The Senate Democrats are Again Threatening Our Nation by Violating the Constitution

The Constitution requires that only a simple majority of Senators approve presidential nominations

By Michael D. Robbins, FraudFactor™, FraudFactor.com™

May 25, 2005

Modified July 15 and August 5, 2005

The Senate Democrats are demanding that President Bush's Supreme Court nominations be approved by an unconstitutional 60 percent super-majority of the Senate, rather than the Constitutionally mandated 50 percent plus one which may be a tie-breaking vote cast by Republican Vice President Dick Cheney.

As an even more extreme move, Senate Democrats including Ted Kennedy and other party leaders, have demanded that President George Bush let them help select Supreme Court Judge nominations. Thus, the Democrats are acting as though they won the Presidency and a majority of the Senate in the 2004 election, when in fact the voters gave these governmental powers to the Republicans.

Some self-serving, weak-kneed, and spineless RINO ("Republican In Name Only") Republicans, including Senator John McCaine, and like-minded Democrats have conspired to "compromise" away three critical clauses of our Constitution that require only a simple majority vote in the Senate (fifty percent of the Senators present plus one, which may be the Republican Vice President ) to "advise and consent" to presidential judicial appointments, and to change the Senate rules.

The compromised clauses of our Constitution are given below. These Senators, organized by Senator McCaine, have reached a "compromise" agreement whereby they will join to vote either for or against a cloture vote to end a Democrat filibuster of Supreme Court nominations depending on criteria they have defined.

The compromised clauses are the following, which are discussed below:

1. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2;
2. Article I, Section 3, Clause 4; and
3. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.

The Constitution specifies each case where a super-majority vote is required in the Senate (and the House of Representatives), and specifies the required percentage of the vote for each case. In all other cases, a simple majority vote is required, where the Vice President may cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies the powers of the President. This clause states that the President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the supreme Court. This phrase is not modified to specify that a super-majority of the Senators present must concur. Therefore, a simple majority is required, which may include the Vice President.

In contrast, the immediately preceding phrase in the same sentence is modified to specify that a two-thirds super-majority of the Senators present must concur to make treaties.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution states that the Vice President is President of the Senate, but has no vote unless the Senators present are equally divided. Thus, wherever a super-majority is not explicitly specified in the Constitution, a simple majority of fifty percent of the Senators present plus one is sufficient, which may include the Vice President to cast a tie-breaking vote.

The Democrats are claiming they can filibuster the "advise and consent" function, which is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Senate, to prevent this responsibility from being performed, unless there is a 60 percent super-majority vote to end the filibuster.

The parliamentary procedures for a filibuster are specified in the Senate rules. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. However, the Senate may not determine the rules of its proceedings in a way that violates the Constitution.

Here are three examples:

1. The Senate cannot require in its rules that more or less than the constitutionally specified two thirds of the Senators present concur in making a treaty;
   
   
2. The Senate cannot change its rules to prevent the Vice President from casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate; and
   
   
3. The Senate and House cannot change their rules to require more or less than the two thirds super-majority vote required by Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution to override the President's veto of legislation approved by the House and Senate.

Because the Senate rules may not be applied in a manner that is inconsistent with or that violates the Constitution, the Republican majority can and should invoke the Constitutional Option, and require a simple majority plus one, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to appoint each Supreme Court judge nominated by President Bush.

Furthermore, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution does not require a super-majority of Senators present to approve a change the Senate rules. The Republican majority in the Senate can and should change the rules to eliminate filibusters entirely or at least for all presidential nominations and appointments.

The Democrats have claimed that the filibuster protects the rights of minorities, but that is a fallacious argument. The filibuster is not specified in the Constitution, and it did not exist for many years after the founding of the nation.

The Constitution protects the rights of minorities by providing each state with the same number of Senators - two - regardless of size and population. This right is well-protected by Article 5, which states that the Constitution cannot be amended to deprive any state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.

A more detailed discussion of this subject appears below, and provides the actual clauses of the Constitution. However, it is also necessary to understand the answer to another important question.

Why are the Democrats violating the Constitution?

These Dangerous Democrats are still refusing to accept the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections. In fact, they are more accurately referred to as the Undemocrats.

These Democrats are trying to get around the voters, who have elected a Republic president and a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to advance their extremist socialist political agenda.

They are trying to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with a majority of appointed, non-elected, leftist judicial activists who write irrational and unsupportable court decisions to effectively re-write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in ways that render it meaningless. These leftist judicial activists ignore the Constitution, the law, and legitimate judicial precedent, and violate Article 5 of the Constitution, which specifies the only Constitutional and legitimate procedure to amend the Constitution. This proceedure requires the support of super-majority of elected representatives, and does not involve any judges.

The Danger of Judicial Activism

One serious risk to the future of our country, our freedom, and our stability is the danger of judicial activism, where appointed judges re-write the Constitution and existing law enacted by elected representatives rather than honestly interpret the Constitution and law as the Founders and elected representatives intended.

Judicial activists act as political partisans and ignore the Constitution, the law, the previous legitimate court precedents, and even common sense, and instead decide as they please to further their political agenda.

Judicial activism is a problem caused almost exclusively by elitist liberal judges, i.e., leftist judges, who are appointed intentionally by Democrat presidents and governors, or mistakenly by Republican presidents and governors.

Republican presidents and governors have mistakenly appointed leftist judicial activists when they succumbed to the pressure from Democrat politicians and news organizations to appoint someone who has avoided or has not been involved in political controversies, and whose true ideology and propensities were unknown.

Thus, socialist Democrats have successfully manipulated our system of self-government to get leftist activist judges appointed even when their party was not in power to make such appointments. And when the Democrats are in power to appoint judges, they appoint the most extreme leftist activist judges without apology or remorse, with the full support of the leftist Democrat dominated news organizations and entertainment industry.

Liberal activist judges claim the Constitution is a "living document" that must bend and change with the times, as long as the changes advance their leftist and totalitarian political agenda. They re-interpret, i.e., misinterpret, and effectively rewrite the Constitution as they please through their court decisions, operating outside their legitimate authority and the existing system of extensive checks and balances.

This "living document" approach directly violates Article 5 of the Constitution, which clearly defines the lengthy and difficult process for amending the Constitution, and which is the only legitimate method for making changes. Article 5 establishes a rigorous system of checks and balances that is absolutely necessary to ensure the continuing existence of the Constitution and the protections and freedoms it affords the people.

Bypassing these constitutional safeguards is like turning off the fire alarm and suppression systems in a tall densely populated building, blocking the emergency exits, and then pouring gasoline in the building and setting it ablaze. Much death and mayhem will ultimately result, and nothing will be left except the burned out wreckage of what was once a thriving populated building.

The following quote by one of the great Founders, Thomas Jefferson, makes it clear that judicial activism to effectively re-write the Constitution is illegitimate.

Under the "living document" approach, the Constitution is in fact a dead document that can no longer protect freedom and stability from the excesses, oppression, and persecution of an out of control government.

Conservative judges, on the other hand, tend to be strict constructionists. They adhere strictly to the original construction and intent of the founders and framers of the Constitution, relying on the written document itself, the writings of the founders including the federalist papers and the proceedings of the constitutional debates, and previous court precedents. They honor the entire Constitution, including Article 5 and the entire Bill of Rights, and they respect the limits on their own authority.

Judicial activism to re-write the Constitution is another form of fraud and corruption that is at least as dangerous as gerrymandering, which results in massive corruption and nonresponsive legislators.

Judicial activism is one of the reasons why it is important whether conservatives or liberals are elected as presidents and governors, because presidents and governors appoint judges to the federal and state supreme courts and to the lower courts.

One example of judicial activism is where judges misinterpret the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation", to apply to the misuse of eminent domain by local government to seize private property to turn it over to a private real estate developer for a private development project.

As another example, they misinterpret the interstate commerce clause to apply to situations that clearly have nothing to do with interstate commerce, allowing the federal government to violate states' rights, by usurping state governmental powers.

And as an example of how extreme and out of touch activist Supreme Court judges have become, they have cited foreign law and court decisions in their opinions to try to justify their absurd activist rulings. In these cases, they carefully pay attention to the countries with laws and court decisions that support their personal political views, while ignoring other countries with contrary laws and decisions.

Basing court decisions on foreign laws and court precedents is entirely unconstitutional and illegitimate. It should be obvious that activist judges cite foreign laws and court precedents when they cannot legitimately support their decisions by citing the relevant provisions of the U.S. Constitution, laws, and court precedents.

Supreme Court justices who have cited foreign laws or court decisions in their opinions include Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor. Foreign treaties and a friend of the court brief filed by a former UN official have also been cited by Supreme Court judges in their opinions.

One possible reason they do this is to try to justify that which is entirely unjustifiable. Another possible reason is to win the respect of other high level foreign judges when they appear at foreign conferences for judges. At least this seems to be the case based on statements reportedly made by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

One example of this is a ruling that cited foreign laws in an attempt to justify invalidating all state laws that, including minors just one day under age 18, to be tried and punished as an adult for committing adult crimes such as multiple murder, torture and murder, or the murder of a police officer. An earlier example is Lawrence vs. Texas, June 26, 2003, striking down state sodomy laws.

Judicial Activists also use their irrational decisions to legislate from the bench, usurping the legislative power of Congress.

These activist judges are committing one of the worst types of treason that endangers every American and the nation's future.

Article 5 of the Constitution defines the only legitimate and Constitutional method of amending the Constitution. The Constitution requires two-thirds super-majority of the states or of both houses of Congress to propose amendments and a three-fourths super-majority of the states to ratify amendments to the Constitution to change even a single word!

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

One method of reducing judicial activism in the U.S. Supreme Court is to ensure it has a majority strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution based on the original intent of the Founders. Another method requires only the cooperation of the President and a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Congress can enact legislation to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, under Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states:

Article. III., Section. 2., Clause 2:

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Instead of amending the Constitution, let's hold the Senator's feet to the fire to get them to follow the long standing provisions of the Constitution. These senators should be targeted for defeat in an ongoing publicity campaign until the next time they are up for re-election. Remember, the socialist Democrats campaign every day of every year. Conservatives need to do the same just to level the playing field if we are to protect our freedom and security.

Constitutional Analysis Shows the Democrat Senators are Violating the Constitution

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies the powers of the President. This clause states that the President shall

"nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ... ."

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

Wherever a super-majority is not explicitly specified in the Constitution, a simple majority of fifty percent of the Senators present plus one, which may include the Vice President to cast a tie-breaking vote, is required. Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution states that

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

The Democrats are claiming they can filibuster the "advise and consent" function, which is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Senate, to block and prevent this responsibility from being performed, unless there is a 60 percent super-majority vote in favor of a cloture motion to end the filibuster.

The Senate's definitions of filibuster and cloture are as follows:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.


http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

The parliamentary procedures for a filibuster and cloture are specified in the Senate rules. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution states

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

The Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings, but not in a way that violates the Constitution. For example, the Senate cannot require in its rules that more or less than the constitutionally specified two thirds of the Senators present concur in making a treaty. As another example, the Senate cannot change its rules to prevent the Vice President from casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, as specified in the Constitution. As a final example, the House and Senate cannot change their rules to require more or less than the two thirds super-majority vote required by Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution to override the President's veto of legislation approved by the House and Senate.

Furthermore, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution does not require a super-majority of Senators present to approve a change the Senate rules. The Republican majority in the Senate can and should change the rules to eliminate filibusters entirely or at least for all presidential nominations and appointments.

The Democrats have claimed that the filibuster protects the rights of minorities, but that is a fallacious argument. The filibuster is not specified in the Constitution, and the Constitution protects the rights of minorities by providing each state with the same number of Senators - two - regardless of size and population. Furthermore, the filibuster did not exist for many years after the founding of the nation.

Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution states

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

"... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Senate Republicans Should Invoke the Constitutional Option

The Democrats may also claim that because a filibuster is allowed by the current Senate rules, it can be used to require a sixty vote super majority to concur with a presidential nomination of a Supreme Court judge or to change the Senate rules.

However, the Senate rules may not be applied in a manner that is inconsistent with or that violates the Constitution. Therefore, the Republican majority can and should invoke the Constitutional Option, and require a simple majority plus one, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to appoint each Supreme Court judge nominated by President Bush.

Because Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution states that Vice President Dick Cheney is the President of the Senate, and the President of the Senate presides over the Senate, i.e., chairs its meetings, Vice President Cheney can and should use his position together with the Republican majority on the Senate Rules committee to ensure that the Constitution is followed.

However, President Bush and the Senate Republicans should precede this action with a sufficient public education campaign to counter-act the disinformation campaign by the Democrats in Congress and in the News organizations.

The Republican majority can also vote and approve by the same simple majority plus one, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to change the Senate rules to clarify that the filibuster rules conform to the Constitution and do not apply to concurrence with presidential nominations, or to eliminate the filibuster altogether.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that every clause, sentence, phrase, and word in the Constitution is present for an intentional purpose, after careful analysis and deliberation. There are no excess or randomly chosen sentences or words. There is even a U.S. Supreme Court decision to this effect.

Furthermore, the Constitution was written in plain language to be understood by ordinary people. It is clear from the writings and philosophy of the Founders, including the Federalist papers, that they intended for the Constitution to be clear and well understood by the average person in order to protect and preserve the new freedom and form of representative self-government.

With this in mind, the three main cited clauses of the Constitution are provided below within their context.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, regarding the powers of the President:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.


Article I, Section 3, Clause 4:

Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 is Election Day in California for the Special Election

July 15, 2005

California's special election will determine significant issues including a redistricting reform initiative to end election theft through gerrymandering during the redistricting process.

Now is the time to learn more about these California ballot measures, and to help inform other voters by using talk radio, the internet, letters to the editor, and personal conversations. Our freedom and our tax money depends on it.

Election Section Index

California Secretary of State Election Information

CRA Election Information and Recommendations


Ballot Measures:

• Proposition 73 - YES - Parental Rights
  
• Proposition 74 - YES - Education Reform
  
• Proposition 75 - YES - Paycheck Protection
  
• Proposition 76 - YES - Fiscal Responsibility
  
• Proposition 77 - YES - Redistricting Reform *
  
• Proposition 78 - NO   - Socialized Medicine for Drugs
  
• Proposition 79 - NO   - Socialized Medicine for Drugs
  
• Proposition 80 - NO   - Increase Electric Utility Regulations **
  

November 8, 2005, Special Statewide Election - Qualified Ballot Measures (Voter Initiatives):
http://ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2005Special

The full texts of the initiatives listed on this page are available on the Attorney General's website at:
http://www.caag.state.ca.us/initiatives/activeindex.htm

November 8, 2005, Special Statewide Election - Election & Voter Information:
http://ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm

November 8, 2005 Statewide Special Election Information:
http://ss.ca.gov/elections/statewidespecial.htm

Additional election and secretary of state links:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm
http://www.ss.ca.gov/

If you value your freedom, personal and public safety, and your hard-earned money and property rights, you should review the election information and recommendations from the California Republican Assembly.

Note that FraudFactor.com™ is not affiliated with the California Republican Assembly, but has found their information useful.

California Republican Assembly:
http://www.ca-ra.org/

California Republican Assembly election information and endorsements:
http://www.californiarepublicanassembly.com/elections.htm

Proposition 73:

A "YES" vote protects parental rights, protects children from medical malpractice, and protects parents and their families from potentially bankrupting medical expenses resulting from unauthorized non-emergency surgical procedures and their complications.

A Parental Notification measure for minor children that requires a waiting period and parental notification before a minor child can have an abortion surgical procedure.

This measure helps restore parental rights, and helps protect parents and their minor children from the long term medical problems and expenses associated with botched abortion surgery due to medical malpractice and other risks. Because are financially responsible for the costs of medical complications resulting from abortion surgery, and because abortion is not a life-saving time critical emergency medical procedure, parents should have their rights restored to be involved in medical decisions concerning their minor children.

This measure is supported by parents and religious leaders. It is opposed by the abortion surgery industry and by leftist politicians and organizations who oppose parental rights and traditional families, including those pushing same-sex marriage and who support reducing the legal consent age for children to have sex with adults.

Interestingly, this measure is opposed by many leftist politicians and organizations that support a waiting period before an adult citizen can excercise their natural right to self-defense, as recognized by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, to purchase a defensive firearm. In many cases, the need for self-defense istime-critical. By denying women their right to self-defense, these leftist politicians and organizations are increasing the number of rape victims and unwanted pregnancies.

Proposition 74:

A "YES" vote protects school children, their parents, and the tax payers from the devastating long-term affects of incompetent, non-performing public school teachers who receive permanent employee status in only two years under the current system.

A Child Education Protection measure, changes the public school teacher tenure rules to improve education quality for the children and avoid the disasters and lost years of education created by entrenched incompetent teachers.

This measure helps protect public school students and their parents by increasing the length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years.

It also authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. This will give greater protection against incompetent teachers, including teachers who "retire in place" without telling anyone, but come to the classroom each day and collect their paychecks without actually teaching.

This measure is supported by parents and competent school teachers. It is opposed by the teacher union bosses and incompetent teachers.

Proposition 75:

A "YES" vote protects workers' take-home pay and First Amendment rights from corrupt union bosses who deduct extra money from a worker's pay check to fund and launder through political campaigns without a worker's written permission.

A "YES" vote protects everyone from corrupt union bosses who effectively steal millions of dollars of union member money to support dangerous, soft on crime, tax and spend leftist politicians and ballot measures.

A Paycheck Protection measure for Union Members that requires the Union Bosses to obtain written consent from a union member before political campaign contribution money can be deducted from that union member's pay check.

This measure helps protect a worker's take-home pay by preventing greedy and corrupt union bosses from taking extra money out their paychecks, in addition to normal union dues for union operating and management expenses, to spend on or launder through political campaigns, without the worker's written permission.

This measure also protects a worker's First Amendment free speech rights by preventing corrupt union bosses from taking extra money out their paychecks without written permission, and spending it on political campaigns for politicians and ballot measures that the union member is opposed to. This existing union corruption is analogous to politicians stealing tax payer money to spend on their own re-election campaigns and the campaigns of their political cronies.

Without the protection provided by this measure, it is more difficult for union members to stop corrupt union bosses from laundering their union payroll deductions through political campaigns to pay large salaries to relatives, friends, and political cronies for no-show jobs.

Contrary to the misleading Union Boss television ads against this worker protection initiative, this initiative does not change the current system with respect to union membership dues that are deducted from union member pay checks to pay for normal union overhead and operating expenses, including union staff salaries, legal expenses, and negotiation expenses.

Proof of the need for this initiative is the massive and expensive television political advertising campaign being waged against it by corrupt Union Bosses using millions of dollars that were improperly deducted from union member pay checks without the union members' permission.

Proposition 76:

A "YES" vote helps keep the state fiscally solvent, protects essential and emergency government services, and avoids tax increases.

A Fiscal Responsibility measure that changes the state minimum school funding requirements established by Proposition 98, which was supported by school teacher and other public employee union bosses to divert tax money from essential and emergency government services to pay for increased teacher salaries and benefits, and to pay for educating millions of illegal aliens in California.

This measure permits suspension of the minimum funding, terminates the repayment requirement, and eliminates the authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease.

Proposition 77:

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT !

A "YES" vote greatly reduces government fraud and corruption by non-responsive entrenched incumbent politicians who draw safe, non-competitive gerrymandered election district boundaries for themselves that guaranty their re-election.

A "YES" vote will stop the recurring election theft in California where the general election outcomes are determined before the election by the election district boundary lines, and will save large amounts of taxpayer dollars.

A Redistricting Reform initiative to greaty reduce government fraud and corruption including recurring election theft through gerrymandering during the redistricting process.

Its passage will greatly reduce the problem of corrupt nonresponsive politicians elected in safe, non-competitive election districts where The election outcome is determined before the general election.

This initiative will remove the extreme conflict of interest of the current redistricting system where the incumbent politicians are allowed to redraw and manipulate the boundary lines of their own election districts to guaranty they keep getting re-electioned regardless of their performance or level of political corruption.

See the FraudFactor.com™ paper, Gerrymander and the Need for Redistricting Reform, at:

http://fraudfactor.com/ffgerrymander.html

This measure amends the state Constitution’s process for redistricting (re-drawing the election district boundary lines) for California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. It requires a three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt a new redistricting plan after the measure passes, and again after each national census as required by the U.S. Constitution. The redistricting plan must conform to requirements to avoid or reduce gerrymandering, and is subject to voter approval and judicial review.

This measure alone will result in enough tax dollar savings to pay for the entire cost of the special election, by reducing the cost of government waste and corruption that results from gerrymandering. There is an estimated one-time state redistricting cost, with comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once every ten years).

Proposition 78:

A "NO" vote helps prevent tax increases.

This measure establishes a Socialized Medicine Program for perscription drugs, creates additional government bureacuracy, and costing the tax payers up to an additional twenty to forty million dollars annually. This measure provides discounts to Californians who qualify based on listed eligibility qualifications, to be funded from the state General Fund and through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by the California Department of Health Services.

This measure increases costs to the tax payers at a time when the state is experiencing a budgetary crisis. It will likely lead to tax increases, and millions of illegal aliens in California may qualify for this tax payer subsidized new program.

Proposition 79:

A "NO" vote helps prevent tax increases.

This measure establishes a Socialized Medicine Program for perscription drugs, creates additional government bureacuracy, and costs to the tax payers. The prescription drug price control in this measure limit drug prices and provides discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded from the state General Fund and through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by the California Department of Health Services.

This measure increases costs to the tax payers at a time when the state is experiencing a budgetary crisis. It will likely lead to tax increases, and millions of illegal aliens in California may qualify for this tax payer subsidized new program.

Also, the price controls in this measure may reduce the supply of perscription drugs.

Proposition 80:

A "NO" vote avoids increased government regulations and environmental restrictions on electric utility companies.

A government regulation measure to increase regulations and environmental restrictions on electric utility companies.

Additional information on this measure will be provided after it is studied and analyzed.

Organizations that rate legislative voting records as conservative, liberal, or on specific issues such as gun control, abortion, and taxes, often compute and report inaccurate information due to flawed analysis and scoring systems. More information on flawed legislative scoring systems and recommended improvements are provided at:

http://www.fraudfactor.com/ff_first_draft_0004.html

This why the following rules, ROBBINS' RULES, should be used in addition to watchdog organization legislative scores.

Candidates and ballot measures supported by leftist newspapers, labor union leaders and organizations, including police officer and firefighter "associations" and teacher associations, or "environmental" organizations, usually deserve a "NO" vote.

The leaders of these organizations who decide which candidates and ballot measures to support and oppose typically support left wing politicians and ballot measures that will reduce your personal and public safety, and take away more of your rights, your money, and your property. They will raise your taxes and then waste your money on their private political agenda spending programs.

Leftist newspapers and news organizations, especially those of larger cities, typically support the most liberal and leftist candidates and ballot measures either with outright endorsements or with undeserved positive news coverage and editorials. Unfortunately, this is often true even in smaller cities. Examples include the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Sacramento Bee, and many others. You can avoid being manipulated and misled by the liberal news organizations and have some fun doing it. Their misleading voter recommendations and voter guides can be useful if you vote the opposite of their recommendations for all candidates and issues for which you are not sure.

Union leaders tend to be socialist or even Marxist Democrats. Union leaders confiscate money from their members in the form of involuntary payroll deductions, and then spend that money to support the most leftist Democratic party candidates and issues. The labor unions have become so corrupt that they spent many millions of members' confiscated dollars to oppose a California ballot initiative that would have prevented Union leaders from taking political fund money out of a member's paycheck without the member's written permission.

A typical union newsletter or mailer containing political endorsements looks like a Democratic party candidate roster. A good rule of thumb is to vote the opposite of the recommendations of the union leaders, just as with the liberal newspapers and news organizations.

One major Teamsters embezzlement and money-laundering scandal involving the Democratic party led to the conviction of seven persons and the removal of then-Teamsters president Ron Carey. "In 1996, almost $1 million in Teamsters union funds that was partially laundered through the Democratic Party and other Clinton re-election groups helped re-elect Carey." For more information on this specific case and the long history of union fraud, read Union Corruption and Campaign Contributions by Michael Moroney, October 2000, Capitol Research. Other articles article to read on union corruption are the Union Corruption Updates, from the National Legal and Policy Center -- Organized Labor Accountability Project.

Police chiefs, unions, and organizations that make political endorsements and take public positions on political issues do not poll their department or organization members. Actual police polls have shown that at least 85% to 95% of the rank-and-file police officers oppose the political policies and endorsements made by their union leaders (e.g., National Association of Chiefs of Police annual polls). Police chiefs are political appointees and are often unqualified to serve as police chief.

Most "environmental" organizations are controlled by socialist and Marxist Democrats who are using the organization's name and money to lobby for laws and candidates that are consistent with their own extremist agenda. Under their agenda, we will lose our personal and public safety, our personal liberties, and our property rights. They use scare tactics, claiming that those who disagree with them want to kill us by poisoning our water and air and starving our children and grandparents. This is ironic given the fact that it was communist government dictatorships that murdered tens of millions of innocent victims, and used forced starvation to eliminate millions of innocent men, women, and children. The communist dictatorships also trashed their environment because their authoritarian regimes were not accountable to the citizens.

Beware of Democratic slate-mailers deceptively labeled as "voter information for Republicans"

Yes, this is done regularly. You can recognize these deceptive Democratic slate-mailers because the candidates and ballot measures they support are the most liberal Democratic candidates and issues. You can also recognize these slate-mailers by applying the other rules in this list.

Any candidate who has supported or campaigned in favor of any form of "gun control" deserves a "NO" vote even if you do not own a gun

Support for gun control is an accurate "acid test" of liberalism and left-wing political agendas, extending to all other issues including taxation, property rights, personal liberty, public safety, law enforcement, criminal justice, death penalty, and national defense. Politicians and public figures who support gun control typically also support greatly increased taxes, welfare, and other wasteful government spending; and they support policies and laws that reduce or eliminate property rights, personal liberty, public safety, law enforcement, criminal justice resources, the death penalty, and national defense.

If you know nothing about a politician or candidate except that he supports any form of "gun control" targeting law-abiding citizen, then he is most likely on the wrong side of the other important issues as well. This is true of support for waiting periods, registration or licensing laws, unsafe storage laws and use limitation devices (i.e., mandatory lock-up laws and mandatory "trigger lock" laws), and bans on traditional self-defense and sporting firearms mislabeled as "assault weapons" and "Saturday night specials".

Any candidate or ballot measure endorsed by former "Republican" governor George Deukmejian deserves a "NO" vote.

Former Republican Governor George Deukmejian has endorsed numerous liberal and leftist ballot measures and candidates since leaving office.

Many people wrongly believe that Deukmejian supports Republican and/or conservative issues. This is why liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans use his endorsement for their candidates and ballot measures.

While still governor of California, Deukmejian sold out to former Democratic California Assembly Speaker and political boss Willie Brown and the far left wing of the Democratic party. Deukmejian defected to the Democratic party and signed their legislation to ban and ultimately confiscate traditional firearms from the law-abiding public (1989 AB 357 / SB 292). The vote on this legislation was split along party lines and passed with a bare minimum of 41 out of 80 votes in the State Assembly. A veto could not have been over-ridden by the necessary two-thirds of the legislature.

As part of his payoff, Deukmejian had his pension spiked by Willie Brown and the Democratic controlled legislature with a substantial pay increase just before he left office.

Candidates endorsed or financially supported by Pete Wilson tend to be either liberal RINOs (Republican In Name Only) or unprincipled, opportunistic "moderates". They are known as "Pete Wilson" Republicans.

Many people wrongly believe that former Republican Pete Wilson supports Republican and/or conservative issues because of his support for the popular Proposition 187 which restricted welfare and other free government services for illegal aliens.

However, Pete Wilson was a typical unprincipled, opportunistic "moderate" politician. As a U.S. Senator, he voted on both sides of a given issue at different times. This way he could tell different constituent groups that he voted for their position. As California Governor, Wilson continued this behavior, signing about half the gun control bills sent to him by the Democratic controlled legislature and vetoing the other half. Wilson signed various extremist Democratic bills into law.

Tom McClintock is a true Republican. He is a conservative/libertarian who supports your Constitutional rights including self-defense rights, and reduced taxes and government spending.
http://www.TomMcClintock.com/

Richard Riordan Profile

http://www.CPPF.org/CPR/Articles/RepSelfMutilation1101.html

Riordan is known as a "RINO" by many - "Republican In Name Only". Many of the grass roots Republican activists and volunteers have expressed that they would vote third-party or not at all in a general election if Riordan wins the Republican nomination in the primary election.

A Riordan win in a primary election would do additional damage to the Republican party in California, on top of the damage done by previous liberal Republican candidates including Dan Lungren. Contrary to the claims of liberal RINO Republicans, the Republican Party lost significant political ground in California because it moved too far to the left, towards the Democratic Party, rather than too far to the right.

This damage was done by RINO candidates running for statewide office in the past including Michael Huffington, Dan Lungren, Tom Campbell, and others. In California, Republicans cannot win statewide offices without the support of cross-over Democratic party voters, due to voter registration demographics. When the Republican party and its candidates move to the left, it fails to distinguish itself from the Democratic party, and it alienates the cross-over Democratic voters including the Reagan Democrats and Democrat firearm owners. Loyal Democrat voters will vote for the real Democrat candidate rather than a Republican imitation.

Riordan's Political Record

"He has spent more money electing Democrats than most Republicans will see in their lifetimes." He supports banning and confiscating traditional firearms including rifles, shotguns, and handguns from the law-abiding public. He supports partial-birth abortion. And he supports massive tax increases to fund government social programs.

Riordan has endorsed and donated to left-wing extremists including California's Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an outright Marxist. Riordan donated $20,000 to the liberal and anti-gun Democratic Governor Gray Davis, making a donation of $12,500 as recently as March of 2000. His wife Nancy Daly, an active political liberal, kicked in another $12,500. Riordan donated almost $500,000 to the late Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley during his various mayoral races and in his gubernatorial race against Republican George Deukmejian in 1982.

Riordan has endorsed the liberal and extreme anti-gun Democrat Dianne Feinstein for U.S. Senate in California in 1994 when she ran against the liberal Republican Michael Huffington. Riordan endorsed Feinstein again in 1998 when she ran for U.S. Senate against the liberal Republican Tom Campbell.

Riordan's position in favor of banning firearms, putting firearm dealers out of business, and initiating city-wide police sweeps to confiscate firearms make Sarah Brady's extreme public statements supporting gun control seem mild.

Give official California driver licenses to illegal aliens including terrorists, drug smugglers, and other dangerous criminals (AB 60) - voted on and approved by the Democrats after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!

Give the cheaper in-state tuition price at California colleges to illegal aliens including possible terrorists, while protecting their identity and the fact that they are criminals, and favoring them over U.S. citizens from other states or from California who moved to another state and then back again.

Require teaching homosexual awareness and sensitivity training to elementary school children including grades 2 through 6.

Ban the retail sale of most current models and all used discontinued models of handguns by arbitrarily re-defining them to be "unsafe handguns" or "Saturday night specials", regardless of quality, price, size, weight, caliber, and the citizen's right and need for self-defense.

Require firearm owners to obtain a handgun license to exercise their natural right to self-defense. This law applies only to ordinary non-violent citizens and not to felons. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Haynes vs. U.S. (1968) that a felon cannot be convicted for failure to register or license a firearm because that would violate the felon's Fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

Numerous other dangerous gun control laws that target and punish ordinary nonviolent citizens who have no criminal intent, prevent self-defense, and increase violent crime based on the last 20 years of scientific criminological research.

Democratic Governor Gray Davis squandered away the large state tax money surplus, and tied up California tax payers with long-term over-priced electricity contracts that were made in secret behind closed doors. Under these secret contracts, Gray Davis bought electricity at prices significantly above market rates. These contracts will reportedly cost the average family several thousand dollars extra over the next several years. The details of these secret contracts were made public only after a Republican legislator successfully sued Gray Davis under the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250 et. seq.). Governor Davis asked the court in that case to keep the contract details secret until a date after his next election date in November 2002.

Click Here for the Action Alert Index
Click Here for the Reasonableness Test for Crime Control Laws

( reference http://www.NLG.org/ )

"The National Lawyers Guild is an association dedicated to the need for basic change in the structure of our political and economic system. We seek to unite the lawyers, law students, legal workers and jailhouse lawyers of America in an organization that shall function as an effective political and social force in the service of the people, to the end that human rights shall be more sacred than property interests.

"Our aim is to bring together all those who recognize the importance of safeguarding and extending the rights of workers, women, farmers and minority groups, upon whom the welfare of the entire nation depends; who seek actively to eliminate racism; who work to maintain and protect our civil rights and liberties in the face of persistent attacks upon them; and who look upon the law as an instrument for the protection of the people, rather than for their repression."

The following quotes are from Bugliosi's article in The Nation magazine, titled None Dare Call It Treason, dated Monday, February 5, 2001.

Complete article:

Printer-friendly version:
http://www.TheNation.com/docPrint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi

Standard version:
http://www.TheNation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi

"... this means that these five Justices deliberately and knowingly decided to nullify the votes of the 50 million Americans who voted for Al Gore and to steal the election for Bush. Of course, nothing could possibly be more serious in its enormous ramifications. The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen--pure and simple, the theft of the presidency. And by definition, the perpetrators of this crime have to be denominated criminals."

"But make no mistake about it, I think my background in the criminal law is sufficient to inform you that Scalia, Thomas et al. are criminals in the very truest sense of the word."

"No technical true crime was committed here by the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election. It is so far-out and unbelievable that there was no law, then, for these five Justices to have violated by their theft of the election. But if what these Justices did was not "morally reprehensible" and a "wrong against society," what would be? In terms, then, of natural law and justice--the protoplasm of all eventual laws on the books--these five Justices are criminals in every true sense of the word, and in a fair and just world belong behind prison bars as much as any American white-collar criminal who ever lived. Of course, the right-wing extremists who have saluted the Court for its theft of the election are the same type of people who feel it is perfectly all right to have a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in a federal penitentiary for some poor black in the ghetto who is in possession of just fifty grams of crack cocaine, even if he was not selling it. [§ 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(A)(iii)]"

"Though the five Justices clearly are criminals, no one is treating them this way."

"These five Justices, by their conduct, have forfeited the right to be respected, and only by treating them the way they deserve to be treated can we demonstrate our respect for the rule of law they defiled, and insure that their successors will not engage in similarly criminal conduct."

"Why, one may ask, have I written this article? I'll tell you why. I'd like to think, like most people, that I have a sense of justice. In my mind's eye, these five Justices have gotten away with murder, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure that they pay dearly for their crime. Though they can't be prosecuted, I want them to know that there's at least one American out there (and hopefully many more because of this article) who knows (not thinks, but knows) precisely who they are. I want these five Justices to know that because of this article, which I intend to send to each one of them by registered mail, there's the exponential possibility that when many Americans look at them in the future, they'll be saying, "Why are these people in robes seated above me? They all belong behind bars." I want these five Justices to know that this is America, not a banana republic, and in the United States of America, you simply cannot get away with things like this."

"The Republican Party had a good candidate for President, John McCain. Instead, it nominated perhaps the most unqualified person ever to become President, and with the muscular, thuggish help of the Court, forced Bush down the throats of more than half the nation's voters."