Take your self-serving transnational vision of one borderless world, united under your thumb. That might be fine for others, but it’s not for the Sons and Daughters of Liberty still living in America.

Whatever the motives of Obama and the five Progressive activist Justices, America cannot allow itself to be dragged down into the dung heap of totalitarianism, as a result of the majority’s misapplication of clauses like “due process”, aimed at affording substantive rights at the expense of ‘liberty’ and through a distortion of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Our path can only be up to man’s age-old dream and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.

The sole thing tyranny fears is the truth, and therein lies a sworn mission for each of us. All who believe in liberty must do everything to convince their fellow Americans of the importance of a conservative path towards freedom. Tell the truth to the good people of the United States, and through that revelation, restore America to the greatness She was founded to attain.

There is a God, and this God of all Creation would prefer us to be free. That means He must love this country, not so much for what we’ve allowed it to become, but deeply for what it was once meant to be.

However, there is a never ending war being waged for the heart of America — because true Evil cannot be stopped and the truly Good will not be moved. [This] is a battle that must be won or lost every day, by one side or the other, and no less than the fate of free mankind hangs in the balance.

The outcome may still be in question, but I know where I stand. To those yet undecided, there’s a place here beside me or out there against me, once you’re moved to make up your mind.

Rise up America and let Liberty’s dimmed light once more burn bright. It awaits an awakening, so this one nation and the love of true Liberty at its heart can be restored to Her old glory. America demands much of those that hear the call, and the first hard thing it asks is courage.

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Guns or Bibles or Both


Is it Time to Consider?

John R. Houk

© June 27, 2015

Bible believing Christians must show their displeasure with SCOTUS, Congress and of course President Barack Hussein Obama. The only way to prevent the further threat to our Liberty to be practicing Christians is to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the curse that SCOTUS has placed on our nation. That a Leftist Congress has promoted. And that our Leftist-in-Chief President has sent in his so far successful agenda to fundamentally transform America.

VIDEO: Fundamentally Transform America- the Obama Promise

Posted by obamacare

Published on Jul 24, 2013

Remember 5 days before the 2008 Presidential Election? President Obama promised to fundamentally transform America? How’s He doing? Join the Fight against Obama and the Progressives’ attempt to destroy Individual Liberty at http://freedomist.com

Getting Congress to pass an Amendment to address Traditional Marriage may be a daunting task. I suspect not one Democrat would vote in favor of such an Amendment. ALSO I have a horrible feeling the Establishment Republican RINOs and pretend pseudo-Conservatives would join the Democrats in naysaying. Under those conditions I have serious doubts that Congress could muster even a simple majority in favor of Traditional Marriage with one man and one woman. A simple majority in favor of a Traditional Marriage Amendment isn’t enough since 2/3 of both Houses of Congress is required. And if a 2/3 majority passes both Houses still the Amendment to the States requires the ratification of 3/4 of States (currently 38 out of 50) to be a part of the Constitution. There is another way to constitutionally amend the Constitution that bypasses Congress, the President and SCOTUS.

If 2/3 (34) of each individual State passes a resolution petitioning for a Constitutional Convention to construct an Amendment for Traditional Marriage. This has never happened since the first Constitutional Convention that brought us our U.S. Constitution.

Critics of a Constitutional Convention on both the Left and the Right believe such a convention will rewrite the entirely new Constitution. However I have since learned that each State legislature can call for a Constitutional Convention with a specific mandate for a specific Amendment or specific Amendments or a whole new Constitution. The next convention which would only be the second since the 1787, can assign the delegates with specific instructions on what kind of Amendment or Amendments to work on. AND THEN still 3/4 of the States would be needed to ratify said Amendment or Amendments under a specified mandate; i.e. 38 out of 50.

Calling for such a convention only needs a simple majority of the legislature of each State OR if the State runs an Initiative law, a voters plebiscite can call for a convention. The U.S. Constitution does not actually lay out the framework on how each State issues a petition for a convention. That method is left to the devices of each State. The U.S. Constitution does issue one caveat for States calling an assembly of a national Constitutional Convention. After 34 States submit a Constitutional Convention petition, then the U.S. Congress must convene the Convention.

I have to wonder what happens if the U.S. Congress refuses to convene a Convention after 34 States validate such a petition. The next logical Constitutional path would that the several States have SCOTUS force Congress to convene a convention as per Article 5 of the Constitution. I perceive the problem with SCOTUS fulfilling its Constitutional duty is that the recent two rulings validating Obamacare and same-sex marriage contrary to Amendment 10 of the Constitution will continue a rogue Supreme Court thus ensuring political tyranny.

It is political tyranny that America’s Founding Fathers initiated a rebellion against British rule because the British Crown and the British Parliament ignored the Liberty and Freedom of their citizens in the 13 American colonies.

Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and … Dear God in Heaven you should READ THE REST (The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription IN CONGRESS [i.e. under Articles of Confederation], July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

It is my opinion that if all three Constitutional Branches of government form an oligarchy of despotism, then a new American Revolution may be necessary for WE the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to a political despotism that separates us from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

I suspect the Founding Fathers responsible for the Bill of Rights (viz. the Second Amendment) foresaw a future rogue National Government. Hello: rogue President, rogue SCOTUS and an indecisive Congress essentially the essence of a rogue legislature swayed by special interests and huge ideological divisions making statesman a 19th century concept.

It was there I took a couple of courses with Dr. J. Rufus Fears, professor of an incredibly manly subject: the history of freedom. One of the things the good professor emphasized to us captivated students was that a politician and a statesman are not the same thing. A statesman, Fears argues, is not a tyrant; he is the free leader of a free people and he must possess four critical qualities:

1. A bedrock of principles

2. A moral compass

3. A vision

4. The ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision

Let us now explore these four criteria of a democratic statesman in READ ENTIRETY (The 4 Qualities of a True Statesman; By Brett & Kate McKay; The Art of Manliness; 1/30/12)

The only moral compass among Obama-Democrats are the godless fallacies of Secular Humanism:

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe.”[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that “Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.”[6]

Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”[8]

Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.”[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism – the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. READ ENTIRETY (What is Secular Humanism? Adapted from Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth, and Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin By water of Summit Ministries; ChristianAnswers.Net; Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved)

The SCOTUS decision on Same-Sex marriage has just about robbed me of all confidence that the operation of the current Federal Government will preserve an exceptional United States of America under God with Liberty and Justice for all. The “Justice” here is NOT the social justice advocated by a godless Secular Humanism. RATHER this “Justice” is Justice under God Almighty as displayed in the Holy Bible (and not the antichrist Quran of Islam).

In a cross post of Robert Smith’s email submission yesterday, he volunteered Americans have two choices to take back the Constitution of the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent:

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

Robert had submitted his thoughts at about 11:00 PM on June 25 referencing the SCOTUS support for Obamacare subsidies which was a stretch on the Constitution. However his thoughts came to mind after listening to Fox News the morning of June 26 announcing the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. AGAIN: the ballot box or armed intervention.

I always conceived an armed confrontation might occur between American citizens standing for Conservative-Christian principles and a rogue operating unconstitutional Federal government, BUT I really did not conceive such a situation viable in my lifetime. NOW I am not so sure.

The existence of a Rogue Presidency and a Rogue SCOTUS could be hard pressed for Americans to make their wishes be heard at the ballot box. SCOTUS has demonstrated that a disregard for the Constitution in which their mandate was to preserve when broken and to instruct Congress to make corrections to bad legislation unless that legislative purview belonged to each individual State of the Union.

A SCOTUS majority has embraced the Secular Humanist Leftist (Progressive, Liberal or whatever appellation) concept of a Living Constitution rather than the Original Intent (See Also HERE) of the Founding Fathers and the original intent of succeeding Amendments after the Bill of Rights. The Living Constitution theorists believe the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to the perceptions of modern culture and associated rules of law pertaining to the global legal environment.

It is my increasingly lack of confidence in all three branches of the Federal government that leads me to believe America’s last chance is in the never yet used Constitutional process of Amendment by State origin regardless of the potential to rewrite the entire Constitution. If a new Constitution favors a Left Wing perspective and is ratified by 38 States is America is lost to the past of insightful American Founding Fathers.

If THIRTYEIGHT American States choose a godless path to America’s future that means twelve States are willing to remember Liberty and Freedom under God.

Franklin Graham Facebook post 6/26/15 screen capture

If there are 38 States ratifying godlessness, I suspect there will be Conservative Christians who will be willing to participate in a Declaration of Independence-style rebellion throw the godless bands of tyranny off their necks by guns or Bibles or both.

JRH 627/15

Please Support NCCR

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs – Republican In Name Only – that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

SUPREME COURT: ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ LEGAL NATIONWIDE – By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human natureLife Site News; 6/26/15 10:19 am EST

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex MarriageBy John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justicesBy Ben Johnson; Life Site News; 6/26/15 1:14 pm EST

SCALIA: MARRIAGE RULING ‘THREAT TO DEMOCRACY’ – By ART MOORE; WND; 6/26/15

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

Republican Party’s Fiascos


Justin O. Smith is a frequent contributor to this blog. I tell you this because every once in a while Justin’s Father Robert makes a contribution. This is one of those cases.

Robert Smith has become weary of politicians in Congress NOT making decisions for the good of the citizens (i.e. WE THE PEOPLE) of the United States of America. Robert assumes that Conservatives still have the Founding Fathers’ vision of Liberty and Freedom for Americans whose government is supposed to be “… as the Founding Fathers recognized, to protect people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.” (The italic text is a quote from: The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty; By Craig Biddle; The Objective Standard, Winter 2011, Vol. 6, No. 4.)

President Abraham Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union of the United States of America to preserve and establish a more perfect union of States in which the role of government, in line with the vision of the Founding Fathers, was pronounced in November 1963 a few months after the Battle of Gettysburg:

We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (LINCOLN’S FAMOUS QUOTE AND ITS INSPIRATION [closing words of his Gettysburg Address, delivered on November 19, 1863]; quote/counterquote; 3/2/15)

Robert has correctly surmised that our Congress has forsaken this original vision transforming America from a people oriented Representative Republic into a ruling elite acting government telling people how to live and how to believe that what humanity feels is the best virtue of morality. I surmise Robert’s target of unconstitutional elitists are the Democrats and the GOP Establishment.

JRH 6/23/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Republican Party’s Fiascos

By Robert Smith

Sent: 6/23/2015 5:17 AM

Our Senators and Representatives are sent to Washington by “we the people” to read the bills presented to them. It is then incumbent on them to explain to us, their constituents, and the contents of those bills, along with the reasons that they are either good or bad for our country.

Congress recently passed the Trade Promotion Authority bill, in part, for greater transparency and so we can read it. In other words, do their job and read it for them.

I do not need to read the bill, simply from understanding that it opens an easier path for passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership through a simple majority vote.; I do not need to read bills, such as these, in order to know that they are not in the best interests of our country. All one needs to do is to view the results from the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the ensuing mass exodus of our U S companies to other countries.

Since our Senators and Representatives cannot, or will not, do their jobs, we need to fire them. To rid ourselves of our Representatives is relatively easy, since every two years they seek re-election. With our Senators, it is more complicated, since their terms are for six years and in only 18 states have provisions to recall their Senators. Where does your state stand? Is it one of the 18 or not? If it is not take action ensure that your state will have the ability to recall your Senators.

It is time – it is past time – that we charge the State Legislatures with the task of legislating a procedure that enables us to recall our Senators. If our

Legislators cannot or will not do this they can be replaced in 2016.

I am fed up with the RINOs (Republican – In – Name – Only) that are holding positions in the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, as voters, review their past records and make certain that they are true conservatives before casting your vote for any one.

Today in a large part, many of our country’s problems stem from the people who are far too willing to take the words of liars or idiots or both; it is time for us to throw the liars and idiots out of office.

In all of my 89 years I have never seen so much apathy in the voters. It is as though they do not care about our country’s current condition and sad state of affairs. For the people who still love the USA, vote conservative and ensure the person you vote for is a true conservative.

PSG [ret] R. G. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Robert G. Smith

Fascism and Trade in America


Justin Smith details how Obama’s Secret negotiations involving TPA and TiSA will undermine American sovereignty and rend Congress impotent on Immigration Policy that disfavors American employment in our own homeland. Consider this quote before reading Justin’s exposé:

It should be noted that much of the text is a proposed draft for negotiation, and within the text, numerous parts of specific provisions are bracketed to denote which countries support or oppose particular sections or language within sections. But the thrust of the text in the annex is clear. For example, Article 4 is about the schedules (i.e., lists) of commitments that countries will have to put together regarding the “Entry and Temporary Stay of Natural Persons,” and a proposed version of Article 4, Section 2 would prohibit member states from “maintain[ing] or adopt[ing] Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit” in the sectors where commitments are made. (In other words, U.S. laws or regulations limiting guest workers only to jobs where no U.S. workers were available would violate the terms of the treaty.)

TiSA has been written in secret by and for major corporations that will benefit greatly if it becomes law. If the House of Representatives grants the Obama administration the fast-track trade promotion authority it seeks, the authority will be valid for six years, which means TiSA (like TPP) would also get an up-or-down vote in Congress without any amendments—making it very likely to pass and become law without the necessary democratic deliberations on immigration that such major changes should have. The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments. (TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy; By Daniel Costa and Ron Hira; Working Economic BlogEconomic Policy Institute; June 11, 2015 at 6:18 pm)

JRH 6/22/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Fascism and Trade in America

Optimism and Sheer Blind Stupidity

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/20/2015 5:58 PM

America is being sold out, and corporate interests are being placed above the interests of the American people, through the passage of Trade Promotion Authority and the subsequent scheduled anti-American trade “deals” already under final preparations towards a vote, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trade in Services Agreement. She is being sold out by a Republican majority, who value cheap labor, the “almighty” dollar and their own self-interests above America; by some Democrats, who value open borders and the advancement of global governance agendas over U.S. sovereignty.

On May 21st the Senate approved TPA, and Congress agreed on July 12th by a 218-208 vote. Congress also severed the symbiotic nature that the Senate had created between the TPA and the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, so the failure of either would not prevent the other one from advancing into law; the Senate will give a final vote on TPA sometime between now and July 31st.

When Congress suspends several of its most basic powers for the next six years and delegates them to the executive and Obama, who exhibits a caustic disdain for Our U.S. Constitution, just exactly how does this advance the best interests of the American people?

Under fast-track procedures, Obama writes implementing legislation unaltered and without any Congressional amendments or input, for any yet-unseen global trade agreement, no matter its content and how far reaching it might be. Once it is called to the floor, it is only allowed 20 hours of debate, and the vote threshold is lowered to a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes threshold of most major legislation or the 67 votes required to pass treaties; in essence, Congress has preapproved swift consideration of sweeping global treaties before reading the first word of text, contradicting misleading and erroneous assertions from the offices of Representative Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Scott DesJarlais and several others.

Andy McCarthy (political analyst) tells us there is not any danger in passing the TPA. He suggests that Congress and the Senate can simply vote down bad trade deals, however, lowering TPA’s threshold for passage to a simple majority will potentially make it easier for a bad deal to pass. And every single “trade deal” currently under consideration is bad for America.

Either our representatives are blissfully optimistic, or they are suffering from sheer blind stupidity, regarding fascism and “trade deals.” With 76% of our trade with the eleven other Trans-Pacific Partnership participants already covered by NAFTA, TPP is a blatant attempt by globalists to transfer a host of issues from the control of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures to international trade courts; and, the TPP is more centered on redistribution of U.S. wealth than on the mythical creature called “free trade.”

Far from facilitating “free trade,” TPP places U.S. companies at a clear disadvantage by exempting foreign countries from standards mandated by U.S. law (i.e. EPA), and it allows other harmful practices to continue. It does not address currency manipulation, which has the same impact on trade as tariffs, and even if it did, the world has witnessed past trade courts deliver incomprehensible rulings from the IMF concerning China’s numerous violations. It does not address the foreign border adjustable taxes (VATS), which are also de facto tariffs, and it does not properly address the problem of government subsidies to state-owned enterprises. And unfathomably, it allows the Investor State Dispute Resolution to be handled by the foreign tribunals, without providing any rationale as to why the U.S. Court systems are not good enough.

If these broad sweeping trade agreements that the U.S. has entered over past decades, like NAFTA, the Australian Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA and the U.S.-Korea agreement (KORUS), are so good for the American people, why have we found it now necessary to create and implement the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, which provides federal aid to U.S. workers who lose their jobs due to foreign trade?

While Speaker John Boehner, Paul Ryan (R-WI) – House Ways and Means Chairman, Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have been assuring everyone that the TPP section on immigration does not enable the free flow of labor across borders, they have failed to mention that this subject is the entire focus of the soon-to-follow Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) [WikiLeaks]. Under Article 4 concerning “Entry and Temporary Stay of National Persons”, provisions for open immigration are seen, according to the Economic Policy Institute, that state signatories “shall not maintain or adopt Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit; essentially stating that U.S. laws limiting guest workers, only to jobs where no U.S. workers are available, are a violation of the treaty [See Also: TiSA Means Open Borders – Real Clear Politics 6/17/15].

Article 5 of TISA would allow corporations to transfer an unlimited number of foreign employees to America, under the guise of “contractual suppliers” and “business visitors”, in the same manner as the European Union does through its requirements for the free flow of labor. And just as this has caused double-digit unemployment in Western Europe, America can expect the TISA to increase U.S. unemployment numbers already in double-digits, if the truth were made plain by this administration and both political parties.

Since 1970, real hourly wages in the U.S. are lower today than they were more than four decades ago. The percentage of unemployed men ages 25-54 has grown from 6% in the 1960s to about 17% today, and since 2009, the number of women in the workforce has fallen by 3%.

Every American who loves this country should be demanding at the top of their voices that the Senate votes “NO” on TPP and TISA and any other trade deal that does not increase U.S. manufacturing jobs, opens foreign markets, reduces trade deficits and makes it easier for our businesses to succeed in America. Demand that Senators and negotiators put an end to deals that only benefit transnational mega corporations by allowing the movement of capital, businesses and people across borders without controls, damaging U.S. sovereignty. And demand that our leaders protect American interests, principles of responsible government, U.S. sovereignty and the American people.

Ultimately, this is about more than trade deals. The events of today will determine if America will retain Her sovereignty and power tomorrow. And, the American people must force their will over these events to ensure that Americans will rule themselves, rather than be ruled by bureaucrats, corporatists and transnationalist fascists.

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text embraced by brackets are by the Editor. The links are by the Editor and may be revised if Justin Smith notifies the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Fascists to the Left and Right


On June 12 I posted an amalgamation of Justin Smith thoughts – that are preceded by an intro by me – he had left on the Facebook group America’s Party. Now Justin has put together an essay about the same thoughts which relate to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

JRH 6/14/15

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Fascists to the Left and Right

America Betrayed

By Justin O. Smith

6/13/2015 7:17 PM

Show me the ‘free trade’ section of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and I’ll kiss Obama’s ass.” – Justin O Smith

Under the banner of free trade with trade an afterthought, America was betrayed on May 21st by forty-nine GOP Senators and thirteen Democrats, who voted for the Trade Promotion Authority [TPA] and corporatism and transnational fascism in order to fast-track the anti-American Trans-Pacific Partnership “trade deal” and create an international rule of law unaccompanied by democracy. This, in essence, would have removed constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures, and it would transfer Congressional control of numerous issues to international tribunals.

Obama has been negotiating the TPP under a blanket of silence and secrecy for the past five years, and the American people were not allowed to see it before Congress voted on the TPA fast-track on June 12th; only through leaked information do we now understand that the TPP will significantly impact public health, foreign policy, immigration and the environment.

Members of the U.S. Congress have been allowed only limited access to the TPP in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center. They can review one section at a time under “supervision” of a guard, and they are forced to relinquish any notes they made before they leave. Yet more than 500 official corporate “advisors” have unlimited access to the TPP text.

Sen. Rand Paul stated, “It boggles the mind,” and he continued, [Who] … decides to keep a trade treaty secret?”

Michael Wessel has forty years of trade policy experience working for former Democrat Leader Dick Gephardt. He has worked on the North American Free Trade Agreement and he was an advisor to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also a “cleared advisor” who has read the text of TPP and opposes large portions of it. He asserts in a Politico interview that he and other cleared advisors are being censored and prevented from publicly sharing their criticisms of the trade deal concerning specific proposals [See HERE]. Like every other issue, Obama pretends that such criticisms do not exist.

Why isn’t every single member of Congress demanding the full disclosure of the content of the TPP?

More than this, why would any Republican be willing to give Obama extended powers under TPA, when Obama has shown a real disdain for the U.S. Constitution? Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called it “insane to give Obama some power to negotiate an important treaty in secret … [and] not have to account to Congress or the Senate.” [See HERE]

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is one of the few people who have read the TPP, and he noted earlier this month: “Under fast-track Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers. … the power to write legislation … to amend legislation … to fully consider legislation on the floor … to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive two-thirds vote.” __ Session adds, “The latter is especially important since … it [the TPP] more closely resembles a treaty than a trade deal.” [See HERE]

Numerous sources, such as Frank Gaffney – president of the Center for Security Policy, Lou Dobbs – noted scholar and investigative journalist, and political analyst Mark Levin, have all noted that the TPA empowers Obama to unilaterally draft “implementing legislation” that will change U.S. laws and regulations to comply with the agreement he has negotiated. Through the TPA, Congress limits its own ability to debate and amend Obama’s “implementing legislation.”

Curiously, most of the 49 Senators who voted to fast-track the TPP had not read it, before they voted in favor of the TPA, including presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, although Cruz has since read it. So in essence, these men voted on a significant trade policy bill that affects the U.S. beyond anything America has seen to date, without reading the first word in it.

Deceit and subterfuge are being employed, when government officials claim TPP will not supersede U.S. law, because the fast-tracked legislation will. It also should be highlighted that rulings emanating from international tribunals do result in de facto modifications to a nation’s laws through regulations extra-legally, just in the same manner the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules have impacted the U.S.

The transnationalist governance structure of the TPP falls under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, which has extremely broad powers and is taking the form of a nascent European Union. This new transnational commission has been chartered, by all accounts, with a “Living Agreement” clause, and it will have the authority to amend the agreement after passage, to add members and to issue regulations impacting the environment, commercial policy, healthcare, labor and immigration: An entire section of the TPP is devoted solely to immigration policy for the participating nations.

If one needs more reasons to oppose TPA and TPP, they are found in the Clinton administration’s North American Free Trade Agreement (Jan. 1994) and the WTO (Jan. 1995). These two trade treaties have caused serious detrimental effects on the U.S. economy.

Reuters’ reports: “Since the pacts were implemented, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free trade partners. In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free trade partners. Since fast-track authority was used to pass NAFTA and the U.S. entrance into the World Trade Organization, the overall annual U.S. trade deficit in goods has more than quadrupled, from $218 billion to $912 billion.”

Daniel DiMicco, Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Steel, explains that these free trade deals haven’t been free trade at all. We have lowered our barriers to foreign imports, but they have retained their barriers to our imports, resulting in “unilateral trade disarmament” and enabling “foreign mercantilism.”

Along with this, the AFL-CIO labor federation released a report on May 20th that read: “There is no reason to believe that drawing the Pacific Rim countries away from China is a realistic goal, so long as China continues to offer mutually beneficial trade, investments and supply chain opportunities to those countries — It seems reckless to ask Congress to enter into a deal that has a high probability of undermining U.S. wages, jobs and labor rights, as previous trade agreements have done, especially given that the deal has no real chance of diminishing China’s existing economic influence.

In this context, those proponents saying “Our rules, no rules or China’s rules,” over the TPA battle, are presenting fallacies and a false premise.

“Free trade” shouldn’t destroy one-fourth of all manufacturing jobs in the U.S., as NAFTA did. “Free trade” shouldn’t force displaced American workers to take pay cuts of 20% or more, in some cases. And ‘free trade” shouldn’t give transnational corporations more decision-making power than the U.S. government, making them a part of the government and allowing them to impact U.S. society, when their interference is unwanted and outside the normal parameters of any right they might claim.

In effect, TPA fast-track is an agreement to pre-approve and remove constitutional protections against the creation of a global governance structure, whose structures have not been made public yet. Above any desire to understand the legal and constitutional basis for such secrecy involving the TPP, one should ask, “Why is our Congress even considering such a transfer of U.S. sovereign power to a transnational governance structure of any kind, regardless of how beneficial the ‘deal’ seems?”

Can anyone show me the “free trade” in the TPP deal? Is this what freedom, liberty and justice for all has come to mean in America? God help US if it is.

Fortunately for all America, the TPA was not allowed to advance, after Speaker Boehner pushed it to a 219-211 win, because a key element, the Trade Adjustment Assistance segment, was defeated 302-126, in an effort led by labor and Nancy Pelosi. But Boehner has suggested that it will be revisited and another vote taken over the next few days, however, the 188 member Democrat caucus contains 124 hard “NO” votes in the House, with the full backing of Senators like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. So, it is highly likely that the TAA bill won’t pass, and the TPA won’t even get a vote.

Call Your Congressmen and urge them to stand firm against any new attempt to pass TPA; and then, prepare to engage in the most forceful, powerful Civil Disobedience imaginable, if for some unforeseen reason, our representatives pass the TAA and the TPA, which go against everything remotely in America’s best interests. Prepare to even take up arms should it become necessary to do so, in order to make our government and Obama understand just how far ‘We the People’ believe that they have overreached their authority.

As a longtime supporter of the GOP, I stand with those five Republican Senators, including Jeff Sessions, and the 32 Republican Congressmen, with Tennessee’s representatives noticeably missing from their ranks, and all the Democrats who stood and opposed the TPA on June 12th: Let’s pray that the next vote permanently derails the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor. All source-related links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Justin Smith Comments on TPP/TPA


By Justin O. Smith

Editor and Intro by John R. Houk

© June 12, 2015

I have to admit I dislike being in agreement with Democrats who thanks to Barack Hussein Obama are usually utopian Leftists out to ignore the Original Intent of the Constitution and the Christian values that are as much a part of our American heritage as is Liberty. I am in agreement with the Dems that are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

As I wrote June 8th the Dems are against TPP and related agreements because the Unions are against it. The Conservatives that are the multitudinous of acronyms are due to the potential to abuse our national sovereignty, immigration at the will of the Executive Branch and various yet disputed economic reasons.

A large chunk of Republicans are for the TPP/TPA due to the disputes over the economic affects which the Establishment GOP believes will strengthen the American economy. I found it disturbing that self-described Speaker Boehner was urging the Fast Tracking of this legislation that would have in reality meant an increase of discretionary power for scandal plague President Barack Hussein Obama and his equally scandalous Administration.

As I was typing this I heard on Fox News’ Cavuto that the Dems and thankfully enough Republicans united to shoot down TPP/TPA. In light of the three comments which I edited into one post from Justin Smith who gives good reasons what the threat of TPP/TPA is. Justin Smith comments to the SlantRight 2.0 post “Are YOU going to Allow the House to Fast-Track TPP” on the Facebook group America’s Party.

But for clarities sake here’s a somewhat neutral description in the summary of a PDF publication I found:

Legislation to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”), sometimes called “fast track,” was introduced as the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA- 2015; H.R. 1890/S. 995) on April 16, 2015. The legislation was reported by the Senate Finance Committee on April 22, 2015, and by the House Ways and Means Committee the next day. TPA, as incorporated into H.R. 1314 by substitute amendment, passed the Senate on May 22 by a vote of 62-37. The previous grant of authority expired on July 1, 2007.

TPA is the process Congress has made available to the President to enable legislation to approve and implement certain international trade agreements to be considered under expedited legislative procedures for limited periods, provided the President observes certain statutory obligations. TPA defines how Congress has chosen to exercise its constitutional authority over a particular aspect of trade policy, while giving the President added leverage to negotiate trade agreements by effectively assuring U.S. trade partners that final agreements will be given timely and unamended consideration. On July 30, 2013, President Obama first publicly requested that Congress reauthorize TPA, and he reiterated his request for TPA in his January 20, 2015, State of the Union address. Legislation to renew TPA was introduced in the 113th Congress (H.R. 3830) (S. 1900), but it was not acted upon.

TPA reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branch’s respective authorities over trade policy. The expedited legislative procedures have not changed since first codified in the Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618). Congress, however, has required that the authority to use TPA be periodically reauthorized, and at times has chosen to revise trade negotiation objectives, the consultative mechanism, and presidential notification requirements. While early versions of fast track/TPA received bipartisan support, later renewal efforts have been more controversial, culminating in a more partisan vote on the 2002 TPA renewal. Future debates on TPA renewal may center on trade negotiation objectives, congressional oversight of trade negotiations, trade agreement enforcement, and clarifying the congressional authority over approval of reciprocal trade agreements and trade policy more generally, among others.

TPA renewal may become a more pressing issue in the 114th Congress because current trade negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) are in progress. Technically, TPA is not necessary to begin or even conclude trade negotiations, but it is widely understood to be a key element of defining congressional authority, and of passing trade agreement implementing legislation. Therefore, its renewal can be construed as signaling serious congressional support for moving ahead with trade negotiations. Addressing congressional concerns over the definition and operation of TPA may be a central part of the debate.

Although there appears to be support for renewal of TPA in Congress, the details of the legislation are likely to be subject to considerable debate, including the specific treatment of any related TAA program reauthorization. This report presents background and analysis on the development of TPA, a summary of the major provisions under the expired authority, and a discussion of the issues that have arisen in the debate over TPA renewal. It also explores some of the policy options available to Congress. (Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy; By Ian F. Fergusson – Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Congressional Research Service via Fas.org; 5/28/15)

Here is an important background Breitbart read which includes a WikiLeaks document dump link on the subject of TPP/TPA immigration rules that were secretive or at least until WikiLeaks got a hold of it:

REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT

JRH 6/12/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Justin Smith Comment

June 8, 2015 at 7:49pm

TPP is my line in the sand John. If our government sees fit to go along with what essentially amounts to global fascism/corporatism and nations giving up their sovereignty to be governed by the world’s corporations, it will be a watershed moment — it should be an epiphany to all Americans who love freedom and liberty that they are not truly represented any longer — and it should mark the day they arm themselves in preparation for an all out revolution.

The hell of it is that only 5 Republicans in the Senate voted against fast tracking this, along with 16 Democrats. It should be interesting to see how the House votes on this.

Republicans want this because they are under the delusion that it will grow the economy and provide cheap labor as well as decrease the trade deficit, all of which are wrong for too many reasons to detail here. And the Dems, except those like Bernie Sanders who actually seems to really care about America’s well-being, see this as finally setting precedents that will push the U.S. and other nations into an organization that will have enforcement capabilities regarding its rules and “laws” in a way that supersedes U.S. law.

Research it for Yourselves — the TPP will not bode well for America in any way, shape or form and destroys a large segment of U.S. sovereignty, as well as the sovereignty of all the other nations that sign on to it. Think of it as a supersized, new sort of union modeled after the EU.

TPP also opens the door for international tribunals to modify our laws on immigration and healthcare to conform with “international norms” and it has very little to do with actual trade between nations. This is global governance moving ahead at warp speed.

+++

Justin Smith Comment

June 8, 2015 at 7:51pm

We’re rapidly approaching a point where an armed response may be the only thing that these fascist fools in the government understand. How long and how far do YOU let YOUR own government push YOU — taking away YOUR liberty and trampling on YOUR rights — before YOU stand and say “No More” and back it up with a rifle in YOUR hand? How long do YOU go through years of court battles that should never have been waged in the first place, because of an ever consistent and insistent advance against OUR Bill of Rights by the marxofascist Progressives, the corporatists and RINOs in government?

These bastards are trampling on the U.S. Constitution and the representative Republic daily. Just how much more are any of YOU willing to take?

To hell with “peaceful protest” — we’ve seen just how well that works these days. The Progressives have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to it. At the very least, it is time to refuse to obey and comply with any “law” we know to be outside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — to engage in the most forceful and powerful civil disobedience We can — and to show an armed mass of patriots on the steps of the Capitol in DC if it should prove necessary.

Go to exhibit a force of will and a preparedness to fight, not to start a revolution, but to impress upon the government just how far WE believe they have overreached their authority. If a revolution starts, let it start because they fired the first shot after causing the American people to have a hundred grievances against them already.

+++

Tom Hoefling No need for armed revolution. All we need is for conservatives to stop supporting traitors. June 8 at 9:06pm

++++

Justin Smith Comment

June 11, 2015 7:19pm

Tom Hoefling — 49 members of the Senate GOP showed themselves to be traitors to America on May 21st when they voted for Trade Promotion Authority fast-track for the Trans Pacific Partnership. There are fascists running rampant throughout both parties, and this TPA and TPP are fascism anyway one cuts it and anti-American through and through, no matter their reasoning for supporting it.

I fear the GOP can only see the almighty dollar sign and cheap labor, no matter that it will expand trade deficits and bring untold harm to our economy as it destroys U.S. jobs, despite assurances to the contrary advancing the lie that herein lies “prosperity for all.”

This TPA and TPP is a direct assault on the integrity of U.S. Sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution as it initiates international tribunals that will be poised and in place in order to implement measures that will supersede U.S. law — regarding immigration and healthcare specifically.

Please show me a conservative Tom Hoefling. There are 33 American Patriots in the Senate who voted “NO” on this deal. Tomorrow will delineate the Patriots from the Traitors in Congress, if the TPA makes it to the floor.

Ordinarily I’d agree with YOUR simplistic assessment, but the political atmosphere has so shifted in America that one can no longer tell a true conservative from a pretender, because so many will say and do anything in order to perpetuate their own power.

In the end, it does come down to the moral character of those We elect and fully vetting them properly to ensure that they do stand for God, the Constitution and the Republic and Our Beloved America’s traditions, Exceptionalism and Heritage — as expressed by the Founders through their Judeo-Christian beliefs and their Original Intent as presented in the Federalist Papers and other writings, such as Locke’s treatise on Government.

+++

Justin Smith Comment

June 11, 2015 7:35pm

No Tom Hoefling — when You have half the nation subscribing to a foreign/European ideology of Marxism/fascism and attempting to tear apart the foundations upon which Our nation was built — working outside Constitutionally accepted means in order to succeed — You have a group of people who may be American by birth but who are anything but American in their purpose and intent for the nation and who are the Enemy From Within that I swore an oath to fight against in defense of the Constitution and Our Beloved America in September 1977.

These marxofascist bastards are American in name only and are pursuing the ends justifies the means as they attempt to abrogate the U.S. Constitution and take America into “a new age” of a “post-Constitutional America” in which the people serve the State rather than the State serving the people. And their redistribution policies in this context – the TPA/TPP – will redistribute U.S. wealth worldwide and reduce our own personal prosperity and economic freedom to a shambles, which in turn will reduce individual liberty across the nation.

If We cannot elect Statesmen grounded in God, Family and Country in the next election -2016, as well as good, decent, moral and true conservatives, then the nation will see an increase in strife and social upheavals, eventually culminating in near civil war — most likely an all-out Civil War.

I cannot see strong willed and strong-minded Sons and Daughters sitting by idly as Progressive Fascists reduce US all to the lowest common denominator in poverty under their Utopian Statist Hell, especially when there is not any real political solution. One does not “compromise” with the very Evil that intends to destroy everything one loves about one’s nation. One destroys that Evil totally and completely. Civil War is coming whether anyone wishes to face it or not — too many takers live here with outreached hands and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their own failures.

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith