SYNDICATED COLUMN:

Syndicators Limited. 6500 Casitas Pass Road, Ventura, CA 93001 The Roostercrows.net

All rights to the article are released, Use it freely.

From the Rooster:

Use the following free of charge.  All Rights released.

The Ninth Circuit Court… Gawd Save Us!!

Two  weeks ago,  the Ninth Circuit Court inSan Franciscoruled against a provision of the California Constitution which banned Gay folks from Marriage.  When that law was a baby it was called Proposition 8.   Mind you, this law did not condemn Gays, it did not say they were disenfranchised from the vote, or any such thing.  It simply said “Marriage” is reserved for people of the opposite sex.   It did not prohibit gays from establishing,  as they had,  another form of legal union.   It simply recognized history, that marriage was developed as a concept for the union of opposite sexes, to make a family.  The two judges who voted to invalidate this law, violated their oath of office and should be disbarred.

The reason I quit the law business, after some 34 years, was just this.  So many men and women have taken the oath to be a Judge and then ignore their oath and do as they feel.  Let’s not forget that the California Judge, who ruled Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, was himself gay and retired right after making his opinion.  His conflict was so obvious it must have weighed heavily on his mind.    Ignoring the law was not the way we did business, when I started back in the 60s, but that is the way it ended up; especially in California, and even more in the 9^th Circus Court.   Ruling on feelings destroys the concept that we live under laws and must obey laws. It is part of anarchy.

The Oath each of these judges took is as follows:

“I …Stephen Reinhardt (the judge who wrote the opinion) …_do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent  upon me as judge under the constitution and laws of the United States. “

Simply stated, when looking at the law, a judge should apply the law without feelings and partiality.  He or she must do this recognizing the laws of California are part of the laws of the United States.  Now, these two judges applied their feelings and were partial.  Exactly what they swore not to do.

Here is what they said, which are their personal feelings and violated the “respect to persons” part of the oath.  Remember they did not act as trial judges.

1- “Proposition 8 serves no purpose…”   That is their opinion.  Not law.

2- “…has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and                lesbians..”    That is their opinion.   Others disagree and it is not law.

3- “…officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of                                   opposite-sex couples…”    That is their opinion.  Not law and others disagree.

The part of the US Constitution these two appellate judges used is the much abused 14^th Amendment.  This Amendment’s original purpose was to do nothing more than to prevent States from denying citizens rights that the Federal Constitution and laws guaranteed.   In the final part of the 14^th’s first provision, it states:

“ …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

Most Civil Rights rulings have used this provision as if it stood alone as brand new law.   It does not and did not.   The problem is the Federal law is not equal and there is no mandate that it be equal.   I rest my case on the graduated income tax, affirmative action laws, and subsidies for individuals and companies, as Congress sees fit.   All the 14^th was doing was nailing down the cure for Slavery, just as the 13^th did, and as the 15^th did.   It took three Amendments to get it right.

So for these judges to rule,  on their opinions, and to apply equality when the US Constitution does not require it,  is like their saying they do not like bathrooms because they smell, and especially that any law allowing them should be unconstitutional because they do not treat the sexes  equally.   At its best their action is legislative, not judicial.  At its worst, they ignore their oath, and for that reason, I say they should be impeached as a warning to others not to stray from what they swear to do.

Word count 719

Feb. 22, 2012

The ROOSTER HAS LANDED………….again.

BE LIKE PAUL REVERE………SEND THE WORD

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS

(Or;  Health care mandate is a Tax??)

Where is the Queen of Hearts when you need her?  Oh, to know the “Adventures in Wonderland” as  fiction rather than having to live it for real.  Chief Justice says that the monster Health Care law survives as a Tax.   Come on gang.  Look at him.  Someone already took off his head.  What kind of tax is he talking about?   Where is the authority for Congress to impose such a mandatory, across the board, tax on each and every citizen.  Upps!! Sorry  your not a citizen anymore, you’re a Subject.   If the Constitution has any life left,  then that life tells us what the taxing power is and is not.   The ruling signed by CJ Roberts demonstrates a basic weakness in Constitutional knowledge and understanding.  I am shocked.  Shocked I tell you, Shocked.

In the beginning, the founders created a Republic, from independent States. The Constitution laid out how this Republic would get its money.  Powers were granted to the Federal Government and those not given, were reserved to the States.   Then and now the “ole”  Document did not grant a general power to directly tax individuals or income.  The only way to get a  direct or general tax was  indirect, that is the  Federal Government had to ask the State to tax you to get the State’s  apportioned obligation which it then paid the Feds.

“Art. I section 2: …direct taxes shall be apportioned among

the…States.”

Section 2,  still  means the Feds have no ability to send you, “Josephine Citizen”, a tax bill, except as modified by Amendment.

The request to the States had to come from the House or if started in the Senate had to be approved by the House. See Section 7.

“Section 7.  All bills raising Revenue shall originate in the House…”

All  Taxes etc,  as limited by the above Section 2,  have to be set by Congress.  Get it?  Gall Darn it!!! Please get it.  The Federal Government was not given the right to directly tax you.  It could directly tax the States but not you.  No Sales tax, no VAT tax and even no income tax (until the 16^th amendment) came along.  Please understand.  The Constitution does not and did not give a general power to tax individuals.  Section 8 is very specific.

“Section 8.  The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect  (1) Taxes,                    (2) Duties, (3) Imposts and (4) Excises…but all (2) Duties, (3)imposts                             and(4) Excises shall be uniform….”  [Numbers added]

Read the plain language above.   Notice that the founders did not include “(1) Taxes” in the second part of section 8. “Taxes”  would not  be uniform, because they were apportioned between the States.  The apportionment was unequal because it was based on population and no states had equal population. .  Reread section 2 above.  “Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States.”  Duties etc had to be uniform because they were imposed on obligations, on transactions, not individuals.  2, 3, & 4  were the only way the Federal Government could directly tax.    If you believe (1) Taxes was supposed to be in the second part then each tax would have to be equally applied.  Flat tax folks.  No exceptions.

Ok,  no direct taxes on individuals and that  is the way it was until 1913.   In that year an amendment was added to the Constitution which, for the first time, allowed the Federal Government to send a tax bill direct to you.   This was the 16^th Amendment and in its plain language says the following.

Amendment 16: Status of Income Tax Clarified.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from                       whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,                 and without regard to any census….”

So that is it.  Incomes only, not heads, not individuals.              Incomes folks.   Thru the Looking Glass so to speak.   There is no more in the Constitutional language.   In other words there are no words which say the Federal Government can Levy a Head Tax, which is what the Health Care Provides.   Do you understand??  No words give that power to the Federal Government, so where does it come from?   Thin air.  An acid air which destroys the whole concept.

The continual push to get the Federal Government to spend more money has always required the ability to get more.   Courts, in a multitude of little ways, have allowed water into the boat to accommodate, without regard to the plain language of the one document which gives power to the federal government.   And that is exactly what CJ Roberts just did as well.  Damn the Constitution Full Tilt Ahead!

He simply said that under the “Taxing power”  of the Federal Government the Health Care law could stand.  He is blind, dumb, or sucks his thumb.   My God folks can’t anybody read anymore?  Has everybody caved in on the power of the Constitution?  Where am I, in Wonderland? Or am I seeing all this through the Looking glass?  Beam me up Scotty, there is no Constitution left down here.

Word count 838

SYNDICATED COLUMN:

Syndicators Limited. 6500 Casitas Pass Road, Ventura, CA93001The Roostercrows.net

All rights to the article are released, Use it freely.

RoosterBradford is a former lawyer, politician and radio show host of “The Rooster Crows”   He is the author of several books and articles.  You can obtain his most recent book,  “It is S.A.D.” from  Amazon-Kindle.    His web page, is “The Rooster crows.net. “

Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use. July 1, 2012

The ROOSTER HAS LANDED………….again.

BE LIKE PAUL REVERE………SEND THE WORD

                VOTING RIGHT—YOUR JACKASS)

                   (OR:  Only Democrats [Jackass symbol] say so.)

                       United States Citizens  do not have a right to vote.  Those who want to change our Country demand it, but it does not exist in our Constitutions, in our law, or any place.   A right has to be established by our law, and that means our supreme law, the Federal Constitution, and our State Constitutions. 

                          No where do our Constitutions give a person a right to vote.  In the main body of the Federal Constitution there is no mention of voting power.   There was good reason too.  State law ,then and now,  was and is  the source of  who may vote.   Then Blacks  and Indians could not vote and in most States a Women could not vote, a  Felon could not vote, an under age person could not vote, the insane could not vote, the visitors could not vote, illegal occupiers could not  vote, and legal immigrants could not vote until they passed a test that they understood our Government.  The original Constitution did limit the age of persons to hold office.  For example no one could vote for a person under 25 to be a Congressman.   Maybe it can be said the Constitution did limit voting in this way. Voting ability was a State matter.   You had to look to their Constitutions.  Oh yes, and most states deny you the “right” to vote if you have not registered.  Some Right.

                        Our Bill of Rights (The first 10 Amendments)  does not mention voting ability either.

                        As time went on,  Amendments were added to the Constitution limiting how a State might condition the ability to vote.  Still no Amendment mentioned a “Right”  to vote.   It is  the law that States still prevent many citizens from voting.    Felons  can not vote, underage persons can not vote, legal immigrants can not vote, missing persons can not vote, citizens in rebellion can not vote,  the mentally insane can not vote, unregistered persons can not vote, and so forth.   It is still the US law that to become a citizen via immigration you have to go to school and pass an exam that you understand our form of government.   GET IT!!.  There is no “being born” right to vote.   The 13 amendment did not directly talk about voting.  It simply said there will be no slavery. The 14^th was added to make  existing slaves  citizens.  It says,  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …are citizens .   No mention of a right to vote.  None.

            Amendment 15 came along to make it certain that race or slavery could not limit what ever voting ability there was.   Amendment 19 added Sex to the 15^th. Amendment 24 added pole taxes.  Amendment 26 declared that adulthood started at 18 and no State could prevent voting to those 18 or more.  Still  kids are forbidden  to vote. .   Ok…..so all the Amendments have done is declare that States can not use race, prior slavery status,  sex, pole taxes,  or age over 18 as reasons to deny a citizen the ability to vote.    NO WHERE IS THERE A MENTION OF RIGHT.  Conservatives do not claim a Right.   Leftists do.   Apparently they can not or will not read.

            Now since we know voting can be limited and is,  voting can not be a right.  It has to be something less, and that,  like the power to drive a car is called a privilege.   If you are a citizen, you may vote unless you are a felon, under the age of 18, etc.   Like all privileges you have to earn it, care for it or lose it.   States should pass laws declaring this as a fact.  They should set up tests  for voter’s rules of the road, in English.   Of course the leftists would challenge it, but the Constitutions should win so long as the rules of the road are not restrictive and reasonable.

            Treating Voting, as  a privilege, will have many good benefits for our Republic.   First of all  voters will be more savvy, and less likely to believe a lie.  Politicians who use generalities will find it hard to be elected.  There will be less need for billions of campaign funds because gloss paper and T.V time will not win the day with thinkers.   The more voters understanding the process, the more the process will work.   A simple solution, but where are the leaders who dare to find their way through the whiners, criers, and selfish people.

            Treating voting, as a privilege, is of huge importance to the continued existence of the Republic and the retention of our liberty, equality, and fidelity. We must demand that voters think and know how to think.   Today most do not. They vote with their bellies, not their brains.  This is the weakness which will bring our noble experiment down unless corrected.         

Word count 800          

SYNDICATED COLUMN:

Syndicators Limited. 6500 Casitas Pass Road, Ventura, CA 93001

All rights to the article are released, Use it freely.

Rooster Bradford  is a former lawyer, politician and radio show host of “The Rooster Crows”   He is the author of several books and articles.  You can obtain his most recent book,  “It is S.A.D.” from  Amazon-Kindle.    His web page, is “The Rooster crows.net. “  June  19, 2012

RoosterBradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use.

The ROOSTER HAS LANDED………….again.

BE LIKE PAUL REVERE………SEND THE WORD 

                A FAST AND FURIOUS COVER-UP

                        (You say What???–Executive Privilege)

           We all need to understand what is happening to our Republic.   It is shaking,  and  trembling, and  is close to serious damage.  You need to be up to speed.

          Today, the President, declared he would not release any of the Department of Justice’s papers on Fast and Furious.   Congress has been informed that  Holder (Atty.Gen) lied to Congress, by telling them , in writing,  that his department knew nothing about Fast and Furious.  Congress subpoenaed the Department’s documents, on the issue,   to  investigate the lie.  Obama claimed “Executive Privilege” hours ago.   Kind of like saying , “You can not see in my empty box anyway”.

          We need to understand Fast and Furious and Executive Privilege.

          Fast and Furious is the code word given, by the Department, to a plan to buy, under cover, automatic(and other guns)  from American dealers and sell them, or give them to Mexican criminal gangs.  This was done.  The plan’s stated reason was to trace the traffic of guns.  We, with law enforcement experience, know that is not true, not necessary, and dangerous.  In fact the Department’s smuggled  guns killed one of ours and others.  More over an informer told Congress (pretty obvious), the plan was designed to give gun owners a bad name, and to whip up public sentiment to ban gun ownership across the Country. (A one-world goal.)  The same leaks that gave Congress this information are the same type of leaks that would make buying  guns, to trace traffic of guns,  totally unnecessary.  For all kinds of reasons people  talk.  This is especially true where gangs are running amok.  Ok, now,  Holder and Obama will not let the Public know the truth.   They refuse to give the documents which leads us to Executive Privilege.   What is it?

          Executive privilege is where a President refuses to answer a subpoena from Congress or an order from a Court to produce evidence. The President states,  it would damage national security, or adversely damage the ability of the office to carry out its Constitutional duties, i.e. expose secrets etc.    In this case Obama told Congress he will not release any Department of Justice’s documents on Fast and Furious.  His stated reasons are all those  ever used in the past.  Some might be so bold as to call it a white wash of a cover up.

          Now Executive Privilege is not a written law,  It is not in the Constitution and was not discussed by the founders.   At the beginning of World War ll, Presidents did not know they had this “privilege”.  FDR began to use it to stop Congress from questioning his authority.   He simply declared he could not produce information,  because it would damage our war effort.  Not very transparent, but then FDR was not that.    The next President was Truman and he more clearly defined the refusal.  He prevented information from going to Congress’s investigation of the Hiss- Chambers case of 1948  (Communist influence investigation).   It was a blanket order and the subject documents were moved to the White House  He blocked Congress and won the day. Then came Eisenhower and the McCarty communist investigations.   Eisenhower is supposed to have declared the privilege to block documents and records of communications, some 44 times.  He negotiated solutions.   This occurred from 1955 through 60.   Still no law and no court definition.

                    In 1974 the Supreme Court heard the first case of Executive Privilege in,  United States vs. Nixon.   The special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox subpoenaed Nixon tapes, and Nixon said no, in general terms.  Nixon should have been repetitious and inclusive like Obama.   You know the routine, say everything and maybe something will be believed, throw everything up in the air and something will stick, and  run it up the flag pole,  someone will salute it.  See!!   The Supreme Court “found” out of  thin air,  that a President did have a limited privilege to fight off investigations.  Once the Privilege is exercised then it can be tested by the Supreme Court,  if Congress wants to take it there.   What the Court really did was invent the power to exercise a privilege,  and inserted itself into the mix, as the final decider.   All very convenient.  

          So where are we?  Most commentators believe,  Obama has indirectly  admitted, by imposing the  privilege,  that the Department of Justice, did a very unjust thing and lied about it.  He has stopped Congress from  seeing the documents, but not from the facts.  The guns were bought by Government undercover types and transported to Mexican gangs.  All that is established by other means.  Remember people talk.   The reality is that, Obama has prevented this issue from effecting his campaign.   There is not enough time to kick in the door; however, something serous is amiss.  The Republic is shaking and trembling.  In the few months before the election a smoking issue will burst into fast and furious flame.  Stay aware and be ready.  Protecting your Republic is protecting every minute of your life.  Hang on.Word County 834

SYNDICATED COLUMN:

Syndicators Limited. 6500 Casitas Pass Road, Ventura, CA 93001

All rights to the article are released, Use it freely.

Rooster Bradford  is a former lawyer, politician and radio show host of “The Rooster Crows”   He is the author of several books and articles.  You can obtain his most recent book,  “It is S.A.D.” from  Amazon-Kindle.    His web page, is “The Rooster crows.net. “ 

Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use.   June 20, 2012