If you like what you see on Kauffmans Commentary, tell your friends and family to visit this site. For all other requests, feedback, and suggestions, email Kauffman at kauffmanscommentary@gmail.com.
Showing posts with label constitutional interests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitutional interests. Show all posts
Just seven minutes after President Obama signed health care reform into law, thirteen attorney generals filed suit in Ferderal Court in Pensacola, Florida claiming Obama's health care Bill is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit states: "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage."
Joining Florida in the suit were South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana.
Right beneath the eyes of the European Union, Hamas has become a major force in England over the last ten years according to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Hamas is said to be behind the threats by British officials to arrest Israeli political leaders if they deplane in Britain.
Britain issued an arrest warrant for Opposition Kadima Leader Tzipi Livni's arrest last December and General Almog of the IDF was told that he may be arrested if he disembarked from his plane in England in 2005.
England has allowed Hamas to take over the British political, legal system to spread their radical anti-Israel ideology despite the fact that the E.U. has put them on a terrorism list which clearly has had no effect in stopping Hamas from manipulating the British to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.
The report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center explains that Hamas has been largely successful in promoting their vitriolic rhetoric because they have been able to take advantage of Britain's open democracy, including using the Arab media in the UK, to spew its propaganda across the British spectrum.
Unfortunately, British democracy has given Hamas free reign without questioning whether a democracy should be so expanisve that it can allow a terrorist organization to promote hate and violence . The courts in Britain have even opened up their courtrooms to suits by Hamas against the Israeli leaders showing great tolerance for the terrorist organization.
This same openness for Hamas and other terrorist organizations exists all over Europe and even in the U.S.
While free speech is definitely an integral and welcomed aspect of democracy and should be permitted under most circumstances, it can also lead to the downfall of a nation if the right to free speech is not curtailed to protect the security and well being of its citizens.
Clearly, permitting Hamas to hijack British democracy to indoctrinate the free world with its hate and violence exceeds the boundaries of accepted free speech and will undoubtedly lead to the downfall of England and the rest of the westernized world unless Hamas's nefarious plans are thwarted.
President Obama's Senior Adviser, David Axelrod, said he was not surprised by Justice Alito's response to Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's recent decision that permits donations from corporations to political candidates essentially torpedoing campaign finance reform. Axelrod asserted that we have been accustomed to all kinds of "unusual outbursts." (Axelrod was also referring to Congressman Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment during Obama's last Congressional address) Because of this trend of "unusual outbursts," Axelrod maintains that it is no longer surprising when a politician reacts negatively to the President's speech.
Obama issued his criticism of the Supreme Court decision during his State of the Union Speech in the presence of the Supreme Court justices who were only a few yards away from him.
Obama stated:
"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. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."
Apparently, Justice Alito who disagreed with the President's analysis of the decision, mouthed the words "not true" and appeared to be visibly upset by Obama's reference to the decision. Justice Alito took issue with Obama's statement that foreign corporations will now be allowed to donate to political candidates in the U.S.
Of course, the media including David Axelrod, are only focusing on Justice Alito's response to Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court decision. Axerlod is incorrectly insinuating that Alito's response is an unusual outburst in the same category as Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment. The truth is that Alito probably was so shocked that a President would criticize a Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union Speech. Even so, he merely shook his head and did not interrupt the President's speech like Wilson did. The two instances are not comparable.
Regardless of how you feel about Justice Alito or the Supreme Court decision, it was completely unprofessional and downright condescending for President Obama to criticize a Supreme Court decision in the presence of Supreme Court Justices. Talking about an "unusual outburst." It was most unusual and unprecedented for a President to engage in such a course of action in a State of Union Speech. No other President has ever done such a thing before and the media has the audacity to focus on Alito's response and largely ignore whether it was appropriate for a President to attack Supreme Court Justices in their presence.
President Obama should issue an apology to the Supreme Court Justices and take responsibility for his actions.
The radical Muslim group, CAIR, is calling on Senator Inhofe(R-OK) to explain why he is in favor of racial or ethnic profiling as a security measure when screening passengers at the airport. Inhofe proclaimed his support for racial profiling at a Senate hearing on Thursday investigating the Fort Hood shootings.
CAIR Executive Director Razi Hashmi, stated in response to Inhofe's comments "It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects."
CAIR is an illegitimate organization which has been identified by the Justice Department as a terrorist conspirator. They should have absolutely no say in determining security procedures at army bases, U.S. airports, or anywhere else for that matter.
Nevertheless, the issue of racial profiling is a legitimate conversation. Ideally, we should not have to implement racial profiling. However, we are living in very dangerous times. Constitutionally, the U.S. government can take drastic measures if it has a compelling governmental interest which seems to exist by all objective accounts. Unless we racially profile, the current security procedures will be ineffective in stopping future terrorist attacks which will undoubtedly occur. If airport security had screened the Christmas Day underwear bomber as he is now called, he would not have made it on that Northwest Airlines flight. And, if airport security had racially profiled on Thursday, they would not have been concerned by the man who wore phylacteries when praying on his US Air flight.
The fact is that primarily all of the terrorists who implement attacks on flights are of Middle Eastern descent. As Inhofe stated, "you hear that not all Middle Easterners or Muslims between the age of 20 and 35 are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners between the age of 20 and 35, that's by and large true."
No one can escape those statistics.
On the other hand, proper racial profiling would not automatically assume that every Muslim flying is a terrorist. Certainly, most Muslims who fly in the U.S. do not have ties to Al Qaeda.
With proper racial profiling, every person flying whether they are Muslim or not would be scrutinized prior to checking in bags at the ticket counter and perhaps prior to boarding. However, people who are of Middle Eastern descent (mostly men within the age bracket) have to be subjected to more extensive questioning because of the current trend to determine if they are a threat. Once the trained security guard determines that they are not a threat, they would be able to board with unfettered access. If they fit the characteristic of a terrorist (i.e. boarding an international flight with no bags after paying for the flight with cash), they would not be allowed to board the flight.
Its not rocket science and its the only way to prevent terrorist attacks.
Safety must supersede all other constitutional interests.
Body scanners will not stop terrorist attacks on flights all together as the terrorists will always find other creative measures to carry out their attacks.
However, if we are on guard for suspicious behavior through the use of racial profiling, we have a much better chance of preventing another 9/11 or an event of similar proportions.
We fail to accept the use of racial profiling to our own detriment.
Kauffman received his B.A. in Psychology with a Minor in Rhetoric. He also received his J.D. Degree and is a practicing attorney. Kauffman was involved in the 2004 campaign to reelect George W Bush and served as the Chairman of a 2006 judicial campaign. He has written articles on the 2008 presidential election, legal cases, and other jurisprudence matters. He also has been a student of U.S. and international political affairs since following Middle School.
Posts
