We’ve begun a battle of enormous consequence to our entire nation here in the great state of Mississippi.  Abortion is on the November 8 ballot in Mississippi, in the form of an initiative to change the state constitution by defining “person” as any human from the moment of fertilization.  The amendment is based on statements made by the judges who voted in favor of abortion during the Roe v. Wade oral re-arguments.

Unlike some other states, it is very difficult to get a voter initiative on the ballot in Mississippi; this year, we have three initiatives that would amend our state constitution, a truly remarkable feat.  All three are key conservative issues in an overwhelmingly conservative state:  abortion, voter identification, and eminent domain abuse.Personally, I’m hoping for a triple play, and voting “YES!” on all three.  The issue that I am working on, however, is abortion.

When this battle is won in Mississippi, it doesn’t just set up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, it eviscerates that case and all of its unholy progeny.  It gives a method by which every state in the nation can extend the most basic civil rights to the most innocent and deserving members of the human race — our unborn children.

When is a person a “person”?

All humans deserve equal protection of the laws and the right to due process, but the law only extends these rights to every “person.”  Thanks to the outstanding work of Personhood Mississippi, we in Mississippi will have the chance to be the first state in the history of our union to define a “person” to include all unborn humans.  Initiative 26 will define the term person as follows:

SECTION 33.  Person defined.  As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state and protection under law, regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.  Calling abortion “murder” will no longer be merely a moral judgment, but an established legal determination.  In other words, abortion will be illegal.

(more…)

From the same Department of Justice that has given us operation Fast and Furious, we now have a new twist on our (disappearing) right to petition the government for redress of our grievances.  In classic “heads I win, tails you lose” style, the Justice Department is now arguing that if you protect your medical privacy by refusing to comply with the Individual Mandate, you can’t sue them.  Oh, you’ll still have to pay a fine, though.

As some of you may know, our case here in Mississippi is unique in that we are using the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (and other medical privacy rights cases) to argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Part of our reasoning is that the Individual Mandate forces individuals to contract with health insurance companies, which then in turn gather reams of highly confidential medical information from us without our consent.  We make the point that even if health insurers suddenly stopped gathering our past medical history when we apply for coverage (and there is nothing to indicate that this practice will stop), the fact remains that health insurers absolutely must gather treatment information for billing purposes.

For example, if you are concerned that you might have contracted a disease and go in for a blood test, that information will be sent to your insurer for billing purposes.  Even if you try to pay for that separately, your insurer will still gather that information.  Given that inadvertent disclosures of such information is a fairly common occurrence, you can count on innumerable instances of harmful public disclosures of private medical information to result.

The feds, of course, see it differently.  Still, I did not expect this argument:

(more…)

This past Monday, we trained our guns on the SS Obamacare; we aimed for the waterline.  The smoke hasn’t yet cleared, but we’re pretty sure it’s taking on water in a big way.  Our case attacking the constitutionality of Obamacare is in the federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  The government filed a motion to have our case dismissed, and yesterday we filed our response, which can be found here:  Response to Government’s Motion to Dismiss

Judge Keith Starret will now have to decide many issues, including whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty.   On October 14, Florida’s Attorney General received a powerful ruling in his state’s attack on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) from the federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida.  The opinion in that case says that the “individual mandate” is a penalty, not a tax.  That ruling is vital, because the Constitution gives Congress a great deal of power when it comes to taxing us, but not nearly so much when it comes to penalizing us.  There’s also a very old statute called the Anti-Injunction Act that the government is using as a defense, which only applies to lawsuits against taxes.

In short, the government is saying “we win because this is a tax.”  The only problem is that the mandate is quite clearly not a tax.  The individual mandate is simply a command by our government that each individual who does not have health insurance coverage go out and buy it, whether he or she wants it or not.  This dictate is enforced with a penalty — either buy the insurance, or face the penalty.  Congress specifically called this provision a “penalty” eighteen different times in Section 5000A alone; not one time in over 2,700 pages did Congress ever refer to it as a “tax.”   Even President Obama has insisted that the individual mandate is not a tax.

(more…)

Earlier this week, on May 3rd, we witnessed liberty in action:  a Clinton-appointed federal judge took the government to task over its continued holding of the Hutaree “Christian militia” members in Michigan.

They can try to spin it any way they want, but the government lost this one, big-time.  There are two fundamental rights implicated in the judge’s ruling — free speech, and the right to a reasonable bail.  Both of these fundamental, constitutionally protected rights are absolutely vital to our system of ordered liberty, and to the very existence of our republican form of government.  Judge Roberts’ ruling thus deserves much wider discussion than the old media has given it; it should be printed out and taught to every high-school kid in the US.  It shows how our republic — and our criminal justice system — are meant to work.

Is this a politically motivated prosecution?

It is no secret that even before President Obama was elected, the left began focusing once again on what they call “right wing militia” groups.  To hear them talk, every single militia member is a budding young Timothy McVeigh.  Thus, there was some alarm but not a great deal of surprise when nine members of the “Christian militia” group called the Hutaree were arrested in Michigan.  Now, thanks to an extensive order written by the federal judge in charge of the case, we now know that the case against the Hutaree is thin, and based almost entirely on the theory that they exceeded the allowable bounds of free speech.  One could very well argue that by definition this is a politically motivated prosecution, since it focuses on what the government is terming “hate speech.”

I’ve included a copy of the Court’s ruling with this post — please take the time to read it.  You will know a great deal more about the evidence against these men.  You may be fairly shocked at at paucity of evidence against them.  You may even wonder how easy it might be to start with “fringe” groups like the Hutaree, and then draw an ever tighter stranglehold around the free speech rights of other “radical right wing groups,” like your local TEA Party members.  Remember, these men never committed any act of violence against any person — they are being prosecuted for their political speech alone.

(more…)

Obamacare has become a TEA Party issue, and that’s a good thing for the TEA Partiers, and all freedom-loving Americans.

At the April 15 TEA Party gathering here in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, speakers will include a hopeful candidate for Congress, a pastor, and even a law enforcement official.  What really caught my eye, though, was the announcement beforehand that “a local orthopedic surgeon will address the recently passed health care  legislation.”  This is hardly an isolated incident.

Think about it — the TEA Party is all about protesting massive, out of control government spending, and the excessive taxation that is necessary to support it.  Obamacare has been largely debated as healthcare reform.  Why should TEA Partiers care about healthcare reform?  You may think that the TEA Party is branching out into more areas than the core issue that has made it such a huge and ever-growing success.  You may find this risky and perhaps alarming.  Let me disabuse you of that notion, and assure you that Obamacare was destined to be a core TEA Party issue from the very beginning.

(more…)

Hopefully by now you are aware that Senator Chris McDaniel and I have filed a citizens class action lawsuit against the PPACA, the liberty-robbing “Obamacare” statute, in the federal court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  Please see our prior article on this subject here. The response from liberty-loving Americans has been overwhelming — from Big Media, not so much.  I understand their disinterest, though, because really important things like the travails of a billionaire golfer takes up so much of their time.

That’s quite alright, because I would rather come directly to you to make important announcements like this:  Lt. Governor Phil Bryant has entered our class action lawsuit against the PPACA as an individual, private citizen.  He is serving as a Petitioner, and is the class representative for a uniquely important class:  employees of the State of Mississippi.

Lt. Governor Phil Bryant addresses crowd in Jackson, Mississippi

Why this new class is important.

Congress is now dictating what must be — and must not be — in your health insurance plan.  In other words, they are controlling the health insurance that your employer is offering you.  Socialism is defined as “government ownership or control of all the means of production (farms, factories, mines, and natural resources) and all the means of distribution (transportation, communications, and the instruments of commerce).”  Realize, “socialized medicine” is here, right now.  Even worse, by controlling what health insurance plans must be offered, Congress and the Executive branch are controlling your employer, and thus your employment.

Your liberty depends on the survival of your republic.  The PPACA is a direct attack on the republican form of government.

Every kid who’s ever put hand over heart and recited the Pledge of Allegiance knows that we live in a republic:  “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

(more…)

Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel and I have filed a class action lawsuit today, Good Friday 2010, challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “ObamaCare” and a variety of other less polite euphemisms.

We believe that the PPACA is DOA for several equally important reasons, but only one of which has received much attention. Most folks know by now that Congress has invoked the Commerce Clause to justify this massive expansion of governmental power. Our “Good Friday” Complaint spends many pages discussing how Congress has clearly exceeded the limits of its power under the Commerce Clause. I strongly urge you to read the entire Complaint. What I really want to point out, though, are some things you probably don’t know, and definitely will not like — even if you consider yourself a “Liberal.”

Consider for a moment that you have now been commanded to enter into a contract with an insurance corporation, whether you want to or not, whether you need to or not. Yes, there are many who actually choose to be uninsured. For most, it is simply an economic decision that often works out to the uninsured’s economic advantage. Not always, of course, but that’s the beauty of liberty — you get to make the decisions, and live with the good or bad that comes of them.

Now that you realize that a dictate has been handed down, compelling you to contract with an insurance corporation or else, consider what you have to do. It’s not like you can go to a vending machine, swipe your debit card and pull out a policy. You still have to apply. True, they cannot turn you down, but so what? You still have to give a big, scary, mean corporation a lot of private medical and psychological information about yourself and your family. Then, forever after, the insurance corporation’s bureaucrats will gather this private information without even bothering to let you know. As our Complaint states:

(more…)