libertylegalfoundation.org

Breaking News: This morning the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Obamacare is Constitutional. The Court granted petitions filed by various parties in the cases originating from Florida. Liberty Legal Foundation is already preparing an amicus brief to be filed in this case.

The Court has allotted 5 hours for oral argument, to be held next March. This is an unusually large allotment of time for oral argument, reflecting the complexity and importance of the issues.

The Court identified three issues to focus on: 1) Whether the individual mandate is within Congresses authority under the commerce clause; 2) Whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty; and 3) Whether all of Obamacare must be thrown out if the individual mandate is thrown out.

Once again Liberty Legal Foundation will be the only organization arguing that the commerce clause was grossly misinterpreted by the 1942 Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn. We’re the only ones saying that ALL of Obamacare is unconstitutional. The fact that all Obamacare rulings to date reference Wickard illustrates that this precedent is the crux of the issue.

All of the other Obamacare opponents are arguing that the individual mandate simply goes too far. They concede that Wickard v. Filburn is good precedent and, with wishful thinking, advance that the individual mandate is beyond Congressional authority even under Wickard. They are wrong because they refuse to accept that Wickard left no limits on Congressional authority. Thankfully, this is exactly what the DC Circuit Court explained just last week.

By ignoring the problem and focusing on the symptoms, the other Obamacare opponents are playing into Obama’s hands. As I’ve written before, the individual mandate was included intentionally to be a lightning rod issue. By focusing on the individual mandate, the other opponents are forced to concede that everything else in Obamacare is constitutional. Obama figured that if he lost this throw away issue, at least the rest of the law would survive. If they won, then they get everything they want and move on to their next violation of individual freedom. In either case most of Obamacare survives.

Liberty Legal Foundation is the only group advancing the clearest solution to the true problem, not just a band-aid fix. But the only way to get there is to first admit that the individual mandate is within Congressional authority under Wickard, because Wickard eliminated all limits on Congressional authority. Only by making this admission can we demonstrate the absurdity of the Wickard precedent and show the Supreme Court the clear solution to the Obamacare question: Overturn Wickard!

The Federal government has now admitted in court that under Wickard there are no limitations on Congressional authority. We must use this rare moment of clarity to assure that the Supreme Court fixes their 70 year-old mistake.

I understand the aversion to admitting that Congress currently has no limits on its authority. But denying the truth does not fix the problem. Everyone needs to accept the fact that Congress has been acting outside its Constitutional scope of authority since 1942. This is why our Federal government is completely out of control. Obamacare is simply the latest proof of this fact. The only way to start to restore our Constitutional Republic is to overturn Wickard.

Even if the other opponents to Obamacare were to succeed, the parties arguing that the individual mandate is “beyond Wickard” would leave Wickard as valid precedent. Their arguments will leave most of Obamacare in place. Their arguments will leave us with a Congress that understands that it has ALMOST no limits on its power. Such a victory would be a hollow one that would leave us worse off than we were before.

We need your support now more than ever. Filing an amicus brief will take a great deal of resources. Please support our efforts to restore our Constitutional Republic. 

They finally admitted it! Yesterday’s ruling from the Federal Appeals Court in DC states: “The Government concedes the novelty of the [individual] mandate and the lack of any doctrinal limiting principles; indeed, at oral argument, the Government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service in interstate commerce that would be unconstitutional, at least under the Commerce Clause.” The Court concluded that the Federal government has the authority to force any American to purchase any product or service that Congress requires them to purchase. It explains, “It is certainly an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.” This concluding statement is referring to and cites Wickard v. Filburn, of course.

This is the argument that Liberty Legal Foundation has been making all along. Wickard IS THE PROBLEM!! Finally we have a Court that doesn’t talk around the issue. The court simply points to Wickard and explains that the individual mandate is just like Wickard. They also explain that they don’t like this outcome:

“We acknowledge some discomfort with the Government’s failure to advance any clear doctrinal principles limiting congressional mandates that any American purchase any product or service in interstate commerce. But to tell the truth, those limits are not apparent to us either, because the power to require the entry into commerce is symmetrical with the power to prohibit or condition commercial behavior, or because we have not yet perceived a qualitative limitation. That difficulty is troubling…”

The court then cites Wickard and upholds the individual mandate.

At risk of being a broken record, we will keep repeating the problem until Americans understand how we got here. Wickard destroyed the Constitution and the concept of Federalism because it eliminated the limitations on Congressional authority. Those limitations were the centerpiece of the Constitution. They were absolutely essential to the proper functioning of our Constitutional Republic. Without those limitations we end up with a despotic Federal tyrant: AS HAS JUST BEEN PROVEN BY THE OPINION IN THIS CASE!

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Just a few years after the Constitution was ratified, everyone knew what the Commerce Clause meant and what it didn’t mean: President James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have authorized Federal spending on highways. President Madison explained:

“But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it”

President Madison understood that the powers granted to the Federal government were intentionally very limited. This was understood for 150 years. The Wickard Court destroyed our system of government and left us defenseless against a despotic Federal tyrant. We must Revive our Constitutional Republic.

Liberty Legal Foundation is preparing an amicus brief that will be filed with the Supreme Court. We will point out the facts set forth here. We will be citing the opinion from the DC Circuit Court, among the other opinions which all illustrate that the source of the problem is Wickard. More importantly, we will be citing and quoting the Founding Fathers themselves. We must overturn Wickard.

Please continue to help us in our cause. Please continue to spread the word. Imagine the impact if our amicus brief to the Supreme Court represents hundreds of thousands of Americans asking for Wickard to be overturned.

Last week Liberty Legal Foundation filed two new lawsuits in an effort to have courts define the term “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution. Since then a few people have ask us how this falls within Liberty Legal’s mission. That mission, as stated at the top of our web site, is to “Challenge flawed legal precedent to restore our Constitution.” It is true that our latest lawsuits do not challenge flawed legal precedent. However, they are directed toward restoring our Constitution.

Our mission is, and has always been, to restore our Constitutional Republic. This has not changed and will not change. Challenging flawed legal precedent is the “how” of our mission statement, but it is not the “what” or the “why.” When we founded LLF our only lawsuit at that time was the Obamacare Class Action. That lawsuit emphasizes the fact that Obamacare is the latest example in the Federal government’s expansion of the commerce clause. LLF saw Obamacare as an opportunity to correct the flawed precedent that led to Obamacare. That flawed precedent allowed the Federal government to grow like a cancer over the last 69 years. Our OCA lawsuit seeks to cure the disease rather than focus on the symptoms.

This model of identifying and challenging the Supreme Court precedent that has led to specific Federal abuses is unique. We are not aware of any other organization that has decided to use this model. We hope more will join our efforts. If some other organization takes up this model, we will celebrate and try to help them.

Again, LLF’s mission is to restore our Constitutional Republic. It is not specifically limited to challenging flawed legal precedent in order to achieve that goal. Challenging flawed legal precedent is simply a tool. It’s a great tool that we will use as often as possible, but it’s just a tool. It is the how, not the why or the what. LLF will use any tool at its disposal to Restore our Constitutional Republic.

Our latest lawsuits are a great example. Many LLF members and others have asked why we’ve done nothing to challenge a President that is not Constitutionally qualified to occupy the office of President. If such a fundamental Constitutional issue is ignored, they asked, what difference does any other Constitutional issue make? They make a great point. The President is the leader of the military and the individual responsible for enforcing the Constitution and federal law. If it is clear that the Constitution prohibits the individual currently holding the office of President from doing so, then what other part of the Constitution matters? If the Constitution can be so blatantly ignored, and the person MOST responsible for defending the Constitution is, himself, a violation of the Constitution, then why should we keep trying to restore the Constitution?

Note that I say “if” he isn’t qualified. LLF is not asking any Court to find that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified. We are asking the courts to answer the question, IS he Constitutionally qualified? Because the Supreme Court has already defined “natural-born citizen” as a person with BOTH parents that were U.S. citizens, and we know that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, it seems that Obama can never be a “natural-born citizen.” So, the question needs to be answered. If it’s left unanswered then the Constitution is simply wallpaper. Its mandates and limitations mean nothing if they are not enforced. If they cannot be enforced, that fact also needs to be demonstrated to the people.

The best news here is that there is no Supreme Court precedent that needs to be challenged in this case. To our great surprise we’ve found that the Supreme Court has never mis-defined the term “natural-born citizen.” It has defined the term in a way that appears to follow the clear meaning of the Founding Fathers that attended the Constitutional Convention. So, we don’t have to challenge flawed Supreme Court precedent this time. We simply have to ensure that the existing precedent is enforced. So far it has been ignored. If CORRECT precedent can be ignored, then all our efforts to overturn flawed precedent will be meaningless. Again, these latest cases are critical to our mission.

Thank you all for your support of Liberty Legal Foundation. If you agree with us that this question must be answered, please join the Certification Class Action lawsuit and encourage all your friends and family to do the same.

For several years now we have watched the controversy mount around Obama’s eligibility to hold the Oval Office. More and more questions are raised with no substantive answers. When Obama released his clearly forged “birth certificate” last Spring, it only added fuel to the fire.

For several years now we have also watched numerous legal challenges fail and most media turn a blind eye. Meanwhile, Americans that understand that this is truly a Constitutional issue grow more and more frustrated. And this is truly a Constitutional question.

The framers of the Constitution were careful to set separate and specific requirements that any candidate for the Presidency be a “natural born citizen”. All other Federal offices require the candidates to be citizens, but the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency are higher. The Founders did not want to risk that the leader of our nation have divided loyalties.

With another election looming, the time to act is now. So yesterday Liberty Legal Foundation joined with Presidential candidate  John Albert Dummett Jr. to file two simultaneous class action lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election.

Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.

No lawsuit to date has been able to get a hearing on the merits related to Obama’s natural-born status. LLF has studied all of these cases in order to learn from the rulings and avoid the pitfalls that stopped those lawsuits. LLF has learned that all states rely upon the truthfulness of representations made by the political parties, that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant LLF not only targets the entity responsible for vetting the Democratic candidate, LLF also avoids taking on any state or federal government. The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages.

LLF also learned that Presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. Consequently, LLF partnered with FEC-registered Presidential Candidate John Dummett, a conservative Republican who believes that the Constitution should be followed.

Because LLF has a lead plaintiff that is a Presidential Candidate, and because that plaintiff is also a Liberty Legal member, Liberty Legal has standing to sue as well. If one plaintiff has standing to sue, all plaintiffs have standing to sue.

Anyone that believes the Constitution should be followed can join this class action lawsuit as a class member, just as you did when becoming a member of the Obamacare Class Action. If you agree that the Constitution should be followed, please add your voice to ours. Please join our class action lawsuit to protect the legitimacy of the ballot.

Late last month Liberty Legal Foundation filed a motion in the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit asking the Texas Federal Court to ignore the 1942 Supreme Court precedent Wickard v. Filburn. Asking a District Court to ignore Supreme Court precedent is highly unusual but we believe it’s justified in this case. Because Wickard was a politically-motivated decision that reversed 150 years of prior precedent, we feel justified in asking the Court to ignore Wickard and honor the clear language of the Constitution.

We expect the District Court to be reluctant to grant our motion, so we gave it an alternative. Our motion reminds the District Court that if it agrees that Wickard should be reconsidered, but it doesn’t believe that it has the authority to overturn Wickard itself, the District Court can still tell the higher courts what it thinks about Wickard. If the District Court follows our suggestion we would be allowed to immediately bring the case to the next higher court, and we would have a statement from the District Court questioning the validity of Wickard. Such a statement would make the higher courts much more likely to rule in our favor. Our filing and the update we sent to you after filing our motion can both be seen on Liberty Legal’s web site.

Last Wednesday Obama and his co-defendants responded to our motion. Their opposition argued that the District Court doesn’t need to consider our motion because it should grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which they filed last June. The defendant’s motion and our response to it can also be viewed in their entirety on Liberty Legal’s web site.

The defendant’s response to our latest motion had no surprises for us. We got exactly what we expected. Their opposition focused primarily on the same arguments they had made in their previous motion to dismiss. They claimed that none of Liberty Legal’s over 30,000 members have standing to challenge Obamacare. This argument had already been addressed and negated by our previous response to their motion, filed last July.

The best part of the defendants’ response to our motion was this: they still argue that “Under plaintiffs’ extreme view, even Medicare would be unconstitutional. There is no such categorical shackle on the power of Congress.” Wow! The defendants have proven once again that they haven’t bothered to read the Constitution. Article I section 8 is exactly a categorical shackle on the power of Congress. That is its express purpose. For 150 years the Supreme Court agreed that the “commerce clause” was NOT intended to remove all shackles on Congressional power. Such an interpretation of the commerce clause is absurd in light of Article I section 8. Essentially the defendants argue that the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the power of Congress, and then in the same sentence remove all such limitations. This is simply ludicrous. Yet this is how the Wickard Court interpreted the Constitution. Once again the defendants have made our point for us: they actively argue that Wickard’s interpretation of the commerce clause leaves “no such categorical shackle on the power of Congress.”

Amazing isn’t it?

Article VI of the Constitution declares that “This Constitution… shall be the supreme law of the land.” Yet when the Supreme Court reviews the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, the Court gives great deference to Congress. This has always seemed backward to me. Shouldn’t the Court be giving its greatest deference to the clear meaning of the Constitution?

I’m not suggesting that the Court shouldn’t respect Congress. Respect between the branches of government is critically important to our Republic. However, the role of the Court is to be a check on the other two branches of government. It can’t fulfill that role AND ALSO place its respect for Congress above its respect for the Constitution. Yet this is exactly what the Court has done. This is why we’ve lost our Constitutional rights.

Last week I heard Supreme Court Justice Scalia explain WHY the Court is so deferential to Congress. His explanation made me furious, yet gave me hope. During the October 5th hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that the Court gives deference to acts of Congress because they presume that Congress respects the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution. Scalia explained to Utah Senator Mike Lee that members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and therefore the Court begins any analysis with the presumption that Congress did not intend to violate the Constitution. You can hear Scalia’s testimony HERE (at approx. minute 125).

Scalia’s explanation is infuriating because we know that members of Congress actively ignore the Constitution. When they do pay attention to the Constitution they’re usually trying to figure out how to eliminate its limitations on their power. I’m sure you’re all aware of Nancy Pelosi’s response to a reporter when asked about the Constitutionality of Obamacare: She laughed and asked if he was kidding, using a very derisive tone. Her lack of respect was directed at the question more than the reporter. It reflected her total lack of respect for the Constitution. Pelosi was shocked that a reporter would even ask about THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, which was designed to limit HER power!

Our OCA lawsuit formally accused both Pelosi and Reid of violating their oaths of office by passing Obamacare. Both formally refused to deny the accusation and instead claimed immunity. When members of Congress have no legal obligation to follow their oath and suffer no consequences for violating it, the Congressional oath of office has lost any function in this world. Yet Justice Scalia cited the Congressional oath of office to explain why the Court gives great deference to Congress. I’m grateful to the Justice for attempting to remind Congress of its duty, but I hope he realizes the irony of his own comments.

The good news is that Scalia’s comments give us the key to correcting the Court’s grievous mistake. Because the Court’s deference to Congress is based on a traditional presumption that Congress intends to follow the Constitution, evidence that proves that presumption incorrect should eliminate the Court’s deference. A legal presumption is a fact that is simply a starting point. If that fact is not proven wrong, or more commonly if that fact is not addressed at all, the fact stands. However, presumptions can be negated by evidence that the presumed fact is wrong. Because Scalia testified that the Court’s deference to Congress is based on a presumption that Congress intends to follow the Constitution, we can now address that presumption by proving the underlying fact to be false.

The Court needs to understand that the interests of Congress are in opposition to the interests of the Constitution. Deference to Congress disrespects the Constitution, and leaves the people with a grievous disadvantage in defending their fundamental rights against government’s constant intrusions.

Liberty Legal Foundation’s amicus brief to the Supreme Court will include our arguments that the Court should stop giving deference to Congress. Part of our argument to overturn Wickard v. Filburn will include quoted statements from members of Congress, showing Congress’s disrespect for the Constitution.

It may be impossible to turn the Court away from its horrendous tradition of respecting Congress to the detriment of the Supreme Law of the Land and its People. But we must try. Now we have an insight into the mind of a leading conservative Justice. Now we know how he justifies the Court’s attitude in his own mind. We will use that information to speak to him and the other Justices. Hopefully we can help them see that their presumptions have NEVER been correct, and have been very destructive to the Constitution. Imagine if several Justices suddenly realized that the Court’s traditional attitude is destroying America, and they reversed that attitude. Imagine if they started making Congress PROVE that it was following the Constitution, rather than always assuming that Congress intended well.  

Liberty Legal Foundation needs your help to bring our arguments to the Supreme Court. We need your financial support. Please give what you can to help us Resurrect our Constitutional Republic.

Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people.
Thomas Jefferson

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the role of the Judicial Branch in America. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer testified, answering the Senators’ questions for over two hours. You can see the entire hearing HERE. The Justices’ testimony and the Senators’ questions continued the trend of positive messages coming from the Court. We have many reasons to be optimistic about our efforts to overturn Wickard.

The questions asked were at least as interesting as the answers. Several liberal Senators asked questions that reflect more than concern, they reflect active fear that the Court is about to make major changes in the way the Federal government does business. They asked about the Court’s respect for “Stare Decisis.” (Stare Decisis is the doctrine of following precedent, or decisions from earlier cases.) This question, and the conversation following, reflected the liberal Senators’ fear that the Court is about to overturn “venerable precedent.” The liberal Senators emphasized the importance of “predictability” in the law. Of course these are the same Senators that gave us the most unsettled, unpredictable period in history by passing Obamacare and threatening to pass laws like Cap & Trade and Card Check. Their sudden concern over “predictability” reflects their concern that the Court is about to take away a great deal of power these Senators have come to believe is their right to possess.  

Both Justices answered this question by pointing out that the Supreme Court has full authority to overturn its own precedent, especially when the Court is reviewing the limits placed on Congress by the Constitution. Justice Scalia explained that if the Court doesn’t enforce such limits, the only way to fix the situation is to amend the Constitution, which is very difficult. Scalia went on to explain that if the Court doesn’t tell government when it has gone beyond the Constitution, then the Constitution should be hung in a museum as a historical footnote. Even liberal Justice Breyer agreed that the Court’s job is to protect the boundaries of governmental authority. They both agreed that without active enforcement of the Constitution by the Court, the Constitution becomes “just words on paper.”

Justice Scalia also pointed out to the Senators that the Court “never strikes down a law.” He explained that laws passed by Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not laws at all. He said, “it seems to be a law, but it really isn’t.” Concluding that the Court simply ignores such laws and confirms that Americans can act as if they had never been passed. This may seem like a trivial point, but it is actually very important. Scalia was reminding the Senators that their powers have limits, and that the Court and the People have absolutely zero obligation to recognize authority asserted by Congress when Congress never had that authority in the first place.

The liberal Senators also asked about recusal of Supreme Court Justices that have a conflict of interest on a particular case. You may be aware that many liberals have tried to preemptively make the case that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any Obamacare cases because his wife lobbied against Obamacare. The liberal Senator’s questions were an attempt to strengthen this effort. They even suggested a rule change to allow retired Justices to return in place of Justices that are recused. Both Justices quickly squashed the Senator’s arguments. Justice Breyer went as far as to argue that Supreme Court Justices have a duty to NOT recuse themselves unless they simply cannot decide the case without personal bias.

Conservative Senator Mike Lee, from Utah, asked the rhetorical question: (I’m paraphrasing) Do members of Congress have a duty to determine if legislation they support is Constitutional, before they vote for it? Or can they simply try to get away with as much as possible under cases like Wickard v. Filburn? Scalia said, Of course members of Congress have a duty to determine Constitutionality the bills they support, BECAUSE they took the same oath as Supreme Court Justices to uphold and defend the Constitution. Breyer agreed. This discussion begins roughly at time stamp 117 minutes.

This is GREAT news! Less than a week ago one of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices AND one of the most conservative Justices both told a bunch of Senators that they have a duty to follow the Constitution. The underlying message being that they have not been doing so. Without saying it directly, they told the Senators that Justice Thomas would not be recused from the upcoming Obamacare case. They told the Senators that the Court can and will overturn “venerable” precedent if the precedent violates the Constitution. And Wickard was specifically mentioned in that discussion.

I’m the first person to acknowledge that this may mean nothing at all. You never know what the Court will do until it does it. However, any honest Court-watchers have to admit that it seems like the Court will take a hard look at Wickard in the very near future. If this wasn’t true, why would venerable old liberal Senators be so worried?

A couple weeks ago I shared about why state laws nullifying Obamacare were “toothless”. This message references two nullification laws we are trying to get passed in Tennessee that have “teeth.” They are TN SB620 and TN SB1108/HB0959 – please use these links to go to the website and download copies of each bill.

The key point between these bills and nullification bills without teeth is that they have a method of enforcement. These bills actually empower local law enforcement to arrest Federal officials who attempt to enforce nullified laws within the state. We are making good progress on getting these bills the support they need. Already, we have TN Sheriffs affirming that they will support this enforcement should the legislature pass these bills.

Please consider supporting similar legislation in your state. Rally your state TEA Parties, Liberty and Constitutional groups to make their voices heard that they want nullification with teeth.

This Saturday a rally will be held to support Gibson Guitar and Liberty Legal Foundation will be there. If you haven’t heard the story, in brief here is what happened:

Last month federal agents raided Gibson Guitar factories in Memphis and Nashville because they were unknowingly violating an obscure federal regulation. Under the pretense of being in violation of India’s wood export law, Federal officers entered the Gibson facilities with weapons drawn and seized property. To this date, no charges have been filed against Gibson. No proper notice was given. The Federal agents used much more force than necessary to accomplish any legitimate law enforcement goals. Obviously, Tennessee citizens are outraged.

What is even more frustrating is that all of this could have been prevented. Last session, Liberty Legal Foundation co-drafted and lobbied hard to get nullification bills introduced into the Tennessee Legislature. The first bill, SB620, would have set up a committee to review EVERY Federal law currently on the books and recommend nullification by the TN legislature of ALL Fed laws that violate the Constitution. The second bill, SB1108/HB0959, would have re-established that TN Sheriffs have ultimate authority over arrests in their county. It would have required Federal Agents to obtain written permission from the county sheriff before arresting anyone in his county, authorized the sheriff to arrest any agent not complying, and most importantly, would have repealed all current TN laws that authorize Fed agents to arrest without sheriff’s authorization.

Had these bills been passed, the Federal agents raiding Gibson would have had to go to the local Sheriff first for permission. The Sheriff would have seen that the Federal agents had no legal leg to stand on to support such a raid. If these bills had passed this travesty would not have occurred in the state of Tennessee. Unfortunately, both of our bills were killed in committee. We are working to have them re-introduced next January.

To show our collective outrage for this heavy handed treatment by Federal agents, a rally has been planned for this Saturday afternoon with speakers, music, and food. TEA Party, Constitutionalist, and Liberty groups from Tennessee and surrounding areas are sponsors. Citizens from the Southeast will be coming together not necessarily to support Gibson, but to protest this ridiculous abuse of power.

All the events details can be found at:  http://www.gibsonrally.com.

If you can, please attend and show the Fed that we won’t tolerate overreaches of power any longer.

Today Liberty Legal Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Federal District Court in Lubbock Texas to rule Obamacare, in its entirety, unconstitutional. We wanted to let you know right away, hence the mid-week update. You can read our motion on Liberty Legal’s web page – OCA Case Status.

We filed this motion now because over the past many weeks several rulings from other Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, emphasized that our argument is correct. Liberty Legal Foundation has been arguing from the beginning that ALL of Obamacare is beyond the scope of authority of Congress. We never limited our arguments to the individual mandate. Instead we’ve been arguing all along that the FDR-packed Supreme Court of 1942 destroyed the Constitution in its Wickard v. Filburn ruling.

Now, a year and a half after Obamacare was signed into law, Federal Courts are starting to say the same thing! I urge you to at least read the quotes from the 6th Circuit on pages 10 and 11 of our motion.

A couple of weeks ago I told you about the 11th Circuit and 6th Circuit decisions, one upholding the individual mandate and the other ruling it unconstitutional. Both courts had split decisions from their 3-judge panels. One was 2 to 1 upholding the individual mandate, the other was 2 to 1 finding it unconstitutional. What was amazing about the opinions written by these 6 Federal judges was that as much as they disagree, they all agree on the underlying problem. We have two courts, six judges, five separately written opinions, two opposing rulings, and a tie on whether the individual mandate is constitutional: three judges for, three against. Yet they all agree on one thing: Wickard made a mess of commerce clause precedent.

Now, with all that laid out, isn’t the solution obvious?! OVERTURN WICKARD!!

Fortunately this is exactly what several of the judges suggested. Even the judges that ruled the individual mandate constitutional noted that their ruling was because Wickard left no appreciable limit on Congressional authority.

So, with all this recent ammunition from sitting Federal judges, we decided it was time to go on the offensive. Rather than wait for our Federal court to cite Wickard, dismiss our case, and send us up the appeal ladder, we filed our own motion for summary judgment, citing all the great language from the other courts.

Understand that because we are asking the court to overturn Supreme Court precedent typical procedure would be to expect the lower court to dismiss our case, allowing us to appeal to the Circuit Court, then to the Supreme Court. Traditionally lower courts refuse to overturn precedent from higher courts, even when the lower court is completely convinced that the precedent is wrong. However, in my opinion tradition is less important than upholding the Constitution. The Constitution protects fundamental rights from government intrusion. Fundamental rights, granted to us by God, are more important than the traditions of men in black robes.

So, we asked the court to violate tradition and ignore Wickard, in favor of the clear meaning of the Constitution.

Of course we understand that judges are unlikely to throw aside tradition, so we also made an alternative request of the court. We asked the court that if it denies our motion for summary judgment, it also make that ruling immediately appealable with a statement about what its opinion of Wickard. This way, if our judge agrees with us, as we believe he will, but he still wants to honor tradition over the Constitution, he can tell the higher courts what he thinks of Wickard and pass our case up the ladder with his statement attached.

Please understand just how unusual this motion is. Asking the Court to set aside this particular tradition amounts to legal heresy. I really can’t overstate just how much lower courts honor even the most ridiculous precedent from higher courts. However, this so-called doctrine really is just a tradition. Nothing in the Constitution, in any statute, or in any rule of procedure that I’m aware of requires it. Yet asking a court to ignore it is akin to screaming obscenities in church. It is simply not done.

However, our Founding Fathers stood up to the power of a King to establish our Constitutional Republic. Hundreds of thousands of men have died horrible deaths on the battlefield to defend our Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution protects the freedom that God gave us all, and that made America great. With that perspective in mind, I can’t stand aside and allow a mere legal tradition to delay our battle to restore our Constitutional Republic. I don’t think it’s asking too much of a Federal judge to stand up for the Constitution, even if it means violating a sacrosanct tradition and defying the higher courts in this one instance. A little rebellion is a good thing. Especially if it prevents a bloody revolution.

Last week’s Presidential debate included two huge surprises for me, both very pleasant. First, I heard Gary Johnson speak for the first time. I hadn’t observed Gary Johnson in any prior debate and I was very impressed. I don’t know enough about him yet to say more than that, but he is definitely a breath of fresh air in the list of candidates. Please look into his record. I plan to. Also, please let me know if any of you know anything about his record that concerns you.

As you all know Liberty Legal Foundation cannot endorse a specific candidate. We can, however, pass along information in the hope of helping you make an informed decision. Several candidates have very good, but not perfect records on Constitutional issues. Several have horrible records. I liked what I heard Governor Johnson say, and I liked the way he said it. However, I do need to do more research.

The other surprise was, for me, nothing short of earth-shaking. First a little background for those of you who missed the debate: Google and YouTube sponsored the debate, and many of the questions were in the form of videos sent to YouTube by citizens from all over the country. Citizens were asked to submit video questions to YouTube and everyone was allowed to vote on which video questions were the best. This way the questions presented represented issues that people are most concerned about.

In the first hour of the debate the moderator introduced a video question by saying “This next question got the most votes.” The question was a video of a couple from Spencer, Indiana asking this: “There’s growing concern among Americans about the size and the scope of the federal government and its infringement upon state and individual rights. If you’re elected president how do you plan to restore the 10th amendment, hold the federal government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution and allow states to govern themselves?” I was so stunned that I had to go back and listen to the moderator again. Yes, I heard him right! The most popular question, out of all the videos submitted to YouTube, was a question about enforcing the 10th Amendment, protecting personal rights, and restoring the Constitution!

Wow! This is huge! Up until now I’ve been very happy to see these issues being included as part of the national conversation. That alone was a first in my lifetime. But this question being voted number one proves that these issues are important to a large percentage of Americans.

Of course I realize that most Americans aren’t paying attention to the Presidential race yet. However, this still confirms that most people who ARE paying attention put this issue at the TOP! Almost as important, you KNOW that the media people noticed this too. The main stream media may hate the Constitutional movement, but they love ratings. If they begin to believe that they can make more money by talking about this issue, they will. Which means that restoring our Constitutional Republic will get more and more media attention.

We can win this! We can get our country back to the Constitution! Please keep talking about this issue. Please keep telling your friends and family and co-workers about how important our Constitution is to our way of life and our prosperity. They are obviously listening.