According to federal law, if someone is convicted of a crime and punished with more than one year in jail, they loose their rights protected under the Second Amendment. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court not only brought that federal law into question, but decided it was wrong. The court didn’t find that this federal law violated the Constitution, rather they found it violated Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. But is that all this federal law violates?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;” That seems pretty straight forward. So how could Congress establish a government agency funded not by appropriations from the treasury, but by fees paid to another federal entity? This was the question brought to the Supreme Court in the case CFPB v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America. Sadly, it seems that the Supreme Court once again showed they have a hard time reading and understanding the English language.

It’s been in the news again lately, the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic treaty. Not only does this United Nation want the power to take over the world in a “health emergency”, but numerous politicians and commentators keep claiming that if Joe Biden signs this treaty, it would be legally binding. The truth is, that is just not true, for several reasons.

I meet a lot of people who think the Constitution is useless, while others wonder how people can get away with violating it. While these may appear to be opposing positions, I believe they stem from the same misconception. That the Constitution of the United States is some super hero that will come flying in to save the day. Rather, the Constitution is ink on parchment, a tool, and nothing more. Like any other tool, the Constitution is absolutely useless unless it is picked up and wielded. And like any other tool, unless you learn how to use the Constitution, you’re much more likely to crush your own thumb than those who are infringing your rights.

In one of the many cases against Donald Trump, his attorney’s are claiming that he cannot be criminally charged for an act he performed in his official capacity as President. Why? Because of something called Presidential Immunity. Is there such a thing as Presidential immunity? If so, where is it stated in the Constitution? Or is the idea Presidential immunity just the latest attempt to turn the President of the United States into a king?

Maine's governor allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislation to become "law" without her signature. LD 1578, An Act to Adopt an Interstate Compact to Elect the President of the United States by National Popular Vote is not only foolish and unconstitutional, but the latest attempt to change the United States from a union of republics into a monolithic democracy. It seems, just as with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments in 1913, states are not only willing to give up their sovereignty, but deprive their citizens of their rights in pursuit of socialism. After all, I believe it was Vladimir Lenin who said "Democracy is indispensable to socialism."

A policy statement released by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget effectively made a very bold statement, that the Constitution of the United States was a threat to national security. Does this not remind you of the saying from Benjamin Franklin? “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Benjamin Franklin Are the American people willing to give up their right to be free from unreasonable searches for the promise of national security?

If there is a boogie man in the anti-gun community, it’s got to be the National Rifle Association. Accused of complicity in almost every gun crime from gang violence to mass murder, the NRA has become the lightning rod for the vitriol of those whose fear of firearms has grown to an irrational state. What happens though, when government actors advice others about the dangers of doing business with such a company? Is it merely warning of the dangers of sleeping with dogs, or an attempt to use their power to intimidate others into abandoning those they otherwise would do business with? The case of NRA v Vullo is just such a case?