Unconstitutional Procedure Being Used to Pass Unconstitutional ObamaCare

House leaders are preparing to ram through ObamaCare this week  without a vote.  Not only is the legislation unconstitutional, but the process being used to pass it is unconstitutional.  The House is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate-passed version of ObamaCare passed in the House even though members would never directly vote on it.  That would violate Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is how the trick would work:  In the House, the Rules Committee sets up the parameters for debate on legislation.  House leaders are considering a complicated rule that would be structured so that a vote on the rule setting down the structure for the ObamaCare debate would allow the Senate’s version of health care reform to pass without a vote.  First, there would be a vote on a rule.  If the rule is passed by the House, then the House would vote on a health care budget reconciliation measure that is an amendment to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill.  If that reconciliation measure passes, then reconciliation goes to the Senate and the ObamaCare legislation is deemed passed without a direct vote.  The plan for the legislation is unclear.  House leadership will either structure the rule to either immediately present ObamaCare to the President for his signature or they will hold the bill and deliver it only if the Senate passes a health care reconciliation measure.  Either way, the Constitution and the American people are the losers.

Understand that this procedure is drafted in a way so your average American can’t understand it.  The simple way to understand the situation is that the House is trying to pass a bill without a vote.

The Constitution states that the House and Senate are supposed to pass identical versions of a bill before the President can sign it into law.  One of the reasons for this tricky procedure is to provide cover for moderate Democrats who don’t want to vote for the Senate-passed ObamaCare bill because it includes the federal funding of abortion.

Michael McConnell, Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, explains it this way at the Wall Street Journal today:

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Chris Van Hollen, Constitution, Nancy Pelosi, ObamaCare
Posted Mar 15th 2010 at 10:11 am in Congress, Healthcare, News, Obama, Politics | 89910181 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/bdarling/2010/03/15/unconstitutional-procedure-being-used-to-pass-unconstitutional-obamacare/Unconstitutional+Procedure+Being+Used+to+Pass+Unconstitutional+ObamaCare2010-03-15+17%3A11%3A37Brian+Darling

The Healthcare Bill Would Be Obama’s ‘Enabling Act’

Why are Barack Obama and other Democrat leaders so intent on passing a government takeover of healthcare now…Now…NOW?

They must know that costs will rise and the quality of care will fall, right?   They must know that Obamacare would destroy the economy, right?   Of course they do.  But, they also know that the federal government would tighten its grip on the nation.   They know that Obama’s czars and other appointees would be authorized to bypass Congress in enacting sweeping regulations on nearly every aspect of a person’s life.   And, they know that these new powers of the federal government would be concentrated in the hands of the Democratic Party and the President.

Here’s what else they know.   History affords many examples of regimes whose motto was “Never let a crisis go to waste.”   In 1933, having campaigned for “hope” and “change,” the National Socialist Worker’s Party forced through the German parliament a Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation, also known as the Enabling Act.

This new law enabled the German chancellor and his appointees to bypass parliament in imposing sweeping regulations on the people:

“In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich [i.e., the Cabinet].”

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, Democratic Party, enabling act
Posted Mar 13th 2010 at 2:46 pm in Congress, Healthcare, History, Obama, Politics | 88118278 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/mzak/2010/03/13/the-healthcare-bill-would-be-obamas-enabling-act/The+Healthcare+Bill+Would+Be+Obama%27s+%27Enabling+Act%272010-03-13+22%3A46%3A06Michael+Zak

Morning Constitutional

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Constitution, ObamaCare
Posted Mar 12th 2010 at 7:41 am in Congress, Obama, Open Threads | 8795470 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/cmuir/2010/03/12/morning-constitutional/Morning+Constitutional2010-03-12+15%3A41%3A20Chris+Muir

The Constitutional Case Against Progressives

[Do not read this article without a copy of the Constitution, and if you do not have one handy, shame on you (link here).]

A line is being drawn in the sand between the statists and Americans, and I use the term American in the grandest sense.  The United States of America represents one of the last bastions of traditional liberalism, which is why the Left should no longer be identified as liberal, but rather we should continue to identify its members as progressive statists.  The Left believes the precepts of our Constitution have failed society, and thus, we must look towards the “enlightened democracies” of socialized Europe for guidance in the progression of American society.

We hear the mantra of rights professed daily by the progressives: education, work, social security, health care, etc.  And since we do not live in a state of nature, the guarantor of those rights must be the government.  This is the definition of a statist, and adherence to these beliefs is inherently in opposition to the Constitution.  The Founders recognized that government could NEVER be the guarantor of rights which is why so much of the Constitution is written in terms of limiting powers conferred upon the government.

Take for example Article I § 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (emphasis added).

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Constitution, privileges, Progressive, rights, statist
Posted Mar 11th 2010 at 8:37 am in Culture, History, Justice/Legal, Politics | 86262229 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/jwales/2010/03/11/the-constitutional-case-against-progressives/The+Constitutional+Case+Against+Progressives2010-03-11+16%3A37%3A48Josie+Wales

Money Laundering Laws Force Banks to Spy on Us, But They Are Ineffective Against Crime

The University of Basel’s Institute of Governance recently published a map showing the nations most linked to dirty money. What made the map interesting is that only one of the 28 nations listed was a so-called tax haven, thus exposing the left-wing lie that low-tax jurisdictions are somehow hotbeds of dirty money.

A more fundamental question is whether anti-money laundering laws are an effective way of fighting crime.  The evidence is not encouraging. The system costs billions of dollars each year. Banks are forced to set up expensive monitoring systems to snoop on their customers. They are then required to send reports to the government for all large or unusual transactions. Theoretically, these reports are supposed to alert law enforcement to patterns of criminal activity, but since banks are compelled to send millions of reports every year, it is impossible to sift through haystacks of data to find needles of criminal activity. This is why conservatives, such as a former Reagan Justice Department official John Yoder, think the laws do more harm than good. This six-minute video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains why the time has come for politicians to reconsider the current approach.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: AML, banks, Constitution, Financial Institutions, Financial privacy
Posted Feb 23rd 2010 at 9:03 am in Economics, Justice/Legal, News, Uncategorized | 7893835 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/02/23/money-laundering-laws-force-banks-to-spy-on-us-but-they-are-ineffective-against-crime/Money+Laundering+Laws+Force+Banks+to+Spy+on+Us%2C+But+They+Are+Ineffective+Against+Crime2010-02-23+17%3A03%3A20Dan+Mitchell

This Is Your Country on Progressivism

Picture an incandescent light bulb. This is your country.

Now imagine a compact fluorescent light bulb. This is your country on Progressivism.

What does a country on Progressivism look like? To start with, in the evening hours it’s pretty dim. Have you tried reading at night in a hotel room recently?

With more than 300 million of those little curly-Q fluorescent light bulbs now sold annually, our country is looking a lot less bright. Ever since Congress a few years ago declared that by 2012 Americans needed to be more energy efficient, it’s been out with Edison, in with the EPA. And turn on some more lights—I can’t see a thing!

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: administrative state, compact fluorescent lights, Constitution, government mandates, incandescent light bulb
Posted Feb 17th 2010 at 2:16 pm in Uncategorized | 76742417 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/dbobb/2010/02/17/this-is-your-country-on-progressivism/This+Is+Your+Country+on+Progressivism2010-02-17+22%3A16%3A21David+J.+Bobb

Our Time for Choosing

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.  We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Ronald Reagan spoke these words some forty-six years ago in his famous “A Time for Choosing” speech.  Tragically, today in America it appears the time for choosing is fast passing. As each day goes by our debt grows more untenable; our security more imperiled; our economy more shackled; our government more tyrannical.

These are symptoms of an America that has chosen the wrong path.  We lost our way on the road to civilization, veering onto the road to serfdom. Our plight is the result of a hundred-plus year campaign by the socialist sophists to slowly but surely undermine the bedrock principles on which we had built our strength.

While the ends of a nation are peace, prosperity and culture, from our founding there was a dichotomy of opinion as to how best to achieve these ends.  It was not merely a matter of state versus federal or small versus big government.  Rather, at its core the split rested and continues to rest upon embracing liberty or embracing tyranny.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Cold War, Constitution, founding fathers, Frédéric Bastiat, Islamism
Posted Feb 15th 2010 at 5:51 am in Congress, Culture, Featured Story, History, Justice/Legal, Politics, Tea Party, federal spending | 74866151 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/amellon/2010/02/15/our-time-for-choosing/Our+Time+for+Choosing2010-02-15+13%3A51%3A50Andrew+Mellon

Menendez NJ Recall Update: The Tea Party Goes to Court

It’s Not About the Recall, It’s About the First Amendment

Review of case briefs, case law research, and consultation with a number of attorneys, judges, and legal professionals contributed to the writing of this article.

Tea Party activists might be smarter than some would like to think.  And depending upon the outcome of a court case later this month, they might also play a role in setting legal precedent.

When New Jersey state election officials denied their submission to initiate a recall effort against U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, calling it unconstitutional, a grass-roots recall committee’s constitutional instincts kicked into full gear.  Attorneys for the committee, themselves Tea Party activists, filed to appeal the agency decision and began writing their supporting brief.

Meanwhile, seemingly everyone was now weighing in as a legal expert.  Some insist the decision is simple:  NJ has no constitutional authority to recall a US Senator; despite what its state constitution says, that authority is reserved for the federal government alone.  For weeks now, legal scholars, political pundits and the media have been chattering online about the case, now before the Appellate Division in the Superior Court of New Jersey, some treating it more like a sideshow and an outlet to take pot shots at Tea Partiers than a legitimate court proceeding with real constitutional significance.

But Dan Silberstein and Richard Luzzi, attorneys for the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez, a committee initiated by members of the Sussex County Tea Party, see this case in an entirely different light.  They insist this case is not about whether a recall order from the state is judicially enforceable against a United States Senator, rather, it’s all about protecting the first amendment right to free speech. And they are taking the matter very seriously.  Based upon recent developments in the case, apparently so are several others, including some high profile legal experts and the courts.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: american civil rights union, Articles of Confederation, committee to recall, Congress, Constitution
Posted Feb 14th 2010 at 2:07 pm in Congress, Justice/Legal, News, Politics, State Politics, Tea Party | 73470158 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/libertychick/2010/02/14/menendez-nj-recall-update-the-tea-party-goes-to-court/Menendez+NJ+Recall+Update%3A++The+Tea+Party+Goes+to+Court2010-02-14+22%3A07%3A55Liberty+Chick

2010 Republican Election Message: Clear, Practical and Limited

The Scott Brown triumph heralds an enormous opportunity for Republicans this fall.  As I posited in Part 2 of this series, The Top 4 Things Congressional Republicans Must Do in 2010, in order to make the most of the 2010 elections, Republicans must run on a defined Agenda for the Fall Elections.  That Agenda needs to be Clear, Practical and Limited.  Here is what I mean:

Clear.  In the wake of the Brown election, the Democrats most certainly will have a messy 2010.  The Pelosi wing of the Democrats, driven in part by Moveon.org, Emily’s List and others, will continue to push their views and legislation on issues like Health Care, Cap and Trade, Taxes, Afghanistan and more.  The Evan Bayh wing of the party, located in swing districts and states and fearful of the message of the Brown election – in order to survive – will have to push back on those Left Wing plans.  At worst, that inter-party warfare will be politically very ugly.   At best it will portray a Democrat Party with no clear vision for the future.  Similar to the fate that befell the warring and splintered Democrat Party in 1968, the Democrat infighting in 2010 will hamstring their election efforts.

That lack of clarity on the Democrats part must be contrasted by a clear governing vision on the part of Republicans.  The beauty of the Contract With America, beyond its content, was that it provided a concise and clear Agenda.  It told the voters exactly what Republicans intended to do if they won.  This Fall, Republicans, in a unified fashion, must do no less than that if they want to take back the House.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: cap-and-trade, Congress, Constitution, Contract with America, Deficit
Posted Jan 26th 2010 at 6:17 am in Uncategorized | 64914117 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/tdelbeccaro/2010/01/26/2010-republican-election-message-clear-practical-and-limited/2010+Republican+Election+Message%3A+Clear%2C+Practical+and+Limited2010-01-26+14%3A17%3A35Thomas+Del+Beccaro

Leftists Continue War Against Filibuster

Yet another leftist has attacked the Senate filibuster.  The chorus from the left is growing and one can only assume that this coordinated attack is evidence that liberal Senators are readying a challenge to the Senate’s filibuster.  The left absolutely hates the fact that they have to deal with that pesky Constitution that protects and promotes transparency, debate and dissent.  They are intent on tossing aside the idea in the Constitution that we are a democratic republic with States being represented by two Senators with the right to extended debate and unlimited amendment.

This conspiracy by left wingers has a specific goal — to abolish dissent in the Senate, exterminate Republican participation in the democratic process, and marginalize moderate Democrats.  It seems the left is willing to stomp all over the Senate’s rules to get a public option, regulate Wall Street into the Stone Age and pass global warming legislation before the end of one of the coldest winters on record in American history.

Harold Meyerson groused in the L.A. Times that the Senate has yet to follow the House in establishing government run health care through the establishment of a Public Option for ObamaCare:

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Constitution, filibuster, global warming, Harold Meyerson, L.A. Times
Posted Jan 15th 2010 at 1:37 pm in Congress, Healthcare, Politics | 5987480 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/bdarling/2010/01/15/leftists-continue-war-against-filibuster/Leftists+Continue+War+Against+Filibuster2010-01-15+21%3A37%3A17Brian+Darling

The Filibuster Is Constitutional and Essential for Freedom

Left wingers (including but not limited to the New York Times, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Washington Monthly and Ezra Klein) are trying to eliminate dissent in Congress by engaging in a coordinated attack on the idea of the Senate filibuster.  Clearly, the left hates extended debate and they are advocating that Vice President Joe Biden eliminate the filibuster by decree as President of the United States Senate.  They have no shame.

If you hate big government, you should love the Senate filibuster.  The filibuster serves the good government purposes of slowing legislation.  This allows citizens to understand and participate in the legislative process, provides scrutiny for complicated legislation and slows the process to confirm nominees.  The left absolutely hates the filibuster, because the filibuster prevents liberal Democrats from steamrolling moderate Democrats and Republicans when trying to pass legislation or confirming extremist judges with minimal debate.  A veteran Senate staffer tells Big Government that “the filibuster is a tool to slow down and make people really consider things. For those that believe in freedom and limited government the less the Congress does the better.”  Of course the left’s goal is to exterminate the filibuster from the Senate rules by setting the table for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to argue that a filibuster is unconstitutional, then for Vice President Biden to order that the rule be ignored.  (more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Congressional Research Service, Constitution, Ezra Klein, filibuster, Harry Reid
Posted Jan 13th 2010 at 5:41 am in Congress, Culture, Featured Story, History, Politics | 5881851 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/bdarling/2010/01/13/the-filibuster-is-constitutional-and-essential-for-freedom/The+Filibuster+Is+Constitutional+and+Essential+for+Freedom2010-01-13+13%3A41%3A15Brian+Darling

ObamaCare Corrupt Deal Shows Need to Amend the Speech and Debate Clause

Several state attorneys general have been asked, or plan, to investigate the deal struck by Senator Ben Nelson to permanently exempt Nebraska from paying Medicaid expenses in exchange for his voting for Obamacare.

An investigation of the Nelson deal would likely have two focuses. First, is the Nebraska exemption unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which requires “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?” Secondly, did the deal constitute a form of corruption?

Whether the Nebraska exemption constitutes unlawful corruption obviously depends on the facts surrounding how Senator Nelson cut his deal. However, even a pure constitutional challenge would benefit from a clear understanding and presentation of the facts underlying how and why the Nebraska exemption was reached.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: ACORN, ACORN corruption, Ben Nelson, bribery, Constitution
Posted Dec 31st 2009 at 7:59 am in ACORN, Congress, Healthcare, Justice/Legal, News, Politics | 5372695 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/mfitzgibbons/2009/12/31/obamacare-corrupt-deal-shows-need-to-amend-the-speech-and-debate-clause/ObamaCare+Corrupt+Deal+Shows+Need+to+Amend+the+Speech+and+Debate+Clause2009-12-31+15%3A59%3A40Mark+J.++Fitzgibbons

Federalist No. 41: General Views of Powers Conferred By the Constitution

To the People of the State of New York:

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Articles of Confederation, Constitution, constitutional convention, delegated powers, federal limitations
Posted Dec 25th 2009 at 7:31 pm in History | 5221840 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/publius/2009/12/25/federalist-no-41-general-views-of-powers-conferred-by-the-constitution/Federalist+No.+41%3A+General+Views+of+Powers+Conferred+By+the+Constitution2009-12-26+03%3A31%3A24Publius

DeMint Proposes Constitutional Amendment Targeting Career Politicians

From the Washington Times:

Charles Rangel (D-NY) was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970.

Sen. Jim DeMint says Washington politicians are like fruit on the vine: the longer they hang around, the more rotten they get.

The South Carolina Republican – hearkening back to the days of the party’s “Contract with America” – on Tuesday offered a fix to the corrupting influence of “permanent politicians,” introducing an amendment to the Constitution that would limit Senate members to three six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms.

“As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power,” said Mr. DeMint, who is running for a second term next year. (more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Charlie Rangel, Constitution, Contract with America, Jim DeMint, lobbyists
Posted Nov 11th 2009 at 12:07 pm in Congress | 2910696 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/publius/2009/11/11/demint-proposes-constitutional-amendment-targeting-career-politicians/DeMint+Proposes+Constitutional+Amendment+Targeting+Career+Politicians2009-11-11+19%3A07%3A13Publius

Obama’s Paper Chase

The Federal Reserve’s purchase of $300 billion in Treasury debt, as well as its purchase of mortgage-backed securities, has aptly been described as “monetizing the U.S. government debt,” with appropriate concern that it will fuel inflation. 

If President Obama fancies himself a twenty-first century Abraham Lincoln, then we need Timothy Geithner to be his Salmon Chase. Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary was remarkably successful at financing the Civil War, with only limited inflation, and remarkable fidelity to the Constitution.

Chase was a radical Ohio abolitionist before the war (sometimes called the state’s “attorney general for runaway Negroes”), and a relentlessly ambitious rival of Abraham Lincoln. After Lincoln beat Chase for the 1860 Republican nomination, he made him his Secretary of the Treasury. Almost all historians regard Lincoln’s ability to keep Chase on board as one of the marks of his genius as a statesman.

Chase was also a hard-money man, and abhorred paper money—especially the paper emitted by state banks, excoriated (if somewhat exaggeratedly) as “wildcat banks”– creditors were said to have to battle wildcats to attempt to redeem the worthless notes of these reckless frontier banks. Chase believed that the United States needed a national currency, issued by a national banking system. As the Civil War’s costs grew exponentially, Congress pressed him to monetize the government’s debt by issuing Treasury notes unredeemable in gold or silver, and to declare them to be legal tender for all debts—the “greenbacks,” which color our paper money to this day. Chase stuck to his constitutional guns for as long as he could, but finally gave in. But he “hated the crime about to be committed,” as historian Bray Hammond put it. By the end of the war, Chase got his national banking system, and had eliminated unconstitutional state-bank paper currency.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln, Civil War, Constitution, Federal Reserve
Posted Sep 30th 2009 at 8:15 am in Economics, History, Obama | 1043825 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/pmoreno/2009/09/30/obamas-paper-chase/Obama%27s+Paper+Chase2009-09-30+15%3A15%3A38Dr.+Paul+Moreno

You Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Free Speech

You’ve undoubtedly heard someone, maybe even yourself, say that you have a Constitutional right to free speech, right?  While that seems to make sense, it’s not true, or at least wasn’t before the government got so big that it started intruding into areas of our lives in which it has no business; and it is part of a modern mentality that has the potential to harm our individual liberty.

To understand what I’m talking about, the first thing you have to understand it that the Constitution does NOT grant you rights, it protects the rights you inherently have from government intrusion.  The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights is this:

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.  

Just look at the part that addresses speech, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”  Nowhere does it say that you are granted the right of freedom of speech, it says you have it, were born with it, and the government cannot do anything about it.  But that’s not how it’s viewed or even talked about by politicians these days.

By saying that someone has a Constitutional right for free speech implies that it is granted to you and, therefore, can be taken away at some point by amending the Constitution.  While legally this is possibly true, trying to get that amendment passed would have about us much of a chance as getting a safe driver of the year award named after the late Teddy Kennedy.  But the mentality that uses and teaches that erodes, even a little, our basic liberties.

While our Founding Fathers agreed that our basic right to free speech was granted by God, you don’t have to be religious to embrace the idea that we were born with it. In fact, avowed leftist atheists are often the ones wrapping themselves falsely in the First Amendment with the claim that the government protects what they have to say. But it’s not exclusive to leftists, people on the right often cite this mythical right granted them.

(more…)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Constitution, First Amendment, Franklin Roosevelt, Freedom of Speech, natural rights
Posted Sep 13th 2009 at 7:12 am in History, Justice/Legal | 1658130 Commentshttp://biggovernment.com/dhunter/2009/09/13/you-dont-have-a-constitutional-right-to-free-speech/You+Don%27t+Have+a+Constitutional+Right+to+Free+Speech2009-09-13+14%3A12%3A16Derek+Hunter