Hey WeDems need your help TODAY,

I just called all 8 democratic members of the House Judiciary subcommittee on Civil Rights and the Constitution... who are holding hearings starting on the 7th into civil rights erosion, privacy intrusions from the Patriot Act etcetera and asked them if the various congressmen could include, weather the federal government should be tracking every prescription written in this country? They all we're very friendly, said they would pass my question along to the congressman or woman (there is one), but it always helps if they hear it from more than one person.This bill removes the privacy between Doctor and Patient, we have to move fast Please Call NOW!

Sample Message:
Congressman ______________,
I just read about the upcoming hearing of the Judiciary sub-committee on Civil Rights & Civil Liberties and The Constitution are holding hearings about the assault on civil rights during the Bush Administration. Also the erosion of privacy, due to the Patriot Act. I wonder if the Congressman/woman would consider looking into weather the Federal Government should be tracking every prescription written in this country!? I don't believe its alright to allow an erosion of our privacy just because it is in the name of "the war on drugs". Why should the Federal government have access to my doctors care of me? This is too much a sign of Big Brother.

Here are the members to contact and their phone numbers:

Hon. Nadler
Chairman
(D) New York, 8th
202-225-5635

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th
(202) 225-2665

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th
202-225-7931

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th
(612) 522-1212

Hon. Conyers Jr.
(D) Michigan, 14th
(202) 225-5126

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd
(202) 225-8351

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th
(202) 225-1510

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th
(202) 225-3265

Please let us know what your results are from these calls in email to ron@wedemocrats.org

And Thanks to Steve Nickels a local WeDems member who put this together.

Peace & Impeachment,

Ron

For a second time, Congress is arguing over a supplemental funding bill for the G.W. Bush War in Iraq. As you all know by now, Congress set a new course for the war in Iraq. It provided a way forward for the Iraqi people, and laid a path to bring our Troops home. Sure it had riders on it to provide funding for some of the pressing problems faced in this country.

But the idiot we have in the Whitehouse chose to veto the Iraq spending bill. Why? His stupid pride was hurt.

This president has a revenge-obsession with Iraq and continues to play like the three monkeys or at least two, he closes his eyes and covers his ears to the truth of this occupation. He could give a damn about the U.S. troops who have died in Iraq, a number approaching 3,400 men and women, not to mention the deaths tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The farce of a president has thrown away over $427 billion of taxpayers hard earned money in Iraq, a vast amount of it has been stolen by unscrupulous U.S. contractors. This is $1423.00 for every man, woman and child in this country.

Yet for all these dollars, our soldiers have inferior equipment, and based on the news shoddy medical care even in our most prestigious Veterans Hospitals such as John Hopkins.

Now Bush is threatening once again to veto funding legislation. His comments concerning this bill was “it could reasonably burden the President’s exercise of his constitutional authorities, including his authority as the Commander in Chief…”. Why or how?

Well since it sets a date for withdrawal and provides funding for the occupation only until July. But since it also contains provisions for helping to rebuild the Gulf Coast States that were ravaged by Katrina, and provides for more improved health care for returning troops and for all veterans, and restores the shortfall in the State’s Children’s Health Insurance Program, and provide heating assistance for the low income and needy, and yes it also increases funding for homeland security. He says that it’s a burden. Bull hockey!

It surprises the dickens out of me that this psuedo President even knows what the Constitution is, since he has repeatly violated its laws, and tried to circumvent it at every turn. Seems convienent that he ignored the constitution when he was invading another country based on lies, when he allowed American citizens to be wiretapped without court approval, when he violated treaties that every civilized nation on earth honors, when he setup pet military tribunals to try so called enemies of the United States, when he suspended habeas corpus, when he encouraged kidnapping and yes even torture, when his storm troopers conduct illegal searches. It boggles the mind that he now says that it raises “constitutional concerns.” What a load of crap.

Read the Constitution, and pay particular attention to the parts about where We The People through our elected Representatives have the power of the purse, where it is the duty of Congress to declare war, not a whim of the President, and pay particular notice to the part about the power to impeach.

It is time to right the wrongs and hold this Administration accountable for Iraq. Around the World, people are turning against America because of this “mission impossible” that is the child of Bush-Cheney and Big Oil.

How can we ever expect other nations to respect our word, when they know that we lied about weapons of mass destruction, when nearly two million Iraqi are now refugees, all because of this President’s desire to one up his father? How can they help us control worldwide terrorism, when we are the cause of it escalating as it has done since this mistaken action in Iraq?

Word is that next week Congress will start holding conferences once again on this critical bill to provide funds for the American military. The Democratic majority has tried to work with the Executive Branch, but it is almost entirely one sided. Our troops need better equipment and training. The Iraqi people need to take the lead in providing for the future in their own country.

Can this time around we see a joint effort from both parties to accomplish this supplemental spending bill? I have my doubts, too many Republicans are following blindly, although each day I hear of others who are agreeing with the Democrats. Last week a delegation of Republican lawmakers met with the Whitehouse and they laid it on the line. Do something and soon. They are fearful of another crushing defeat at the polls in 2008. And they should be.

The Constitution is a living document. It is also our most precious historical document. All that America is and all that it will be is grounded in this document. But regardless of how precious it is there comes times when it must be amended to reflect the progress made in a more modern world.

We should interpret the Constitution as it fits our world today, but we must not take it to extremes. I would suggest that for abortion, gay marriage and gay rights, that there should be amendments. But as to privacy, we should let the Supreme Court hash it out and then we can rely on precedents. I believe that this mixing of the two would make this the living document that our founding fathers wanted it to be.

I would like to see amendments voted on during presidential elections by We The People, a return to Democracy if you will.

Today’s “interest-group democracy” contributes to the proliferation of phony "rights." When "rights" become merely legal claims attached to interests and preferences, the stage is set for political and social conflict. Interests and preferences may conflict, but rights cannot. There can be no conflict of genuine human rights in a free society.

Speaking of phony, former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed wrote that America is united around "a vision of a society based on two fundamental beliefs. The first belief is that all men, created equal in the eyes of God with certain inalienable rights, are free to pursue the longings of their heart. The second belief is that the sole purpose of government is to protect those rights." But his political program is to ban abortion, forbid gay people to marry, and censor the Internet.

When the Federal Government or even one of the States, imposes obligations on its people through the political or judicial process, those obligations can conflict with their natural rights.

How can we tell a real right from a phony one?

In the second paragraph of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson laid out a statement of rights and their meaning that has rarely been equaled for grace and brevity. His task in writing the Declaration was to express the common sentiments of the American colonists.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”

I believe that the right to self-ownership means that individuals must have the right to acquire and exchange property in order to fulfill their needs and desires. To feed ourselves, or provide shelter for our families, or open a business, we must make use of property. And we need to be confident that our property right is legally secure, that someone else can't come and confiscate the wealth we've created.

The ninth amendment states; “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, U.S. Constitution)

In an Associated Press piece quoted on Fox News, was an article about the Circuit Court of Appeals decisions on March 14, 2007 it was implied that the Circuit Court considered the Ninth Amendment no longer relevant, and that the federal government of the United States of America has no moral legitimacy.

In Gonzales v. Raich, the court ruled that the Constitution’s clause to “make regular” interstate commerce permitted federal agents to raid the home of a sick woman and confiscate the six marijuana plants she was growing for her own medication ��" all in a state whose population had overwhelmingly voted to legalize medical marijuana.

The U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that medical marijuana users could be convicted for violating federal marijuana laws even if legal by state law. Therefore, the specific issue in this case was whether the U.S. Constitution recognizes a natural right to life as an unenumerated right recognized by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That Amendment states, in its entirety, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And in Kelo v. City of New London, the court found that the phrase “public use” in the Fifth Amendment allows local governments to snatch land from law-abiding people, and sell that property off to wealthy developers. Property is anything that people can use, control, or dispose of. A property right means the freedom to use, control, or dispose of an object or entity.

Both cases will have negative repercussions for liberty that reach far beyond their specific facts.

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in 1789:
“A man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”

The Founding Fathers understood that every right we have emanates from our right to private property. In this sense, “private property” means not only the right to one’s home and land, but also the right to own the product of one’s labor.

Every right we have stems from government’s recognizance that we, the people, are born with our rights intact. We own them. We have property in them. We voluntarily forfeit some of these rights to government, in exchange for protection from outside threats, the administration of justice and the rule of law.

The purpose of the U.S. Constitution, then, is not to tell us what rights we have. We’re born with the right to do as we please, so long as we don’t harm anyone else.

The Constitution’s purpose is to outline what rights we give to the government, and to firmly define the limits of government power.

Most people do not understand this.

You have probably heard people say things like, “Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to smoke a cigarette?” Or, “Where in the Constitution does it say you’re allowed to look at pornography?”

James Madison worried about questions like these. He feared that if we included a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, people would eventually come to assume the rights it listed would be the only rights we have. Others felt some rights ��" speech, arms, etc. ��" were so vital as to merit explicit mention.

As a compromise, they included the Ninth Amendment, which says that the enumeration of some rights should not be construed to exclude rights not enumerated. So to answer the questions above, your rights to smoke a cigarette or consume pornography are both in the Ninth Amendment.

Many will argue that “dope is dope”, but they are not looking at the overall picture, what this ruling says in essence is that a persons right to take medicine that might give him/her relief from pain or even save their life is no longer valid. Because it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. It isn’t bad enough that the Supreme Court has kept the Ninth Amendment under wraps for years, if these rulings by the Circuit Court of Appeals are upheld it will be the obituary of the Ninth.

As the Supreme Court killed off the Ninth Amendment with Gonzales, Kelo in many ways this represents the culmination of its complete disregard for even our explicitly enumerated rights.

To refer to Madison again. A government that doesn’t respect the title to your land is in all likelihood a government that will in time lose respect for your property in your right to speech, arms and due process. And indeed in recent years, with help from the Supreme Court, government at all levels has run roughshod over even our explicitly enumerated rights.

Because of increasingly restrictive campaign laws, we’ve lost the most important of our First Amendment protections ��" the right to criticize the people who govern us at election time.

The Second Amendment is being destroyed by gun-control legislation. In our nation’s capital, for example, guns of any kind have been all but outlawed.

The Patriot Act and a bunch of Supreme Court “Drug War” decisions have rendered our Fourth Amendment protections from warrantless searches meaningless.

Our Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been diluted in many contexts, and outright suspended in others (drunk-driving cases, for example).

The grand-jury provision is supposed to be a criminal protection, but many prosecutors treat it as an invitation to abuse. And, of course, Kelo wrecked the Fifth’s protection against property-taking. These are really only a few examples. There are many more.

The true meaning of the Ninth Amendment is that there are rights that people have which are not created by the constitution but precede it, and these rights are recognized by the U.S. Constitution just as rights such as free speech are “enumerated” or explicitly stated. The supreme natural right of a person is the right to live and to protect one’s own life. If this supreme right is “disparaged,” hence ignored or disregarded, or denied, then no other rights have meaning.

These Justices have ruled that the right to life isn’t implied in the Constitution, which means that they are denying the Ninth Amendment itself. If this renders the Ninth dead, then by rights that portion of the Bill of Rights is no longer recognized by the Federal Judicial System.

The first duty and moral purpose of the government is to protect life and liberty.

As we have watched our court system become more and more conservative, we see that they no longer believe that the government was created to protect life, liberty nor property, but to do as the Geo. W. Bush Administration has done over and over seize and use power for their own economic and political gains.

Morally I charge that when a government such as this one uses its powers to murder, steal and destroy, it is no different than when one of us does so. And like us they should be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law.

Forget democracy, a constitution or even religious authority, none of these morally absolves a government from enforcing the rule of law that protects its citizens, all its citizens, not just the chosen few.

The origins of the ninth amendment can be traced to the debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution.

The Antifederalists, who opposed ratification, concentrated much of their attack on the absence of a bill of rights. Although many Antifederalists were probably more concerned with defeating the Constitution than with obtaining a bill of rights, they repeatedly pressed this charge because it struck a responsive cord with the people. Because the federal government was one of enumerated and limited powers, it would have no power to violate the rights of the people. “Why, for instance,” asked Hamilton, “should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Second, they argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights might suggest to later interpreters of the Constitution that the rights not specified had been surrendered. An enumeration of rights could thereby lead to an unwarranted expansion of federal power and a corresponding erosion of individual rights.

Neither argument against a bill of rights carried the day. Anti-federalists responded that the Constitution already enumerated some of the rights of the people��"such as the protections against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder in Article I, Section 9, and the right to a jury trial in criminal cases in Article III, Section 2. If an incomplete enumeration was dangerous, as the Federalists had so strenuously argued, then the severely incomplete list of rights already in the Constitution was dangerous indeed. No further harm could be done by expanding the list.

Representative James Madison pointed out that a bill of rights was needed, not only to quiet the fears and suspicions of those who still doubted the new Constitution, but also to better protect the liberties of the people. As Madison observed:
“If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will naturally be led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Despite their many differences, the framers of the Constitution shared a common belief that although the people may delegate certain powers to their agents in a government, they still retain their natural rights. When explaining to the House the nature of the various rights in his proposal, Madison stated that, “in some instances they specify rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature.” Madison’s notes for this part of his speech read: “Contents of Bill of Rights.... 3. natural rights retained as speach [sic].”

That the term “retained” rights referred to natural rights is further reinforced by one provision of a recently discovered draft of a bill of rights written by Representative Roger Sherman, who served with Madison on the House Select Committee that drafted the Bill of Rights:
“The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society, Such are the rights of Conscience in matters of religion; of acquiring property, and of pursuing happiness & Safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of applying to Government by petition or remonstrance for redress of grievances. Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the Government of the united States.”

The Ninth Amendment is the heart and soul of the U.S. Constitution, it recognizes ALL our natural rights and prohibits the Federal Government from denying and disparaging those rights.

All governments the United States included routinely violate human and natural rights, but they derive their constitutional authority from their promise to protect those rights.

Now the Federal Judiciary of the U.S. has said that our Constitutional protections are null and void. The spirit of the U.S. Constitution has been destroyed by our protectors, the spirit of liberty is now dead.

Congress enacts these bad laws that violate the Ninth Amendment, but the Judiciary is supposed to overrule laws that violate our Constitution. When they don’t do so then they have failed in their duties and should step down. It will never happen since Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.

The basic cause of this failure is the packing of the Courts by Right Wing Conservative appointments. Never forget that Conservatives want to be your parent, telling you what to do and what not to do. A contributing factor is the ignorance of most U.S. citizens to understand not only how our system of government works, but what and how our rights were protected by our Founding Fathers.

There is no excuse for this, we each of us must participate in a Civic movement that begins with our young people, and expands to include all citizens, to educate them about our systems and rights.

Without such education the rule of men over the rule of law will continue and it will have a snowball effect, rolling along gaining momentum until we are all living in a Dictatorship.

We can’t pick and chose what we want to use in the Constitution, we must abide by those laws now explicitly expressed in that document, and make intelligent additions where and when necessary to protect our rights.

Ron McBride
Founder WeDemocrats.org
ron@wedemocrats.org

For far too long, incumbents and prolific fundraisers have held an overwhelming advantage in any election. Grassroots candidates usually don't stand much of a chance, as they don't get to use the trappings of office to spread their messages for free, and they usually don't have the money to wage a viable campaign. Money is playing an increasingly important role in politics today.

We need a Clean Elections bill or publicly funded elections that will level the playing field for qualified candidates to run for office without having to worry about wealth or political connections.

Clean Elections are about we the voters not the big campaign donors. Lets force candidates to spend their time talking about the issues and not waste time dialing for dollars.

Clean Elections started in Maine, in 1996, since then, six other states and two cities have joined Maine on the Clean Elections roster, and helped to spread the word about ending pay-to-play politics, and making elections about voters – not big money donors.

With Clean Elections suddenly we will have more people with more diverse backgrounds running and winning. In 2006 there were more than 200 Clean Elections candidates in Arizona, Maine and North Carolina elected to serve in legislative, judicial and statewide offices.

It came as a shock to me to hear that the 2006 elections cost approximately $2,800,000,000. This was the most expensive mid-term election in history. And it’s only going to get worse.

Let’s cut the link between candidates and insider lobbyists who don’t provide the massive amounts out of the kindness of their hearts, they expect that “their” candidates once in office, that politician feels obligated to protect the interests of the groups that put him there and undoubtedly loses sight of the constituents.

Clean Election candidates are free from this pressure; they will do their jobs without regard to who paid for their campaign. They will work for us the voters, not Big Money, Big Business, and Big Drugs etc.

Nearly a fourth of Congress is now supporting Clean Elections, 109 to be exact at most recent count.

When we Americans went to the polls last November, corruption was much on our minds, 41% of those surveyed in exit polls by AP, CNN, and the four major television networks said that this more than any other issue was “extremely important”.

According to non-partisan research, 75 percent of voters support clean elections, and only 16 percent oppose it, indicating that American voters seem to be ready for a public financing system. Americans tend to be keenly aware of the influence that big money has on getting individuals elected, and they don't like it.

Rumor has it that Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) has announced his intention to introduce a Clean Elections bill in Congress very soon. Sometime in March (this month) is what I heard. Representative John Tierney of Massachusetts will introduce the bill in the House.

We saw what happened in the Supreme Court Justice race here in Illinois a couple years ago. Perhaps Illinois needs a pilot program to fund Supreme and Appeals Court Judges, as a kind of test case for a statewide referendum such as those that are now law in Maine, Arizona and North Carolina.

Someone suggested an alternative in by making the public's airwaves available for the public purpose of campaigns.

There will have to be some public moneys involved, but the most essential (also the cheapest, entirely constitutional element) to campaign finance is the right of public use the airwaves.

The great thing is that there are hard numbers available as to how many voters broadcast media outlets reach; these can be corresponded directly to the number of signatures that a candidate would have to obtain to qualify for free airtime.

The only problem I see here is that immediately you have a conflict between Big Media and the grassroots, while the conflict will always be there, given the environment in Washington, I don’t see this alternative working.

Who is most likely to benefit by having most candidates "run clean?" Us--anyone in the grassroots who cares most about good public policy, anyone who has been involved in a public interest campaign that has bumped up against or been crushed by big-money "special interests."

Please contact your legislators and tell them the time for passing the comprehensive clean elections bill is now.

What do we want? Clean elections! When do we want them? NOW!

Ron McBride
ron@wedemocrats.org

Whether you just received our email or you're stumbled upon it while surfing, we hope you'll take a moment to share your ideas.

We're producing organizing guides for WeDems Coordinators, Organizers, members, and prospective members and we want to include your tips and suggestions.

Please help us by sharing your thoughts. We've asked some questions to help get things started.

To reply to one of our questions or to another users' comment:
 Make sure you're logged in to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WeDemocrats/
 Click on the message to right of the message number. Then click on reply, place cursor in upper left corner of message, hit space bar twice and then return to upper left corner with the cursor.
 Type your message and click "send"

To ask your own question or start a new topic:
 Make sure you're logged in to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WeDemocrats/
 Click on “POST” add a subject line, then
 Type your message and click "send"

Recruitment
Growing WeDems is critical to our success and no one knows how to get the job done better than you.
 How do you explain WeDems?
 What "pitches" have you found most successful at getting new members to join?
 What techniques have you used to find new WeDems members? Online? Offline? Local organizations? Friends and family?

Organizational Meetings
We want to help WeDems chapters hold the most effective planning meetings possible.
 Can you share your tips for putting together a great meeting?
 What venues have you used?
 How have you structured your agenda and the different roles and responsibilities for the meeting?
 How have you done follow up?

Other Activities
In between days of action, WeDems chapters are always coming up with innovative ways to spread our message and change America now.
 What kind of events have you found to be successful? Service events? Political events?

Publicity
It's critical to share our success stories with the country.
 What are the best ways you've found to show others what your chapter has been up to? Blogs? Photos? Videos? Other outlets in your community?

Ron
ron@wedemocrats.org