Background Information on Ruth’s comments to Egyptians looking for guidance on writing a new constitution:

Justice Ginsburg And The Need To Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Trashes Constitution

Ginsburg to Egyptians…

Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)

Long ago, Jefferson warned, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”  The exceptions to that rule have been few and far between recently, and ought to be celebrated when they occur.

One did this past week with the announcement that supporters of the so-called “Stop On-Line Piracy Act” and the “Protect Intellectual Property Act” have indefinitely postponed their measures after an unprecedented protest across the Internet.

SOPA and PIPA pose a crippling danger to the Internet because they use the legitimate concern over copy-right infringement as an excuse for government to intrude upon and regulate the very essence of the Internet – the unrestricted and absolutely free association that links site to site, providing infinite pathways for commerce, discourse and learning.

It is not the Internet per se that has set the stage for the next quantum leap in human knowledge and advancement – but rather the free association at the core of the Internet.  And this is precisely what SOPA and PIPA directly threaten.

But as dangerous as this concept is to the Internet, it pales in comparison to the danger it poses to our fundamental freedoms as Americans.

It is true that rogue web sites operating from off-shore havens, are stealing intellectual property and then selling it.

We already have very good laws against that, as evidenced by the arrest yesterday of Mr. Kim Schmitz and his associates in New Zealand, who now stand accused of operating one of the biggest of these rogue sites.

Theft of intellectual property is fundamentally no different than the theft of any other kind of property.  It should be taken no less seriously than the thefts perpetrated by the likes of Bernie Madoff, John Dellinger or Willie Sutton.

It is no different and it should be treated no differently.  In every such case, it is the individual who commits the theft and the individual who is culpable and accountable to the law.  And it is the individual who is accorded the right of due process, including the presumption of innocence, while he stands accused.

This is what SOPA and PIPA destroy.  Upon mere accusation, these measures would allow the government to shut down web sites, ruin honest businesses, impound property, disrupt legitimate speech and dragoon innocent third parties into enforcing laws that may or may not have been broken.

When property is stolen, we hold accountable the individuals who knowingly commit the act, and place the burden of proof on the accuser.  The accuser must demonstrate to the satisfaction of a jury that the defendant stole property or that he received property that he knew was stolen.

Yes, it is a ponderous system.  Yes, it means you actually have to provide evidence.  Yes, it means you have to convince a jury.  Yes, it means we can’t catch and successfully prosecute every criminal.  But the experience of mankind over the centuries has proven that this is the best possible way to protect the innocent and to protect our freedom while also punishing the guilty.  In part, we punish the guilty to discourage others we might not be able to punish.

And as the arrests yesterday in New Zealand prove, it works.  Let Mr. Schmitz and his confederates be extradited and let them have their day in court.  Let evidence be presented.  Let a jury be convinced of that evidence.  And if convicted of one of the greatest thefts in human history, let us mete out the full measure of punishment provided by the law to stand as a fearsome example to others.

That doesn’t and won’t stop all theft and it isn’t perfect.  But to replace it with one where mere accusation can bring punishment or inflict ruinous costs upon innocent third parties, would introduce a despotic and destructive concept that is antithetical to the ancient rights that our government was formed to protect.

The developments of the last few weeks have saved the Internet and saved these fundamental principles – at least for now.  But Jefferson was right that the natural order is for government to grow at the expense of liberty.  That is why we have our Constitution.

And to the protection of that Constitution, the Internet has now empowered its rightful owners, “We, the People,” to defend it more effectively than ever before.

Which leads me, Madam Speaker, to conclude that because of the events of this past week, we will see many more victories for freedom in the days and years ahead.

While most cities in America long ago got rid of rent control, New York remains a bastion of government-mandated limits on what landlords can charge renters. About 50 percent of New York’s rental market is affected by rent control or rent stabilization, policies that keep rents artificially low and produce housing shortages, higher overall housing costs, and all sorts of corruption.

The court case Harmon v. Kimmel may finally bring an end to rent control laws that have been on the books in one form or another since the 1940s. James D. Harmon owns a building in Manhattan where the tenants are paying rents that are about 60 percent below the going market rate. After losing various legal battles at lower levels, Harmon has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his argument that rent stabilization is a form of takings that should be prohibited under the Constitution. The Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case but has asked the state and city of New York to respond to Harmon’s argument.

Cato’s Burrus wrote a friend of the court brief on the case and explains why rent control and rent stabilization are bad at promoting affordable housing and abridgments of economic freedom.

Shot and edited by Joshua Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Cordray is well aware that the Constitution provides the president with the power of appointment when the Congress is not in session.  But the Congress was not in recess when the President appointed Cordray.  Adding insult to injury, the 2010 law that created the CFPB included a section that says many of the bureau’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.”  The Senate, obviously, never confirmed Cordray.

Despite these constitutional and legal roadblocks, Cordray has assumed the full power of the office and has started the process of regulating the economy in earnest.

In Birmingham, Alabama, Cordray held a field hearing laying the groundwork for a regulatory assault on the short-term lending industry, as well as, the mortgage and student loan industry.  Cordray seems unconcerned of the constitutional and legal challenges ahead.  He told the Hill newspaper, “I’m going to leave that to others … lawyers are digging into it,” when asked if his appointment would survive a legal challenge.  But he added that “the position was long overdue to be filled.” “We’ve got a lot of work to do for the public to make these markets function effectively,” he said.

Cordray, in a few sentences was able to articulate the president’s view of the Constitution and the economy.

With regard to the Constitution, Cordray is ill-concerned about whether his appointment is violative.  The man who swore an oath to the Constitution will “leave that to others.”  The fact that liberals felt the need to fill this new position is good enough.  With regard to the economy, they believe that only government intervention can allow markets to “function effectively.”

This thinking turns 236 years of American precedent on its head.  America was built upon a foundation of laws and freedom.  In one fell swoop, the president found the need to destroy both.  We are confident that a court will find that Cordray assumed office illegally and his actions will be nullified.  We hope that day comes sooner than later.

The status quo will not survive the year. Our debt and spending have reached catastrophic proportions in the context of global financial difficulties and political upheaval. Consequently, by the end of 2012, America will either have taken a decisive step toward socialistic collectivism in the name of “equality” and “social justice,” where businesses and owners are punitively taxed to “pay their fair share,” or America will take a major step in the direction of returning to our Founders’ constitutional government, restoring the rule of law, federalism, free enterprise, and individual initiative and responsibility.

The American people will decide which path to take in the 2012 elections, not only in the general election on November 6 but also in the nominating process in primaries over the next several months for all major offices, including the presidency. Conservatives must act in a concerted and informed fashion in all of these contests to shape the public dialogue and thoroughly vet the candidates.

To achieve these ends, top conservative leaders acting under the umbrella of the Conservative Action Project have released “A Conservative Consensus for 2012” announcing agreement on major policies. These issues span all three wings of the conservative movement: economic, social, and national security.

The Conservative Consensus speaks to economic issues of fundamental tax reform, Obamacare, overhauling regulation, and energy production. It tackles social issues of strengthening families and advocating traditional values and religious liberty. And it covers defense issues of protecting the homeland, military superiority, and national sovereignty.

This document also advocates specific issues all conservatives must regard as essential. America needs a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that caps federal spending. Immediate and drastic cuts to the federal budget. No corporate bailouts. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, as is voting, so the ballot box must be protected from fraud and corruption. Because voting is also a citizen’s duty, reasonable conditions must be enacted to safeguard our democratic process. And none of these can succeed unless the right people are appointed as judges to our federal courts.

Achieving these goals is a tremendous challenge, and true constitutional conservatives must relentlessly pursue building a true coalition between the three wings of the conservative movement.

This means that true conservatives must not allow anyone to redefine conservatism as only about fiscal issues and the reach of government. Constitutional conservatives understand that strong families are the essential foundation for long-term economic prosperity. The demographic reality is that declining birth rates and rampant abortion creates a devastating loss of human capital that cannot sustain our entitlement systems or economic growth, and also result in millions of unfilled job positions that become a magnet for illegal immigration.

Fortunately most conservatives understand that national security is crucial to America’s success. But some wrongheaded individuals seek to silence or marginalize social issues, oblivious to the profound reality—proven throughout history—that where families crumble there is an unstoppable public outcry for government to fill the void with massive entitlements and programs. Government always grows when families fail.

Some economic leaders with libertarian or liberal beliefs fail to grasp this simple fact, and so pervert the concept of freedom to mean that individuals are free to do whatever they like, free of any concept of right-and-wrong or of personal responsibility or self-control. They willfully ignore our Founding Fathers, who believed that limited government only endures when individuals govern themselves.

Some social conservative leaders are making the same mistake. They were right to reject an unrealistic “truce” on social issues. But some are essentially calling for a truce on economic issues, supporting candidates who stand for traditional values but are not reliably conservative on limiting the size, scope, and cost of government.

While both social and economic issues are indispensable, and both move votes, the reality is that fiscal issues are moving more swing votes in this cycle than value issues. Social conservatives will overreach if they force voters to choose between the two by insisting on traditionalist candidates who are not also warriors for free markets, federalism, fundamental entitlement reform, and a strong Balanced Budget Amendment. Social conservatives must demand equal standing, not superior standing.

A perfect example where all three branches of conservatism can join forces is our national debt. America is now $15 trillion in debt, an unprecedented level exceeding 100% of our Gross Domestic Product. The only time we even approached such a proportion was the end of World War II, where we were in a global war that threatened our very survival as a nation. Instead of a temporary military emergency, our current debt is being fueled by deficits of over $1 trillion every year Barack Obama has been president.

In addition to an economic issue, this debt is a social issue. Our profligate spending is intergenerational theft, saddling each member of the next generation with over $120,000 in debt once they become taxpayers. That’s a mortgage on a house, with no house.

It is also a defense issue. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said our national debt is the single greatest threat to national security. We are on track to be paying $600 billion per year just in interest on the national debt, more than our entire military and security budget. This hamstrings our ability to defend our nation today while developing weapons and systems to protect us tomorrow.

Another reality is that constitutional conservatism cannot become our national policy without all three branches of government. If conservatives retake both houses of Congress it can only block bad legislation. Without a two-thirds supermajority, conservatives in Congress cannot override presidential vetoes of good legislation or undo harmful administrative regulations through the Congressional Review Act.

We need a constitutional conservative in the White House. Not all Republicans are part of the solution, and some leading Republicans are even part of the problem. America needs a president who is reliable on fiscal issues, and social issues, and defense issues. Two out of three is not enough. Ronald Reagan was all three, and only a Republican solid on all three bases can pick up President Reagan’s mantle to lead this country through the daunting challenges we face.

In our system of government, none of this will succeed without the right people serving in the federal judiciary. But judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, so if the American people elect a constitutional conservative president and a Senate willing to fight for judges, there are scores of spectacular lawyers and scholars who are faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution. If we elect the right people, they can take care of the courts.

The courts are imperative for all branches of the conservative movement. In addition to abortion, same-sex marriage and religious liberty, the Supreme Court is deciding all-important economic issues like Obamacare and national security issues like Bill of Rights protections for terrorists captured by our military on foreign battlefields. All conservatives must demand that only principled originalists be nominated to the Supreme Court and lower courts.

So America faces a historic choice. And conservatives face a historic task, of making the case to the voters for how and why constitutional conservatism is the way to return our nation to strength and stability, and electing national leadership that will honestly and definitively tackle these challenges for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

(Reuters) – Oral arguments on President Barack Obama’s sweeping U.S. healthcare overhaul will last 5-1/2 hours spread over three days from March 26-28, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

The Supreme Court last month agreed to hear the 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, one of the lengthiest arguments in recent years. There have been similar marathon sessions in a handful of big cases dating back over the past 70 years.

The court said it would hear one hour of arguments on March 26 on whether the legal challenges to the requirement that all Americans buy insurance must wait until after that part of the law has taken effect in 2014.

At issue is a federal law, the Anti-Injunction Act, and whether the requirement that Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty is effectively a tax covered by that law and can only be challenged after the penalty has been imposed.

The court said it would hear two hours of arguments on March 27 on the constitutional issue at the heart of the battle — whether Congress overstepped its powers by adopting the insurance purchase requirement known as the individual mandate.

The Obama administration is defending the requirement as a constitutional effort by Congress to address a national crisis while 26 states led by Florida and an independent business group challenge it as an unprecedented intrusion of congressional authority under the Constitution.

Read more here.

Make no mistake, the primaries are where each party – when not in incumbency – needs to critique and evaluate their prospective candidates. A hard-fought primary, when devoid of “it’s my turn” establishment national party politics, usually results in the fielding of the best candidate, and a candidate who is sufficiently prepped to engage in the “main event.” But there is a difference between an intellectual meeting of the minds, where policy differences and a juxtaposition of experiences are proposed, examined and debated, and the childish, nonsensical “braggateering” (to coin a word); of trading insignificant insults; of executing a campaign of personality-based mudslinging.

As we approach the actual start of the primary cycle – yes, we haven’t begun the cycle just yet – this act of political stupidity is coming into play, yet again, among the front runners for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.

During the most recent GOP primary debates, each and every candidate has engaged in non-policy related attacks against their Conservative and Republican on-stage brethren. Perry has attacked Romney. Romney has attacked Gingrich. Bachmann has attacked “Newt Romney”…everyone has attacked everyone. Even Mr. Gingrich, who began his rise to the top of the GOP polls refusing to attack anyone but Barack Obama, has devolved into a tit-for-tatting, sound bite tosser. In reality, all this does is prove that even intelligent, thoughtful people, when goaded by the shallowness of the mainstream, feeding frenzy media, are encumbered by the societal penchant for acquiescing to the lowest common denominator.

Meanwhile, the opposition – in this case President Obama, his re-election team and his legions of Progressive political operatives – is getting a breather from the critical glare of the campaign spotlights. While the media’s undivided attention focuses on the GOP candidates’ talk of who is a flip-flopper, who performed poorly in the private sector, who performed better in the private sector and who is more Conservative than whom, Mr. Obama’s non-record is being given a pass, just as it was before the 2008 General Election.

Think back to the 2008 General Election. All the talk was about Sarah Palin. The media obsessed with Palin. The Obama Campaign obsessed with Palin. Even the rank-and-file Republicans and Conservatives obsessed with Palin. Meanwhile, no one but a precious few (Sean Hannity, Laurie Roth, Erik Rush and myself included) was focusing on the fact that Mr. Obama had no political bona fides, that his political ideology was to the Left of any previous President and that he routinely gravitated toward the most anti-Capitalist, anti-American radicals the counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s had to offer.

Are we on the right – are the candidates vying for the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination – so stupid, so ignorant to this perennially redundant Progressive tactic of deflection, that we, and they, would fall for this yet again? Are we? Are they?

This election – the 2012 General Election – is arguably the most important election of our generation; of our lifetimes. The quintessential questions being decided are these:

• Do we want a leader who will affect limited government, or a nanny state?
• Do we want a fiscally responsible leader and a federal government that budgets successfully, or a spendthrift federal government, enabled by a partisan politician, that refuses to craft and pass budgets annually – even if mandated by law, while bleeding the productivity of our nation?
• Do we want a leader that oversees a federal government that protects equal opportunity for each and every American citizen, or a political operative and federal oligarchy that embraces crony Capitalism and special interest groups?
• Do we want to a leader, an administration and a federal government that is dedicated to preserving, protecting and defending our Republic and our Charters of Freedom, or a political ideologue who, with his crony activists, successfully completes the transformation of the United States from that of sovereign Republic to a kow-towing Socialist Democracy?

In his 1990 autobiography, An American Life, President Ronald Reagan attributed the origin of his now famous “11th Commandment,” to then California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson:

“The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: ‘Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.’ It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.”

The point of the “11th Commandment” was to prevent a repeat – in any election cycle – of what happened to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Liberal and Progressive Republicans assaulted Goldwater with personal and non-policy related attacks, attacks that maligned Goldwater as “an extremist” for his Conservative positions, attacks that contributed to Goldwater’s defeat.

I am at a loss for why, today, Republicans and Conservatives find it acceptable to break the “11th Commandment”; to move away from a strategy that would allow for the spotlighting of Barack Obama’s radical political agenda and so-called “accomplishments,” “accomplishments” that have moved us toward becoming a nanny state Socialist Democracy.

We, as Conservatives; as people who are trying to advance solutions to the myriad dangers facing our country, should expect our candidates to dedicate themselves to a set of guidelines that literally forces them to focus on policy and opponent, instead of political gamesmanship and personal attacks. Moving away from the strategy of presenting solutions and identifying the opposition’s goals as antithetical to a prosperous America is exactly what the American people don’t want. It is precisely what we are tired of.

That understood, the opposition, sirs and madam, is Barack Obama. Now, knock it off with attacking each other and put your country ahead of your egos. For if we are stupid enough, if we are short-sighted enough, to lose sight of who the real opposition is, you lose, the country loses and the world loses.