New Berlin vs US Housing & Urban Development
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 36 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
(full article available on-line)
”The biggest development in the New Berlin civic center in at least the last five years was narrowly approved by the Plan Commission on Monday, clearing its biggest hurdle.
…..
Use approval was a problem for the plan because city officials had envisioned residential development in the city center to be upscale, attracting people with enough disposable income to support the businesses officials hope to attract to the center.
But 72 of the 172 units will be what is termed workforce housing. The federal government will give tax credits to the developer to provide housing for singles and families who meet Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority income guidelines. The target market are people between the ages of 18 to 25 with incomes of $25,000 - $35,000. The median income in
The other 100 units would be senior housing.
The project also needed three waivers, including one to not meet city parking requirements. The plan is 84 spaces short of the required 282 spaces. If proposed street parking is added in, the shortfall goes down to 52 spaces.
The vote in favor was 4-3.
Commission member Lee Sisson said when the Common Council approved the city center in the 1990s, it was understood that the residential would be upscale.
……
Officials always talked about upscale, higher end, Broge said, "And certainly this does not fit."
….
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
According to Regulatory Barriers Clearing house website of the Housing and Urban Development:
”By restricting redevelopment opportunities, local governments also restrict affordable housing. (Suggested remedy) Allowing existing commercial properties to be redeveloped as workforce housing can increase housing supply.
High property taxes may discourage development of workforce housing. (Suggested remedy) Requirements to build affordable housing coupled with tax abatements are effective incentives.
Zoning codes may not allow for development of workforce housing. (Suggested remedy) Code reforms, such as, rezoning commercial lots, allowing accessory housing in all residential zones, and creating mixed-use zones can spur development of workforce housing.”
VS
Congress and Housing and Urban Development vs The People of
Founding Document
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
According to www.usconstitution.net, welfare is defined and clarified in modern context as follows:
“welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.”
We the People:
Such experiments with affordable housing near retail complexes have precedence for failure. The now-demolished upscale Northridge Mall is a good example.
Notice how anonymous federal HUD central planners are advising how to manipulate local zoning; and they are interfering through tax credit incentives to developers. The permission to sidestep the Constitution through these methods was granted by our elected federal legislators, who we have not held accountable for distorting the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution.
There are no existing areas in which permanent overnight parking is allowed on the streets of
Government by the people requires action by the people. Today it is time to contact their Alderman and Mayor. Tomorrow, they must be more careful who they elect to federal offices.
Mal-Distribution of Income
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 35 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
From FOXNews.com March 27, 2010
After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.
As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul -- ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans -- one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the "mal-distribution of income in
"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in
That contrasted with the arguments Democrats have been making in the past year for reinventing the health care system: to expand health care coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans and tighten regulations on insurance companies while reducing the federal deficit.
But some Republican critics have suggested the overhaul is taking the country down the path to socialism. The nearly $1 trillion legislation pays for itself in large part through new taxes on the wealthy -- Americans who make $250,000 and more.
………..
GOP strategist Matt Schlapp, the White House director to former President George. W. Bush, told FoxNews.com that Baucus' statement reflected the "duality" of a responsible Democrat who understands the ramifications of tax policy on Americans but has a "foot in the camp of the most radical and rabid big government activists that are advocating for some breathtaking policies."
"It's interesting," he said. "He's not the senator I would use as the poster boy for radical and misunderstanding of market dynamics."
But Schlapp said he's not surprised by anything said by a member of a political party that, he said, seeks "to take money away from people who are achieving and give it those who aren’t."
VS
Sen. Max Baucus and other Democrats vs. The
Founding Document
The
The powers not delegated to the
We the People:
The founders recognized that in a pure democracy, the majority might take so much from the wealthy that they would stop contributing their talents to society. The result is a constitutional republic which protects all minorities. When modern leaders inflame class envy, they are indeed encouraging the suppression a minority group’s rights. Obviously the 10th amendment is violated in the process. Such violations will expand if we tolerate it, and
Gay Marriage and Federal Government
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 34 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
According to the Associated Press; January 11, 2010 (full story available on line)
The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage gets under way Monday, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the case was brought will be among the first witnesses.
The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by
Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.
The judge who will render a decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, has asked lawyers arguing for and against the ban to present the facts underlying much of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage. Among the questions
"The case is intriguing, exciting and potentially very significant because it addresses multiple important questions that, surprisingly to many, remain open in federal law," said Jennifer Pizer, marriage director for the gay law advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Can the state reserve the esteemed language and status of marriage just for heterosexual couples, and relegate same-sex couples to a lesser status? Are there any adequate public interests to justify reimposing such a caste system for gay people, especially by a majority vote to take a cherished right from a historically mistreated minority?"
The sponsors of Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, won permission to defend the law in court after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to. The attorney general and the governor are defendants in the case because of their positions in state government.
………..
"Our story, I think, is pretty ordinary," said Perry, 45, the title plaintiff in the case registered on legal dockets as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. "We fell in love, we want to get married and we can't. It's pretty simple." The women have been together for almost 10 years and since 2004 have been registered domestic partners, a legal relationship that in California carries most of the benefits and obligations of a full-fledged marriage.
Stier, 47, was married to a man for 12 years. She said the differences between marriage and domestic partnerships, part of what will be debated during the trial, are profound. She and Perry have to take extra legal precautions when they travel to states that do not recognize gay relationships and continually explain to friends and family what a domestic partnership is, Stier said.
…
VS
State of
Founding Document
The powers not delegated to the
We the People:
As Seinfeld would say; “I'm not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that”.
Judge Walker should comment on whether the federal government has jurisdiction, not on the arguments of same-sex marriage. It is the prerogative of each state to determine the criterion for marriage per the tenth amendment.
Mother Theresa Stamp Riles Atheists
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 33 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
From: FoxNews , January 28, 2010 (full article available on-line)
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.
…………………….
"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary
But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.
"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.
Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.
Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan's stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.
………………….
Betts said that despite the Foundation's accusations and letter-writing campaign, "The response to Mother Teresa has been overwhelmingly in favor of this stamp."
VS
Founding Document
The
Thomas Jefferson’s reference to the phrase “separation of church and state”:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
We the People:
Honoring a Mother Theresa who happened to be religious does nothing toward establishing a national religion. Thomas Jefferson was once again speaking to limit the national legislature from making such laws. And yet the introductory paragraph from the “Freedom From Religion” website is as follows:
“The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.”
Paradoxically, FFRF works “to promote the constitutional principle” which is not in the constitution; and their effort “to education of the public” separates
Time to Control the People
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 32 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
From the American Thinker on-line; March 24, 2010
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House of Representatives for being the longest serving member of the body (he was first elected in 1955, succeeding his father, Rep. John Dingell, Sr.), made an amazing admission during a live telephone interview with Detroit WJR News/Talk 760 radio talk show host Paul W. Smith on Smith's show Monday morning, March 22, 2010. The night before, Dingell had been a featured speaker at the Democrat Congressional leadership victory press conference after Obamacare passed the House.
In response to a question posed by Smith, Dingell said:
Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
VS
Founding Document
The US Constitution, The ninth amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The US Constitution; tenth amendment
We the People:
This legislation was touted as health care reform. Its practical implementation becomes more apparent by such slips of the tongue by Mr. Dingell.
Federal Control from Highway Funds
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 31 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
From: ABC News on line and USA TODAY January 26, 2010
A crackdown on texting while driving entered a new phase Tuesday when the federal government banned the practice on handheld devices for bus drivers and commercial truckers.
…………………….
"The dangers posed by texting while driving are the same whether you're behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or a four-door sedan," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Schumer and Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J, and Kay Hagan, D-N.C., propose legislation that would strip states that don't enact texting bans of 25% of their federal highway funds.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood acknowledged that enforcing texting bans is challenging. "The enforcement part is critical, and it may be the most difficult part," LaHood said. "We're at the starting gate on this. We're going to figure out a way to enforce these requirements."
….
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
According to Wikipedia:
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered federalism and the power of the United States Congress under the Taxing and Spending Clause.
In 1984, the United States Congress passed legislation, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, withholding 5% of Federal-Aid Highway Act funds from states that did not adopt a minimum legal age of 21 for the purchase and possession of alcohol. South Dakota, a state that had allowed 19-year-olds to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol, sued to challenge the law, naming Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole as the defendant because her office was responsible for enforcing the legislation.
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment.
The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a "pressure" on the State to comply, not a "compulsion" to do so, because the State's failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5% of the highway funds it may obtain. Therefore, Congress has not run afoul of the Tenth or Twenty-First Amendments.
Justices O'Connor and Brennan each filed dissents. O'Connor agreed that Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and that the Twenty-First Amendment gives states authority over laws relating to the consumption of alcohol. The attached condition on the states, O'Connor said, must be "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds." O'Connor disagreed with the Court's finding that withholding federal highway funds was reasonably related to deterring drunken driving and drinking by minors and young adults. She argued that the condition was both over and under-inclusive: it prevents teenagers from drinking when they are not going to drive on federal and federally-funded highways, and it does not attempt to remedy the overall problem of drunken driving on federal and federally-funded highways. Therefore, the relation here between the condition and spending is too attenuated:
….
If the condition and spending are too attenuated, then they fail the court's "reasonable relation" test, falling outside the scope of Congress's power in the Constitution. Brennan, in a brief paragraph, states his agreement with O'Connor, stating that the Twenty-First Amendment "strikes the proper balance between federal and state authority".
VS
Founding Document
The US Constitution, The ninth amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The US Constitution, The tenth amendment:
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.
We the People:
Since the 18th amendment, which gave the federal government control over alcohol was repealed by the 21st amendment, there is absolutely no link to federal control as it is exercised today. Such logical contortions by Justice Rehnquist only discourage rational people from participating as they acquiesce to the false claim that only the learned and elite can interpret the Constitution. He should have addressed the 10th amendment instead of the 21st.
Senators Schumer, Menendez, and Hagan will remain unencumbered by the 9th amendment limitations on their power, and their oaths of office, unless their constituents react to such violations.
Gun Treaty
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 30 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
From Reuters news on Oct 14 2009
The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,"
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
…………………………………………….
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
……………………………………………….
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
VS
Founding Document
The
We the People:
Obviously the Constitution gives no authority to other countries regarding the importation of arms. Please stay in contact with your members of Congress.
Urgent- Your chance to Influence State
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 29 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen sought approval Thursday to sue the federal government over new health care legislation, but Democrats who control most of state government quickly shot him down.
"This is an issue of the federal government overreaching beyond what constitutional powers they have, which is an assault on (the Legislature's) powers," Van Hollen said.
More than a dozen attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of vast changes to the health care system approved by Congress, but Van Hollen can't join them without authorization from Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle or one of the houses of the Legislature, both of which are controlled by Democrats. Doyle and legislative leaders said they would not grant permission.
"The lawsuit you suggest is a frivolous and political attempt to thwart the actions of Congress and the law of the country," Doyle wrote in a letter to Van Hollen. "The State of Wisconsin will not enter into litigation intended to deny health care for tens of thousands of residents."
………………………
VS
State vs. Federal Authority
Founding Document
The US Constitution: Tenth Amendment
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.
We the People:
Van Hollen is on rock-solid ground according the US Constitution. The lawsuit was “shot down” because of party partisanship. Obviously Governor Doyle and some Democratic State party leaders are more inclined to succumb to the national mandate than to enforce our state’s constitutional power and sovereignty. However others may be looking for a political lifesaver for this year’s elections. Some may be more loyal to their oaths of office and the Wisconsin people than the Democratic National Committee. But the people must support them. As someone once said; The constitution is only words if the people do not help enforce the limits it places on elected officials.
We only need a three more in the State Senate to support this lawsuit in order for Van Hollen to proceed. If you have relatives or friends in the districts of the following State Senators, please urge them to contact them in support of our Attorney General’s constitutional challenge.
Jim Holperin (D); Conover 54516
Robert Jauch (D); Poplar, WI 54864
Pat Kreitlow (D);Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Julie Lassa (D); Stevens Point 54481
John Lehman (D);Racine, WI 53405
Mark Miller (D); Monona 53716
Jeffrey Plale (D); South Milwaukee, WI 53172
Fred Risser (D); Madison. 53703
Judy Robson (D); Beloit 53511
Jim Sullivan (D); Wauwatosa, WI 53213
Lena Taylor (D); Milwaukee 53206
Kathleen Vinehout (D); Eau Claire, WI 54702
Robert Wirch (D); Pleasant Prairie 63158
Alito vs Obama.
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 28 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
Per the Washington Post Friday, January 29, 2010; (full article available on-line)
Obama was near the end of his speech when he turned his attention to the court's decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling overturned two precedents and left corporations free to use their profits to support or oppose political candidates.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.
"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by
………………………..
"Not true, not true," he appeared to say (other lip readers think he said, "That's not true") as he shook his head and furrowed his brow. It is unclear what part of Obama's statement he was objecting to, although he started shaking his head after the president said "special interests."
…………………….
Alito was an accomplished jurist, Obama said at the time, "but when you look at his record -- when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American's individual rights."
VS
Founding Document
The
We the People:
The issue is whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority to limit the funding of speech, not the size or status of the litigants. Sadly, this point seems to be lost on our president.
New Orleans Katrina and Gun Rights
Current Events vs. Founding Documents
Entry 27 Submitted by: Mark Musselman
Current Event
From: USA Today on 10/08/2008
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — City officials have agreed to return hundreds of firearms that police officers confiscated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, part of a deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by gun lobbying groups.
The settlement agreement filed Tuesday in federal court calls for the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation to drop their case if the city follows a plan for returning guns to owners who had them seized by police after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.
VS.
City of New Orleans vs. gun rights of citizens.
Founding Document
The US constitution: First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The US Constitution: The second amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We the People:
Note the wording of the second amendment. Unlike the first amendment, which only limits Congress, The second amendment protects the people from all levels of government.
