Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

Judge Roy Moore Returns to Iowa

In Iowa Politics on February 24, 2011 at 10:29 pm

Former Chief Justice Roy Moore, also known as “America’s Ten Commandments Judge,” will travel to Iowa for the third time since summer of 2010. Moore first traveled to Sioux City, Iowa to speak at events along sides of two members of Congress—Congressman Steve King, and former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of Iowa.

The trio played heavily in the (Vote-NO retention campaign) against three Iowa State Supreme Court Justices, which ultimately led to their removal from office. It sparked a fire in the hearts of thousands of Americans in every state of the Union, and drew national attention by USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, the Washington Post, New York Times, and more. Roy Moore played a crucial part in that campaign, filming commercials and speaking all over the state alongside Peacemakers Political Action Committee Chairman Cary Gordon.

On February 26th and 27th, Moore will speak at several events concerning: truth, values, and leadership. Roy Moore is the founder of MoorePAC, the official Roy Moore Political Action Committee which promotes the ideals of Faith, Family, and Freedom and the candidates and campaigns that share the same mission. Moore also serves as President of the Foundation for Moral Law, a complete separate entity of MoorePAC that is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.

Moore will be speaking Saturday, February 26th 9:00am – 3:30pm and on the 27th at 10:00am at the First Assembly of God Church, located on 1700 West 2nd Street/ Hwy 92 West, Indianola, IA 50125. Event will be hosted by To find out more information about Roy Moore and his events, visit: or call the Executive Director of MoorePAC at 850.776.1553




Deace’s Daily Top Three – February 24th, 2011

In Humor, Iowa Politics, National Politics on February 24, 2011 at 10:13 am

My three most interesting stories of the past 24 hours.

This is how it’s done...HF 330 would seek to restore the rule of law in Iowa as well as marriage, while also putting the Iowa Supreme Court in its proper and constitutional jurisdiction. Of course, attempts to do so has all the right people annoyed, offended, and lashing out, which is just further proof of how righteous this legislation actually is.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry…This week the police department in Bradenton, Florida arrested a 20 year-old Texan named Joshua Lee Joehlin for engaging in a lewd and lascivious act with a minor. While that unto itself is sad, it wouldn’t be necessary except that the police report lists Joehlin’s religion as “red neck.”

Wisconsin update…Wisconsin state troopers were dispatched Thursday to try to find at least one of the 14 Senate Democrats who have been on the run for eight days to delay a vote on Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to strip collective bargaining rights from nearly all public employees. Nonetheless, State Democrat leadership says they’ll remain on the run until Walker shows a willingness to compromise. Meanwhile, the state assembly  appeared close to voting on the union rights bill after two days of filibustering the measure with a blizzard of amendments.

Reason #4,568,312 why primaries matter

In Iowa Politics on February 24, 2011 at 8:33 am

If you’re not familiar with Iowa Judicial and have yet to make it a part of your regular online reading, I would suggest you do so. Nathan Tucker and the folks over there are doing some decent work in an effort to reform Iowa’s out of control judicial branch. This morning I received the following email from Tucker in response to three new appointments Co-Governor Terry Branstad made to the Iowa State Supreme Court on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Governor Branstad appointed Iowa Court of Appeals Judge Ed Mansfield, trial judge Bruce Zager, and Davenport attorney Thomas Waterman to the Iowa Supreme Court.  Showing little regard for his past promises to Iowans, Branstad has made no effort to assure the public that his appointees will exercise judicial restraint.

Branstad had previously stated that he will only appoint candidates who respected the voters’ rejection of Varnum v. Brien.  Branstad had also recently pledged that:  “I feel an important obligation and responsibility as the chief executive of the state and the person who does make the appointments, to try and choose the very best people – people who I think share the philosophy of judicial restraint that I think most Iowans believe the courts should exercise.”

While he hesitated at making his interviews of the candidates publicly available, Branstad had indicated that he would consider posting non-confidential portions of the interviews online.  While certainly less than what the State Judicial Nominating Commission provided, it would have given Iowans the ability to assess the answers given by each of the nine nominees.

Instead, in making his appointments, Branstad simply stated:  “It is the role of the judiciary in the state of Iowa to say what the law is, as applied to cases before the courts, rather than saying what the law should be.  The separation of powers is central to our Iowa Constitution.”

Branstad, however, made no effort to assure Iowans that his appointees agree with his judicial philosophy.  To the contrary, each of his appointees have made troubling statements in their application material and/or interviews before the Commission, statements that the Governor has failed to indicate are not reflective of his appointees’ judicial philosophy.

For instance, perhaps echoing President Obama’s call for judicial empathy, Judge Mansfield wrote in his application material:  “Appellate judges should have enough real-world experience to understand the effects of their decisions on people’s lives.  There is more to justice than legal elegance…I would be honored to receive the opportunity to apply my judicial and other experience as a Justice of our Supreme Court.”

Joining the chorus, Judge Zager wrote in his application that:  “I consider myself a progressive thinker…I also have a deep appreciation of the real-world implications of an appellate decision…Most importantly, I also realize that both as a trial judge and as an appellate judge, we are dealing with people’s lives.”

In his commission interview, Zager agreed that empathy is a good quality in an appellate judge.  He continued:  “A lot of it is a gut reaction…I have a good feel for people…It’s all about life experiences.”

For his part, Waterman wrote in his application that the law cannot remain static, failing to explain who determines how the law should change.  During his commission interview, Waterman voiced displeasure at the outcome of the retention vote, calling it a shock to the judicial branch.

Given the highly liberal makeup of the Commission, it may well be that none of the nine nominees could have assured the Governor that they would exercise any sort of judicial restraint on the bench.  But if that were the case, Branstad should have used this opportunity to educate the people on the need to change the process.

Instead, with a wink and a nod, the Governor apparently wants us to believe that he has found the judicial philosophy of each of his appointees acceptable. Rather than claiming that the Commission tied his hands and that his picks are the best of the worst, Branstad now, for better or for worse, owns these three new justices.

Branstad has failed to exercise any type of leadership, much less conviction, on this issue, leaving the impression that his prior promises to Iowans were simply an attempt to pander to conservatives.  Conservatives don’t want campaign promises, they want action, and the Governor has failed to deliver.

Everything Tucker says here is correct, but if you were paying attention during the last primary election in the Republican Party when some of us tried to warn you this is likely to be the type of “leadership” you’d get from a fifth Terry Branstad term, it should come as no surprise. The man has a 16-year record of capitulating to judicial oligarchy, took no stand on the judicial retention election during the 201o gubernatorial contest, appointed the man who wrote Varnum v. Brien to the State Supreme Court, began gay adoptions in the state which was the first tangible policy advancement of the homosexual agenda in Iowa, said on the campaign trail that opinions of courts and not laws made by duly-elected legislatures are “the law of the land,” and so far as governor has literally taken no action to aid the will of the people expressed in last fall’s judicial retention election on this issue.

When it comes to the issue of the rule of law and the interpretation/application of the Constitution, which in my opinion is the most defining issue of this era, there is functionally no difference between Branstad and his Democrat predecessor, which is what some of us tried to tell you during the 2010 primary campaign. The only difference between these liberal, ungodly, and unconstitutional judges and the ones Culver would’ve appointed to replace the three fired former State Supreme Court Justices is they’re registered Republicans. I trust the wicked and unconstitutional rulings they make from here on out won’t be quite as offensive to your senses, since they’re coming from three more Republicans instead of three more Democrats.

The responsibility to hold Branstad accountable for his clear dereliction of duty to his Oath of Office so far in his administration lies with those who in the last primary cycle worked so hard to help him get re-elected and said the alternatives that were being offered by his primary challenger were unrealistic, unconstitutional, or would create a constitutional crisis. From where I’m sitting, we already have a constitutional crisis created by the judicial oligarchy Branstad has spent his entire political career up to this point enabling, and Branstad’s actions (which speak louder than words) so far in his fifth term are an unrealistic and unconstitutional means by which to reform it.

During that primary cycle, these people failed to introduce any alternatives to what Bob Vander Plaats’ was saying other than a constitutional convention and an amendment to the State Constitution, which takes a minimum of four years to ratify and the recent situation in California proves they’re not the ultimate cure to this disease any longer. Now that their guy is sitting in Terrace Hill and fiddling while Rome burns on this issue, I anxiously await to see how they will hold Branstad accountable for this gutless leadership, and what remedies they will pressure him to pursue to clean up his own mess. If you’re looking for a good place to start, I would recommend Tucker’s email.

In the meantime, let this again be a reminder for those that want our country back that primaries matter, and primaries aren’t about fundraising contests or personalities or platitudes, or using your connections and platforms to attain your next job — they’re the most immediate means by which to advance righteousness in the civic arena and to use them for anything less makes things worse not better.

Finally, A Real Pro Life Bill

In Iowa Politics on February 14, 2011 at 11:15 pm

History was made in the Iowa Legislature today.

For the first time ever, real pro life legislation that might actually save babies and uphold the inalienable right to life made it out of a subcommittee in the Iowa House. HF 153, authored by State Rep. Kim Pearson and co-sponsored by 27 other Republicans, is the first “life at conception” bill to make it out of subcommittee.

The bill states:

The sovereign state of Iowa recognizes that life is valued and protected from the moment of conception, and each life, from that moment, is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and the laws of this state. The Iowa Supreme Court shall not have appellate jurisdiction over the provisions of this section. This Act, being deemed of immediate importance, takes effect upon enactment. This bill establishes that the sovereign state of Iowa recognizes that life is valued and protected from the moment of conception and each life is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons by the constitutions of the state of Iowa and the United States, and by the laws of the state. The bill also provides that the Iowa Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over the provisions of the bill.

That is perhaps the most righteously-worded piece of legislation I’ve ever read. Imagine where the fight for the sanctity of life would be in this country if we had started the battle here the day after Roe v. Wade in state legislatures all across the country with bills worded exactly like this? Instead, we spent a generation fighting on the legal positivists and baby butchers’ terms, accepting their unconstitutional and immoral premise that courts make law and then reinforcing it ourselves fighting for abortion mills regulatory reform bills that ended with the hellish phrase “and then you can kill the baby.”

Perhaps no institution in America has fought harder and longer for the sanctity of human life than has the Catholic Church, which is why it’s surprising to find that the two lobbyists at the Iowa Statehouse from the Iowa Catholic Conference are registered as “undecided” as of now on HF 153.

Not only does this bill begin with the most righteous and American premise about the sanctity of life, but its wording also asserts a dually important premise that courts don’t make law and have no authority to try and do so not granted to them by the other two branches refusing to assert their constitutional authority.

“We had absolutely riveting personal stories from two women who had had abortions,” State Rep. Pearson said. “They spoke of the physical pain of the abortion and the sound of the vacuum. Both cried out for the ‘doctors’ to stop. One woman was held down by a handful of staff. The guilt and shame of the abortions lead them down a path of further destruction (suicide attempts, drug/alcohol abuse) until they felt the forgiveness and healing from Jesus Christ. They were so brave!  When they realized that the bill had passed its first hurdle they cried and thanked the Lord.”

Opposing the bill in subcommittee was Democrat State Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell. Republican State Rep. David Heaton was the deciding vote that sent HF 153 to the full 21-member Iowa House Human Resources Committee. A majority of that committee’s members must approve of the personhood measure before it can be voted upon for passage out of the Iowa House and sent to the Democrat-controlled State Senate.

Neither of Iowa’s twin governors, Terry Branstad and Mike Gronstal, has indicated whether or not they would allow the legislation to move forward should it pass the Iowa House. Hopefully the language limiting the jurisdiction of the Iowa Supreme Court found in the bill will become a mainstay in all legislation made by those attempting to restore America’s constitutional and natural law foundations.