Will the EPA infuriate gun owners–and seal the fate of Democrats on November 2?
BY John McCormack
August 27, 2010 9:57 AM

Will Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back door move to ban lead bullets the day before the November 2 elections?

Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here’s the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition.  A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.

Although the EPA could have dismissed the request due to a lack of jurisdiction, it is obliging CBD. The EPA has asked for public comment on banning lead in ammunition, and an EPA notice was published seeking public comment that closes on October 31. Jackson would then make a decision to accept or reject the petition on November 1. You might say that even considering enacting what is effectively a new tax on hunters and gun owners–seemingly the only non-liberal group the Obama administration hasn’t yet intentionally provoked–is less-than-perfect timing for the already beleaguered  Democrats as the midterm elections approach.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, has hit back against the petition sending Jackson a letter documenting why EPA has no jurisdiction and outlining the damage that banning lead ammunition would do to U.S. industry and jobs, conservation, and law enforcement. The NSSF estimates that more than 90 percent of hunters and sport shooters use traditional lead ammunition. If all hunters were forced to buy non-lead bullets that are made out of metals like tungsten, bismuth, and copper alloys, demand could easily begin to outstrip the supply and prices would go even higher.

Bill Clinton famously blamed the NRA and gun owners for sweeping Democrats from control of the House in 1994 after he pushed them to pass the Assault Weapons Ban. For Democrats, especially those in rural and conservative districts that are already facing voters’ wrath, gun control could once again be an issue that helps defeat them and swings control of the House and perhaps even the Senate to the GOP.

See article at: http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/epa-reviewing-request-ban-led-bullets

Justice Department Sued Over Black Panther Documents

By Jennifer Rubin, 5/26/10, Commentary Magazine

The Justice Department has been stonewalling individual members of Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in their efforts to get to the bottom of the Obama-Holder Justice Department’s decision to abandon a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party and multiple individual defendants in a case of blatant voter intimidation. Now the conservative legal watchdog Judicial Watch is going to court to pry the documents loose:

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on May 29, 2009. The Justice Department acknowledged receiving the request on June 18, 2009, but then referred the request to the Office of Information Policy (OIP) and the Civil Rights Division. On January 15, 2010, the OIP notified Judicial Watch that it would be responding to the request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Legal Policy, and Intergovernmental and Public Liaison.

On January 15, the OIP also indicated that the Office of the Associate Attorney General found 135 pages of records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, but that all records would be withheld in full. On January 26, the OIP advised Judicial Watch that the Office of Public Affairs and Office of Legal Policy completed their searches and found no responsive documents. On February 10, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division indicated that after an extensive search it had located “numerous responsive records” but determined that “access to the majority of the records” should be denied. On March 26, the OIP indicated that the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison completed searches and found no documents.

It’s about time the courts rule on the panoply of made-up defenses and fake privileges that Holder has cooked up to avoid turning over these documents. Let the courts decide if the Obama administration can have it both ways — declining to invoke executive privilege but relying on the privilege under other names (”deliberative privilege”).

A knowledgeable lawyer e-mails me: “Notice DOJ revealed nothing about the number of panther documents in the AG and deputy AG office. Even for  the associate attorney general they revealed there were 135 but they weren’t going to turn them over. Failing to even name a number is extremely suspicious because those units can be searched quicker and easier for compliant documents. It leads one to conclude any number would be an embarrassment, and a high number would be a catastrophe. So, don’t reveal a number. Typical of this non-transparent operation.”

And now we’re going to see the administration’s true colors played out in open court. As a Judicial Watch spokesman said: “If there is nothing to hide, then Eric Holder should release this information as the law requires. And this is just one more example of how Obama’s promises of transparency are a big lie.”

But the Obama team may have a different problem: if either or both houses of Congress flip to Republican control, new chairmen will populate key committees and subpoenas will begin to fly. Congress is in an even better position to get access to the documents, as attorney-client privilege doesn’t work against a co-equal branch of government. In sum, Holder is running out of room to hide, finally.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/301191

Puerto Rico Statehood Bill HR 2499 Passes The House

March 27, 2010

Governor Dave Freudenthal

State Capitol, 200 West 24th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0010

Governor Freudenthal:

We are notifying you with this letter, written at the demand of our members, representing more than one thousand Wyoming citizens, that we expect you to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming.  These two documents assert that Wyoming citizens are free from the enactment of any mandates that are beyond the scope of enumerated powers granted to the federal government.  The recently passed H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010, contain such mandates and violate the rights of individuals.

The very first section of the Wyoming State Constitution (W.S.S. 97-1-001) states; “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority…”.

The stand we are compelling you to make can be met by directing our State Attorney General, Bruce A. Salzburg, to initiate legal proceedings against the United States government, either separately, as did Virginia Attorney General (Ken Cuccinelli II), or jointly with Attorneys General from the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.  We agree that these violations of the tenth amendment must be challenged, but our first issue is with violations of Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any federal body from interfering in a contract between two parties.  Any interference in private contracts would negate any liberty in conducting business.

Your statement on March 24^th that the Florida joint law suit enjoining 14 states, is being filed mostly for political reasons is either disingenuous or deliberately misleading. The basis for suit challenging mandates for funding of health care addresses only one of many gross violations of individual rights and liberties contained in the so-called ‘health care’ acts and their subsequent amendments, rules and regulations.

If the Federal Government is prohibited from interference in a contract, then likewise the Federal Government may not require that a contract be made between private citizens, and a private enterprise, (i.e. the purchase of health insurance coverage from an independent provider, or otherwise), and apply fines, fees and/or taxes to punish non-compliance.

Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides for equal protection under the law.  Many violations of this protection are found in these Acts.

H.R. 3590 violates each state’s sovereignty (Amendment X) and is clearly a violation of the Enumerated Powers.

In the Supreme Court decision on NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court:

State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 759 (1991) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.  (IV B, ¶ 2)

Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution’s division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment… The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the “consent” of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.

(IV B, ¶ 3)

Both the House and the Senate refer to the Interstate Commerce Clause as justification for this action, however this same case (NY v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 1992) states quite clearly that this is a deliberate misuse of that clause.

While the Framers no doubt endowed Congress with the power to regulate interstate commerce in order to avoid further instances of the interstate trade disputes that were common under the Articles of Confederation, the Framers did not intend that Congress should exercise that power through the mechanism of mandating state regulation. The Constitution established Congress as ‘a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade’ among the States.” The Federalist No.42, p 268 (C. Rossiter ed 1961).  As Madison and Hamilton explained, “a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity.  Id., No.20, p 138.  (IV A, ¶ 7)

Furthermore, while few would disagree that reform of health care is essential, the issue itself has quickly digressed to a volatile partisan dispute where both parties’ arguments are built upon the assumption that our country is in “crisis”.  As politicians, media and citizens quickly and passionately race to defend the position they feel is right and just on such a controversial issue, few are actually questioning the validity of this being a crisis at all.   This fear-fueled impulsiveness, translated into law, is the greatest threat to our state sovereignty because it has dangerous potential to sweep well-meaning officials into the frenzy, and consequently into making or agreeing with rash decisions that can alter the very Liberty and individual sovereignty that this country is founded upon.

Justice O’Connor addresses the issue of perceived crisis, again from NY v. U.S.:

Some truths are so basic that, like the air around us, they are easily overlooked. Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear “formalistic” in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era’s perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: it divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day. (VII, ¶ 1)

As aforementioned, the dictates of HR 3590 are not enumerated in, and therefore not supported by, the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, the legislative directives in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could never supersede the provisions of the Wyoming Constitution, nor the rights of its citizens.

Therefore, we believe that the mandates found in both HR3590 and HR4872, and any policies, rules and regulations that will surely follow, are additional violations against these Constitutional primary laws and, by extension, the laws governing the citizens of Wyoming:

97-1-07.                      No absolute, arbitrary power.

Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

97-1-28.                     Taxation; consent of people; uniformity and equality.

No tax shall be imposed without the consent of the people or their authorized representatives.

97-1-35.                     Ex post facto laws; impairing obligation of contracts.

No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be made.

97-10-08.                  Trusts prohibited.

There shall be no consolidation or combination of corporations of any kind whatever to prevent competition, to control or influence productions or prices thereof, or in any other manner to interfere with the public good and general welfare.

97-1-36.                      Rights not enumerated reserved to people.

The enumeration in this constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.

Aside from the constitutional issues, the costs will bankrupt this nation’s individual, corporate, and governmental entities. Wyoming and its individual citizens can no more afford ‘health care’ costs being shoved onto state coffers than those states in worse financial condition. This outright theft of our own medical care dollars and the attendant taxation and punitive fines being imposed by the legislation cannot be tolerated.

When Wyoming citizens elected you as Governor for the State of Wyoming, they entrusted to you, among other duties, both obedience to and protection of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Constitution of the State of Wyoming throughout your entire terms.  We expect you to honor the oaths you have taken to uphold these supreme laws defending the rights and liberties of the individual citizens of this state and the powers and authorities of the state.

Many Congressmen allowed their votes and actions to be purchased. We realize that you have often stood against filing suit against the federal government, and we also realize that filing would be particularly awkward now. However, Mrs. Freudenthal’s skills and abilities as a judge stand justly and need not be purchased at the price of the rights of the citizens of this state. Please do not leave any questions in the minds of the nation’s citizens, much less those of the citizens of Wyoming, that your support for such an outrageous assault on the rights of individuals as these bills present can be bought.

The intent of the citizens of this state was clearly stated in recent legislation, which passed both houses by significant majorities. It is our sincere hope that you will duly honor both your sworn oath for your elected position, as well as the intent of the Wyoming House Joint Resolution No. 2 (HEJR0002) which you approved and signed on March 8, 2010.

This document, HEJROOO2, begins by asserting in this JOINT RESOLUTION that

1. Congress cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States (p. 1: lines 1-4) …

1. that “the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the union of states, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp (p.1: lines 27-30)

1. that “Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states   (p. 2: lines 4-5) and lastly…

1. Sections 2-4:  (Section 2) “….this state calls on its costates for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the United States Constitution.” (Section 3) “That this resolution serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent to cease and desist, effective immediately, from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.  The state of Wyoming will not enforce such mandates. [emphasis added] and Section 4: “That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions be prohibited or repealed.”  (p. 3: lines 5-18)

We have provided you, enclosed with this letter, all contact information for the Attorneys General who are initiating joint legal proceedings.  We insist that you give this information to Attorney General Salzburg and take this stand beside the citizens who have stood by you for the past nine years. We await your decision.

Sincerely,        Wyoming Watchdogs™ Executive Committee