Government

What You’re Not Hearing About the New Jobs Bill: It Overrides State’s Rights

Scroll Down For An Update To This Story:

New Jobs Bill Overrides States Rights

With the introduction of The American Jobs Act, Americans may soon witness a rerun of the Obama healthcare struggle. Much like its predecessor, president Obama’s newest bill contains certain provisions that would appear to benefit those who wrote the bill more than those for whom the bill was supposedly written.

For instance, buried deep, deep on page 133 of the bill, it states:

SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.

(a)    Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act.

Come again? Under the bill’s authority, states are not immune from federal prosecution if they violate the act. In the event this bill passes, it will override a state’s sovereign authority as defined and protected under the 11th amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Odd that a bill that seeks to “create jobs” and one that concerns itself with things such as “payroll relief” and “teacher stabilization” can also override the 11th amendment.

It gets even better:

(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act [emphasis added].

Any state that receives Federal assistance under the direction of bill automatically forfeits its sovereign immunity. Should an employe of the act seek federal prosecution, the state must abide.

They will literally make a Federal case out of it. The bill continues:

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- With respect to a particular program or activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State first receives or uses Federal financial assistance for that program or activity.

c) Remedies Against State Officials- An official of a State may be sued in the official capacity of the official by any employee or applicant for employment who has complied with the applicable procedures of this Act, for relief that is authorized under this Act.

(d) Remedies Against the United States and the States- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an action or administrative proceeding against the United States or a State for a violation of this Act, remedies (including remedies at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies would be available against a non-governmental entity.

It would seem that The American Jobs Act was drafted in order to achieve statist goals rather than create jobs. The authority of individual states is all but thrown to the side.

Much like the healthcare struggle, provisions such as the ones mentioned in the above will incite a strong reaction. As well it should–the stakes are too high.

Dick Morris said it well when he wrote:

It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity. It bids we let our rights to our own property, that we have worked for and acquired, be sublimated to government power disguised as human rights. It asks that we elevate the demand for equality over that for economic initiative and the incentives which propel them.

The American Jobs Act may or may not create jobs. It will, however, lessen and diminish the individuality of the states.

“Liberty once lost is lost forever,” John Adams said.

Read The American Jobs Act here.

Update: The original reporting of this story was not entirely fair. Since posting the article, it has been brought to the author’s attention that a stipulation that waives the 11th Amendment is neither uncommon nor is it sensational.

As pointed out by The Blaze’s Meredith Jessup:

[If] a state is allocated a certain amount of funds for a road project, the initial funding for the project is a debt incurred by the state to be reimbursed by the federal government. This is so the feds can enforce guarantees of debt. It also prevents states from hiring contractors and then refusing to pay. Without the waiver of the 11th, the contractor would have no legal standing to sue the state for non-payment since the federal government is the ultimate source of funds (see the 14th Amendment).

You can find similar language in other bills [such as] The Americans with Disabilities Act.

Essentially, an 11th amendment waiver prevents states from contracting workers and then refusing to pay. Although a waiver of this type does surrender the 11th, it is not an unheard of arrangement.

Therefore, while the claim that states lose their sovereignty if they accept any aid provided through this bill is factually correct, it is the belief of this author that the original story was an overreaction.

Comments (333)

1 2 3 ... 9
  • Mike N
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:07pm

    This Bill, by including the referenced provision, directly contradicts the United States Consitution, and therefore automatically invalidates any Congressional approval of the Bill before first amending the Constitution to remove the protection afforded by the 11th Amendment.

    Our inexperienced SCROTUS can propose anything he wants, perhaps even get Congress to pass it . . . he just can’t enforce it.

    Sorry Adolph . . . it just ain’t that easy! Our forefathers were MUCH smarter than you and yours. They saw you coming . . . over 200 years ago.

    Report Post »  
    • 4GODUSAANDISRAEL
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:18pm

      If people were upholding the constitution this is very true, it couldn’t be enforced if it passed. However, look at the unconstitutionality of the Medical Insurance mandate of Obummer care. Even though it’s unconstitutional, you still have judges ruling AGAINST the constitution and saying that this mandate is legal. They don‘t care if it’s constitutional or not. They’ve been ignoring the constitution for the last 3 years, why would they follow the constitution in this case? WE NEED TO GET HIM OUT IN 2012!!!!

      Report Post » 4GODUSAANDISRAEL  
    • reinbeau
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:21pm

      Absolutely, Michael. But who knows enough and is paying attention enough to stop them? Didn’t stop a non-native born to be elected to the highest office of the land…

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:38pm

      Actually, it does not contradict the Constitution. Sovereign immunity prevents citizens from filing suit against a state, as stated in the 11th Amendment. However, states can waive that immunity and allow citizens to sue for certain actions. This provision does not have anything to with federal prosecution as the article states, additionally, neither does the 11th Amendment.

      When the federal government gives money to the states, it can attach conditions, such as this one. Contrary to what the Blaze article states, this is merely a condition on money from the federal government. If a state does not want to comply with the conditions, it does not have to accept the money, there is nothing unconstitutional about that. Furthermore, this provision only requires that state officials will be held accountable if they violate the law.

      Also, when a citizen sues a state, it is not prosecution. Additionally, the article states that this bill “will literally make a federal case out of it.” News flash, when a federal law, which this may become, is violated, it is a federal case.

      Clearly, the author of this article does not understand the American legal system but thought that this could stoke fears about Obama becoming a dictator.

      Report Post »  
    • TH30PH1LUS
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:52pm

      PROBLEM: Americans have allowed the Federal Government to trash the limits of the Constitution for so many decades, that in order to return to the clearly stated boundaries – it will take a strong, persistent, determined, concerted effort to do so.

      There will be outcries, and fierce resistance to that effort. Those who attempt to return the Fed back to the Constitution, will be labeled as “radicals” who should be feared as loons. But the reality is that the “loons” are those who see nothing wrong with our out-of-control, debt-ridden, oil-addicted, tax-hungry government.

      What to do, what to do…

      Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
    • AOL_REFUGEE
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:54pm

      Did this piece of work O’Dumbo take villain lessons from Snidely Whiplash?

      Report Post » AOL_REFUGEE  
    • Dougral Supports Israel
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:17pm

      @Godfather So, under your interpretation of that law it would be OK for the Federal government to enact confiscatory tax rates then offer a grant if we agree to waive our rights under the 1st and 2nd amendments? Does the Federal government have to abide by any constitutional principles in the disposition of money it has taxed from us? Ponder on this a while and consider what kind of country you want to live in.

      Report Post »  
    • Libertyluvnmomma
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:27pm

      let’s not forget that Boehner sees some agreeable items on this bill.
      boehner is treasonous to the TEA party/conservative platform. “Off with his Bohner”

      Report Post » Libertyluvnmomma  
    • jblovesAmerica
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:36pm

      Obama, must be held accountable.
      Obama-Care-& Works program-all paths to Communist Way of life.
      wake up America

      Report Post »  
    • jakartaman
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:38pm

      Barry is one chief justice away from getting his socialist agenda forwarded

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:49pm

      I agree Mike … you can’t just invalidate parts of the Constitiution that get in your way! IMPEACH AND IMPRISON THIS DICTATOR!

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:50pm

      This Bill also has provisions to collect revenues. Therefore the White House can not summit a Bill like this to Congress. Bills like this must originate in the House.

      Why must all revenue bills originate in the house of representatives?

      Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.

      Obama is diong something that he can not due under current Constitutional rules.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Steve
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:52pm

      This had better not pass Congress.

      Report Post »  
    • Alvin691
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:04pm

      @godfather.1 No law can override the Constitution or bill of rights, and with explicit language? Of course, all one must do it review your recent posts to see your agenda.

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:09pm

      @Dougral Supports Israel

      My interpretation of the Constitution doesn‘t matter but the Supreme Court’s does and the Supreme Court has held that Congress may require states to waive sovereign immunity in order to receive federal funds. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985).

      In case you are unaware, when the Supreme Court hands down an opinion, it becomes the supreme law of the land, even when it interprets the Constitution.

      Therefore, you and everyone else who thinks this is unconstitutional are just flat out wrong.

      You would think that the author of this article and all the other people on this website might do a little more research before spouting off on a subject on which you have no knowledge.

      Report Post »  
    • Marci
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:11pm

      You have that right Mike. The ONLY problem is we have a boatload of complicit justices out there ignoring the constitution in favor of the progressive agenda. The useful idiots believe they have a spot in the up and coming new structure, but are wrong, it is reserved for a select few, and useful idiots are not among them.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • southernORcobra
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:52pm

      obama needs to go sooner than later we can’t wait till 2012

      Report Post »  
    • thankfulness
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:58pm

      I think that the President means well. I do not think he is full of hate (though I can not say for certain) but whether he means well or not is not the issue here. But if this article is true this action can pave the way to something to be concerned about. And this can be someone who comes from either or niether party. And maybe even someone who the President would not really want to see come to power. It is when people who mean well break down the safty barriers when bad things happen and bad people take over. This is something any student of history knows and understands. Hopefully we never have a dictator. Hopefully we never have a hateful or spitful or cruel dictator run for office. Not if the Republic is weakened. Or even if it is intact.
      more often than not good intentions and blind trust leads to nightmares. Hopefully we are too smart and too civil and intelligent to move in that direction. Maybe we will be okay.

      Report Post »  
    • VRW Conspirator
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:20pm

      @Godfather.1
      Umm…NO…when the SCOTUS hands down a ruling it is only valid until such time as a later court wishes to re-evaluate that ruling. The SCOTUS is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.. .GOD is… otherwise the SCOTUS under presidents like Wilson, FDR, and even Lincoln could have forever destroyed this country when they approved the criminal behavior of those administrations. It took later courts to repair the damage, re-instate Civil Rights, pardon supposed traitors and insurgents, and restore stolen property and wealth.
      READ…
      “endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights…Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

      the SCOTUS CAN NOT take these away NO MATTER how they rule on a given federal law…..

      Report Post » VRW Conspirator  
    • henryKnox
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:21pm

      @godfather Yes, there is a way to override the constitution, it is called amendment. It however requires ratification by the states first.

      Report Post » henryKnox  
    • earthbonz
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:26pm

      You got it, 4GODUSAANDISRAEL! The founders expected the separation of powers to sufficiently protect our Constitutional Republic. It would, if we were a moral nation.

      Our country has become immoral and as a consequence, through the votes of an immoral people,all three branches of government are corrupt. The Supreme Court will not protect our Constitution.

      Report Post » earthbonz  
    • deacon01
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:43pm

      Well said, Mike. By the way, what part of “uphold” the constitiution does he not understand? It is time for him to go… and I really don’t care where.

      Report Post »  
    • cloudsofwar
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:57pm

      @ 4GOD………… you are 100% correct.

      Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:58pm

      @GODFATHER.1
      Thank you for your insightful remarks and clarification. Of course it will be lost on 90% of the readers of this rag who aren’t interested in facts or what the law actually means – then again what do you expect, objectivity here?

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • HisNameWasRobertPaulson
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:00pm

      @Godfather… Funny how you are able to read one side of an argument to your benefit, but fail to see the other side at all. The case you state doesn’t back up your side entirely. There are many other cases that failed the test of that case.

      And just because the SCOTUS decided one way at one time, does not mean they will decide the same way the next time.

      You should perhaps read that ACTUAL Constitution of the United States. It is full of interesting words that might be beyond your ability to comprehend, but it IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!!

      Funny, how you think that SCOTUS is. They aren’t. They were never intended to be.

      Time for a history lesson. Maybe read the Federalist Papers.

      The SCOTUS is one of the three branches of government. The other two are Congress, and the Executive branch.

      Legislative, Executive, Judicial. Three branches. It is called a balance of powers. Neither is the supreme law over another. THE CONSTITUTION is the supreme law, you dolt!

      Come back to us when you understand that. Until then, leave your insane rantings to people that don’t actually care about the ACTUAL supreme law of the land.

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:33pm

      @VRW Conspirator

      You are right, a Supreme Court case can be overruled. However, until it is, it is the supreme law of the land, which means that requiring states to waive sovereign immunity to receive these funds is absolutely legal. How does that not make sense to you?

      @henryKnox

      This does not subvert the Constitution. States can waive sovereign immunity which then allows citizens to sue the state in federal court. This bill would merely require that in order to receive federal funds, the state must agree to waive sovereign immunity. Furthermore, that waiver only applies to this law. Just to reiterate, this law does not subvert the Constitution!

      @HisNameWasRobertPaulson

      The other cases that failed the test failed because it was not unmistakeably clear that they were requiring a wavier, not that it was not permissible to require a waiver.

      You are right, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. However, when the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, that interpretation then provides for how the Constitution shall be applied on that specific provision from the Constitution. You may disagree with that, but ever since Marbury v. Madison, it has been settled law that the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution are binding. A later court can always overturn a previous case but until that happens, the Supreme Court’s judgments are the law.

      Report Post »  
    • MomaGrisley2
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:46pm

      Bombard congress NOW!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • liberal_equals_liar
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:57pm

      Nice work on those of you who spanked Godfather1 on his ignorant and arrogant response. It is obvious that SCOTUS precedent allows laws to continue to be enforced, but it does not mean that the law is right or just. If precedent contradicts the Constitution, which it often does, then the precedent is wrong. End of story.
      The bad part is that a law can still be enforced, even when wrong. If you are like Godfather1, then you think that since a law can be enforced, it is obviously correct. This is a stance that puts him in league with Nazis, communists and fascists in general.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:58pm

      If you look closely at any picture of the white house since Obama took office…you’ll see a doormat with “constitution” written on it…and dog “Bo” gets to poop on it on the weekends.

      Report Post »  
    • Secret Squirrel
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:59pm

      .
      Here’s the good news.
      There is no bill.
      The president does not introduce bills before congress.
      All bills must begin with a congressman submitting them.
      Not a single democrat has touched this.
      There is nothing to pass, because it does not exist.

      Obama can waive it around all he wants, it’s a prop.
      Until it is given a number, HR________, it’s just paper.

      I don’t think Obama actually wants to submit it.
      I think he just wants to bash republicans when he says, “Pass this bill.”

      Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
    • rockstone
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 6:02pm

      @godfather “In case you are unaware, when the Supreme Court hands down an opinion, it becomes the supreme law of the land, even when it interprets the Constitution”

      Would that be the same Supreme Court that handed down Dred Scott?

      That one???

      Whew……that’s a relief……

      Report Post » rockstone  
    • avenger
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 6:04pm

      fkng marxist pig…

      Report Post »  
    • njolsson
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 6:14pm

      They’ve been ignoring the constitution since FDR was in office. What makes you think they will observe it now?

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 6:24pm

      A law cannot override the Constitution…PERIOD. The law is therefore null and void on it’s face and cannot be enacted as written.

      My God! The next thing you know, Barry will be trying to pass an “Enabling Act” just like his cousin Adolph did!

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 6:33pm

      Progressives, no, lets be clear about who these people are, COMMUNISTS always write liberty stealing clauses into everything they do. EVERYTHING, and then they create a perceived crisis (such as unemployment and a tanking economy) to rush the Bill through without ample time for Lawmakers to be able to do anything about it. The Healthcare communism is a stark example, as are the Financial reforms, and putridity of the regulatory communists.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Salamander
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 7:13pm

      Careful there–our dumbasses in Congress are so stupid and single-minded that they might just sign it into law, anyway! After all, you gotta meet them halfway, right? Otherwise, you’re just being irrationally obstinate! Just ask Harry Reid! Wow, Harvard just HAS to be PROUD of thier most NOTORIOUS Alumnus! Maybe they’ll be a little more discriminating in their admissions practices in the future. I’d sure like to see a few more graduates from the School of Hard Knocks padding about the Halls of Congress, the Senate, The White House, and maybe, even, the Supreme Court!

      Report Post »  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 7:14pm

      I posted this days ago from http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jobs-bill-force-states-to-surrender-sovereignty?xg_source=msg_mes_network

      Michelle Malkin is wise to Bilderberg Rick:
      Texas Tea Party activists to Perry: Hey, what about our borders?
      http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/20/texas-tea-party-activists-to-perry-hey-what-about-our-borders/

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
    • Salamander
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 7:19pm

      Oops, Godfather1, maybe I should have done a little more research before taking the unconstitutionality comment without challenge! Hmmm, maybe the States should REFUSE Federal assistance AND STOP the Federal government from raiding the individual larder in the first place! Perhaps the Federal government should tax the States and NOT their citizens? The tax and legislate process seems to be churning a lot of dollars that would be better spent if left with the citizens that earned them in the first place!

      Report Post »  
    • boomboom
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 7:24pm

      Nullify. NULLIFY. Nullification. !0th amendment. Nullification.

      And, if Mr. Barry Soetero thinks the Army is gonna do his bidding…
      he’s a dumb as he looks.

      No, Wait…he IS as dumb as he looks.

      Report Post » boomboom  
    • TexasLee
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 7:32pm

      I think a good start would be to just repeal each and every thing Obama has legislated, starting with Obamacare. All of it is unconstitutional and against the best interests of the USA. So much so, that it’s become obvious that we have an enemy in the White House.

      Report Post » TexasLee  
    • bigpatrick87
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 7:51pm

      @godfather1
      so we can file suit against obuma for violating the wars power act. I think it’s a dumb law myself but obuma has and still is violating that law. Huh seems you libs never look at it from both sides, the states rights must be upheld and we all know that law will be interpreted 4 million different ways and at the end will look nothing like how it’s written

      Report Post »  
    • PASSIONFORCHRIST
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 7:55pm

      AmEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • korbin
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 8:07pm

      Dude that was well put. Good job brother.

      Report Post »  
    • MIBUGNU2
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 8:13pm

      This Obama Administration has no problem with the Constitution,
      He just ignores it..He taught Constitunal Law, Guess he figures
      it doesn’t pertain to him, not being a citizen of the United States..
      The truth will come out eventually.

      Report Post » MIBUGNU2  
    • random357
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 8:32pm

      Has any one read George Orwell’s 1984?

      This president is sounding more and more like big brother and the ministry of information.
      He is implementing new speak and double think at every turn. It is scary how much of that book applies barak’s administration.

      Report Post » random357  
    • waggie
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 8:39pm

      God help us. We have to put up with this constitution destroyer for the next year, and what if he wins in 2012? We will be finished. GET HIM OUT!

      Report Post » waggie  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 9:44pm

      Unsurprisingly, all you tea partiers and Beck fans have shown that you have a clear misunderstanding of how the American legal system works.

      It is really not the difficult to understand. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, the ruling then becomes binding law across the country. If the case happens to interpret part of the Constitution, from that day forward, that is how that part of the Constitution will be applied, unless of course it is later overturned by the Supreme Court.

      Did any of you pay attention in high school civics or did you fail to make it that far in school?

      Report Post »  
    • Watchingtheweasels
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 9:46pm

      >president Obama’s newest bill contains certain provisions that would appear to benefit those who
      >wrote the bill more than those for whom the bill was supposedly written.

      About as good an explanation for why small inexpensive government is better than big expensive government as you’ll ever find.

      Report Post »  
    • kraphtsman
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 10:03pm

      This so-called “bill” hasn’t even been submitted to Congress… and when it does, will be dismissed out of hand as nothing more than a political prop for this doomed president’s re-election campaign.

      Congress should waste as little time as possible handling this laughable excuse of a “jobs bill” if and when one of Obama’s congressional stooges actually introduces it…. I‘d like to see them shelve it in one of the urinals in the men’s room, where it belongs !

      Report Post »  
    • Wake up dems
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 10:21pm

      Unfortunately, Mike, the law would stand. Godfather is mostly right. States can and do forfeit rights in exchange for “federal” monies. If you know just a few constitutional basics, you will realize you know this as well. A quick example: the constitution enumerates specific powers to the federal government, specific powers to states, and then indicates that any power not specifically given to the federal government shall belong to state or local governments. One such specific power given to states and locales is . . . education. I imagine you all realize how heavily involved the federal government is in legislating in this area: special education regulation, school lunch requirements, No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top. How do they subvert the constitution? And yes, I said, “subvert” and that is where godfather and I disagree. Money. States need the money, and there are strings attached: specifically the waiver of state rights to override the federal rules UNLESS the state turns down the money. And federal money gets so infused into these systems, such as education, that one quickly gets to the point of no return. Now, why I agree with much of what the godfather said, where do we ultimately disagree? We both know this is how the system works, but only one of us believe it is subverting the constituion. Why is it subversion? Because it is our MONEY! The feds take and take, and then they only give back what is ours if we agree to forfeit constitutional rights.

      Ron

      Report Post »  
    • darthnoxin
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 10:43pm

      @Godfather.1

      Atascadero State Hospital v Scanlon does not in any way hold that Congress may require a state to waive sovereign immunity to receive federal funds. The case was brought by a man who claimed he was not hired by a hospital due to his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He lost the case. Even had he won, the only monetary remedies in the Act were attorney fees and potentially back pay. I don’t see how you could stretch the facts of this case into permission from the High Court for Congress to withhold federal funds from states for not agreeing to waive sovereign immunity.

      South Dakota vs Dole did, however, explicitly address the issue. The majority opinion in that case was that Congress was permitted to withhold 5% of a state’s highway funding for failing to establish a minimum drinking age of 21. This Congressional power was subject to four limitations. Three were felt by the majority to be uncontested. The fourth came down to an argument over whether the states were being pressured or forced into compliance. The majority ruled that 5% was pressure, not compulsion. I’m fairly certain that 100% denial of funding would fall more properly under the label “compulsion” and not “pressure.” This, coupled with a noticeable lack of specific authority provided by the Constitution to “create jobs” in the first place, should give you some idea of why we here have reservations about the legality of this bill.

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 11:50pm

      @DARTHNOXIN

      You are mistaken. In the end of Section V of the opinion, the court states that the act falls short of manifesting a clear intent that the State waive sovereign immunity in order to receive funds under the program. Furthermore, in footnote 1, it provides that for a state to waive sovereign immunity in the context of a federal program that the waiver must be unmistakably clear.

      Therefore, the court does address this point in ATASCADERO STATE HOSP. V. SCANLON and states that if the federal law had been more clear, the case could have been brought in federal court. The issue in the case was whether he could file suit in federal court against the state, which would require that the state to have waived sovereign immunity. The court found that it had not, but had the federal program been more clear, the court stated that it could have waived sovereign immunity by participating in the program.

      Thus, although the plaintiff lost, the court still acknowledged that had the federal program been more clear, the state could have waived sovereign immunity by accepting the funds and participating in the program.

      Report Post »  
    • skitrees
      Posted on September 21, 2011 at 12:45am

      Godfather.1: You’re still not quite right… “A later court can always overturn a previous case but until that happens, the Supreme Court’s judgments are the law.” – That is partially right, but congress can add or remove laws in the meantime which invalidate or over-ride previous laws. Thus, back to the main point, the Supreme Court is NOT the “law of the land,” but just one branch of government.

      Report Post »  
    • jhrusky
      Posted on September 21, 2011 at 10:06am

      This piece of garbage in OUR White House is becoming so blatantly obvious that his goal is to turn America into a 3rd world dictatorship, yet no one seems to want to challenge him on these things — he should be brought up on charges of treason and, if found guilty, pay the price as would any other person.

      WOLVERINES!

      Report Post » jhrusky  
    • darthnoxin
      Posted on September 21, 2011 at 10:09pm

      @Godfather.1

      Sorry, but that is simply not correct. The footnote and section V state exactly the opposite of what you suggest:
      “A State may effectuate a waiver of its constitutional immunity by a state statute or constitutional provision, or by otherwise waiving its immunity to suit in the context of a particular federal program. In each of these situations, we require an unequivocal indication that the State intends to consent to federal jurisdiction that otherwise would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. … “[c]onstructive consent is not a doctrine commonly associated with the surrender of constitutional rights, and we see no place for it here.”

      In the Edelman v Jordan case, the court ruled that waiver of sovereign immunity had to be explicit from Congress. In Atascadero the court added to that ruling that the states had to explicitly agree to the waiver. This jobs bill does not contain letters of consent to a waiver from immunity from the legislatures of the fifty states.

      Further, there is no funding in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Instead the act generally states that any state accepting any federal funds provided by other acts cannot discriminate based on physical handicap unrelated to job performance. There is nothing in Atascadero or Edelman rulings that would give an indication form the High Court that that can be interpreted as carte blanche to the Congress to override sovereign immunity in one act based on funding from another.

      Report Post »  
  • Sandy
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:07pm

    The other thing we are not hearing about is that Obummer put this same bill before his controlled Dem. congress and they rejected the bill too. This is political posturing so that he can say Rep. controlled congress is a ‘do nothing congress’.

    Report Post » Sandy  
    • HKS
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:15pm

      All of Obumer’s bills are Trojan Horses for his agenda, socialism and Communism. What else would one expect given the source. Don’t pass anything until he is gone.

      Report Post » HKS  
    • biohazard23
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:23pm

      “If we built this large wooden badger….”

      I’m sorry, but the Trojan horse thing always reminds me of that. :)

      Report Post » biohazard23  
    • NEOBIO
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:11pm

      I would like to know where the elected government body is. Our Dem.congress has their head in the sand. I would like to know who is running our country. Obama bills are being wrote and congress don’t know anything about them until it time to vote on them. It clearly sounds to me, we have one person government .

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:51pm

      The do nothing Congress is the SENATE .. the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE has sent over many pieces of legislation that Harry Reid and the Senate won’t even take up .. INCLUDING CUT,CAP, and BALANCE.

      Report Post »  
    • Rillobymorning
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:54pm

      You are so right, Sandy. All this is, is political posturing to gain himself all the electorate he can manage to round up, by blaming the party of NO.

      Report Post »  
    • Bill in Texas
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:31pm

      the bill was DOA in the House and Senate anyway.

      Report Post »  
  • 4GODUSAANDISRAEL
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:06pm

    thank you blaze for looking into this!!! I was deeply concerned when i read this the other day posted on another story about the jobs bill. again, THANK YOU! Now, everybody get out on the streets and let your friends and neighbors know about this and call your representatives to vote against this!

    Report Post » 4GODUSAANDISRAEL  
    • DeeezNuttz
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 6:48pm

      Ok, this is a bit rediculous:

      @4GODUSAANDISRAEL
      Let your friends and neighbors know about what? This article is a sham? The opinions and concerns of the writer in this article are made up, fake, a fairy tale, imagination.

      @kaijue “If it’s not there to override the Constitution then why the heck is the clause there?”
      It’s there to protect American workers. It does not “repeal” anything. This is what this particular section of the act states in layman terms: If a state accepts money from this Act from the Federal government, proceeds to hire individuals who are citizens of the state in public positions and violates either 1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 2. The Government Employee Act of 1991, said employee hired who is a citizen of said state can then sue that state in Federal Court when and only when one or both of the laws are violated. It is really that simple. If it is not broken down enough, please let me know and I will break it down further.

      @MILS: “People aren’t interested in the workings of things, they just like to complain.”
      Seriously? No really. Seriously?

      @100 Million Patriots Standing
      “At the risk of sounding conspiratorial…”
      Too late, Sir.

      @I.Gaspar
      “…he is bypassing the constitution at every opportunity.”
      How so? Please provide proof. Facts. Hard data to support you statement.

      marvlus
      “I think it will come to war before we become toast.”

      @Becket Adam and other Blaze staffers: Is this what you all are ho

      Report Post »  
  • Obama_Sham
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:06pm

    Constitutional Law = highest law of the land… No person or law shall override the Constitution nor its ratified Amendments… What is so hard to understand about this?

    Report Post » Obama_Sham  
    • Jim in Houston
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:36pm

      Must be very difficult for the Constitutional Scholar in the White House. That ass clown can’t spell constitution, much less know anything about it.

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:06pm

      This does not attempt to override the Constitution. I know that Blaze attempts to spin everything Obama does as unconstitutional but that is just not the case.

      Report Post »  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:33pm

      ” What is so hard to understand about this? ”

      I don’t know, but clearly most of those posting here have little or no understanding of the constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • kaijue
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:47pm

      If it’s not there to override the Constitution then why the heck is the clause there? It repeals protections to the States in the 11th Amendment without going through the Amendment process. That alone makes it unconstitutional. Beck is right on this. Through Executive Order and through his staff, there is a lot this president and his administration is doing that is a violation of the Constitution by by making laws through regulations without the consent of Congress. That should remain solely in the realm of Congress and this Congress has an obligation to stop him.

      Now we have this Soros funded push to get the National Popular Vote passed, rendering the Electoral College useless and in violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution with states forming a compact.

      We have the words of the founders on the intent. When a modern court or judge makes a ruling tat contradicts that intent, the judge and ruling is wrong. End of story.

      Godfather, you need to get your head out of your butt

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:02pm

      Obama studied Constitutional Law .. in order to learn how to dismantle it .. IMPEACH!

      TEA!

      Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 4:00pm

      @kaijue

      You need to open a book and do some research. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can require states to waive sovereign immunity in order to receive federal funds. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the language in this bill as it is perfectly legal. You may not like, but it in no way subverts the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • Ernest Huber
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:39pm

      @Godfather.1. You unethically advanced improper law using Atascadero to justify 11A waivers, because that case held contra. If you haven’t read it, read it here, then apologize for misleading the readers. http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/234/case.html#237 Bottom line: Obama’s ongoing conduct clearly evinces an intent to subvert the Constitution, and yours supports it.

      Report Post »  
    • MIBUGNU2
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 8:22pm

      This is just another Political Game to Obama..The Stupid
      People will believe anything he say’s, MSNBC say’s he is
      such a NICE GUY, Has that little boy smile.. so anything
      he reads off the teleprompter has to be TRUE..

      Report Post » MIBUGNU2  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 9:39pm

      @ERNEST HUBER

      I will not apologize because nothing I said was wrong or misleading. In footnote 1, the court clearly states that a State can waive sovereign immunity in the context of a federal program but it must be unequivocally clear. In that particular case, the court found that it was not unequivocally clear and thus reversed the lower court’s holding. The Court stated the act failed to clearly state that the State would be waiving immunity if it chose to receive the funds.

      Thus, as long as it is unmistakably clear, Congress can requires a State to waive sovereign immunity in order to receive federal funds.

      Now, are you going to apologize for trying to mislead the people on this board?

      Report Post »  
    • Ernest Huber
      Posted on September 21, 2011 at 3:36am

      @Godfather.1

      LOL! Footnote dicta is not precedential. Your ignorance of legal citation and jurisprudence, evasiveness, fallacious argumentation and frantic parroting when cornered indicate you’re a fake. Please allay my suspicions with your real name and bar number, otherwise we must view you as a time-wasting troll and cease your feeding.

      Report Post »  
  • Mtroom
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:01pm

    Lemme guess, This means only unions will be able to benefit from the job act…And the state will be able to do nothing about it…Just a thought

    Report Post » Mtroom  
  • waynef2000
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:00pm

    Wish I could get my name of these points. Afraid Obama will give me a tax audit like he did Beck.

    I am sore afraid that he may try to back door this. I don’t think this will happen, he’s just trying to paint the repubs as caring for the rich only. Read AP and Washington press where the totally refute the claims BHO has made, re: the tax burden on people of all economic classes

    Report Post » waynef2000  
  • Rightsofman
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:00pm

    I went to grammer school so long ago that they taught that the federal Govt’s function was to do FOR THE STATES

    Report Post »  
  • Black Manta
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:59pm

    Mr. Obama is a muslim………….

    Report Post » Black Manta  
    • obama-mecca-me-sick
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:04pm

      Just like his daddy……

      Report Post »  
    • code green
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:13pm

      Seal team six got rid of one muslim threat to America. It is now Americas turn to get rid of the other muslim threat that lives in the White House .(at the polls of course)

      Report Post »  
  • Echelon
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:58pm

    I’m packing my bags now and heading to a better place…. like Cuba! At least you know where that country’s president stands.

    Report Post » Echelon  
    • PATRIOT
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:03pm

      No go to Pogo-Pogo it is an american territory but has no fed tax only local tax. and has growing businesses.

      Report Post » PATRIOT  
  • AZGodGoldGuns
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:57pm

    “King Obama”, what more can one say?

    No wonder all he kept saying was, “Pass This Jobs Act, Pass This Jobs Act”!

    Report Post »  
  • amuzed_right_guy
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:56pm

    What is this guy trying to incite? Another civil war against the slave-owners in DC who have made themselves our “masters”.

    Report Post »  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:36pm

      What is the Blaze trying to incite? If the author of this article actually read up on some Constitutional law, he would have found that this has been held Constitutional by the Supreme Court back in 1985.

      I guess the author knows that everyone who will actually believe this stuff is as uneducated and dimwitted as he. Thus, he didn’t do any research to determine whether the claims were actually true.

      Report Post »  
  • MrsMB2008
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:52pm

    This is all part of the President’s plan. People dismiss his intentions and say “oh, he is just confused”, no he isn’t. He is a brilliant man with the intent to fundamentally transform America. Take him at his words!

    Report Post »  
    • american1st
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:17pm

      for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction…
      i hope this move to destroy the constitution becomes public knowledge and wakes people up to how much we need a constitutionalists states rights candidate!!!
      and also pushes us beyond thinking another big government establishment republican would be any different than what we have now….

      Report Post » american1st  
    • CatB
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:04pm

      He studied Constittutional Law for just this purpose .. to DISMANTLE IT!

      TREASON!

      Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:51pm

    Everyone understand what is being said about this fiasco of a takeover; this will be the end game of the country when it passes, and I can almost guarantee it will by some kind of backdoor hook and crook scheming on the parts of Reid and Mr Obama.

    Remember Mr Obama demanded this be passed immediatly, without anyone looking it over, and Reid has tabled it until after the vacations are done.

    So one of two things are going on:

    A. Blind grab for end-game power which I have warned repeatedly is coming. And appears to be the case in this matter.

    B. Reid/Hillary are allowing time for the other “secret catches” in the bill to be discovered; to discredit Mr Obama even more and force him out of the 2012 race, so Hillary may get into the office.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • PATRIOT
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:51pm

    This will not be good

    Report Post » PATRIOT  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:08pm

      No, this is very bad indeed; we are facing the last end-game grasp for power on the part of the admin and the progressives. They will make this move in the open, and with agressive boldness, holding nothing back at all — somehow they wlll get this through via a trick or ten of the legislative procedure and then it will be end game for all.

      If it is stopped, and I pray it will be by the Fathers intervention and our efforts combined, then expect a scorched earth play to bring down as much of the nation as they can.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • pap pap
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:50pm

    How can this POS POTUS manage to become more and more terrifying each day ?

    It‘s scarey what he’s trying to do to us.

    Can’t wait til 2012.

    Report Post »  
    • antiencenom
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:05pm

      You bet your ass we CAN”T wait till 2012,we need to impeach NOW!!!!

      Report Post » antiencenom  
  • blue_sky
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:49pm

    .
    ==============================================
    It is official – Romney (the mandates guy) is finished.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgLXC66ttk

    Since Obama cannot be re-elected due to unemployment, it is now
    Perry (former Al Gore man) vs Ron Paul (man of the Constitution)

    =================================================

    Report Post »  
    • fatjack
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:08pm

      It’s coming!…………………..Are you ready?

      Report Post » fatjack  
    • obama-mecca-me-sick
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:11pm

      Awesome clip. They are all progressives- even Perry. This is how Obama gets reelected- run a progressive rino against him and most conservatives refuse to vote at all and Hussein completes his fundamental transformation and completely destroys what once was America. Sad very sad.

      Report Post »  
  • RightUnite
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:46pm

    This will NEVER, EVER pass….

    Report Post »  
    • IntransigentMind
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:51pm

      Again, it’s not supposed to pass. Limbaugh’s finally figured this out, but this guy told you yesterday:
      http://markamerica.com/2011/09/19/barack-obamas-desperately-phony-deficit-reduction-plan/

      Report Post »  
    • PATRIOT
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:52pm

      You gotta pass the bill so you can know what’s in it

      Report Post » PATRIOT  
    • BrokenHearted
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:54pm

      You are correct it will not pass, but this is just another example of the types of legislature that are trying to take away our states rights. What about the next one?

      Report Post » BrokenHearted  
    • mils
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:56pm

      never say never..seriously…this is America. People aren’t interested in the workings of things, they just like to complain. Most don’t even vote. Now if you cut off their cable or cell phone, there would be an uprising.. We live in a fantastic place that we are allowing to fall. We are allowing due to our lack of concern. We voted in a man because of the color of his skin…what next? so, never say never

      This needs to be talked about all over the news..but we don’t hear about it.

      Report Post »  
  • PAUL GULLO
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:31pm

    we need to do something about this, we need to get this guy out and bring litigation against these people, this must be illegal, i have said before “deception is the the biggest crime against the human mind”
    they are abviously trying to deceive the house and the congress, and the american people.

    Report Post » PAUL GULLO  
    • godlovinmom
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:49pm

      Pual…that’s what I keep telling myself…THIS HAS GOT TO BE ILLEGAL…between the DOJ”s fast and furious, black panther intimidation case dropped, solyndra, the “real” birth certificate, unconstitutional obamacare, new “jobs” bill….THE LIST IS LONG…can we possibly get something on obama that would stick…and get him out of our White House, along with his czars!!!

      Report Post » godlovinmom  
    • thankfulness
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 6:27pm

      Things certainly do not make any sense anymore.
      I really do not like to say that maybe just maybe Glenn Beck might be right? Still hope that it all turns out to be wrong…… but who really knows.

      Report Post »  
  • Dumb_White_Guy
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:24pm

    What i would like to know is “who” wrote this bill? Center for american progress or the tides foundation?

    Report Post » Dumb_White_Guy  
    • 100 Million Patriots Standing
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 5:51pm

      At the risk of sounding conspiratorial when you compare language in the jobs bill with the UN plan of sustainability you will notice a quaint similarity. “rail corridors” and preference for green agenda’-

      most everything he has done to date is in vison of that grand plan, that we have dismissed before; Agenda 21,,,,,

      not a real plan? then look up the schedule of topics for this session of the UN now underway in NY-
      you will see the implementation of Agenda 21 as a topic more than once.

      remember the ‘rural council’ – the council of women and girls’ and the “coast and waterways agreement” and countless others dealing with sustainability….it’s all over the US government.

      anything he has been doing including the jobs bill is crafted with it being in sync with Agenda 21 of the UN.

      if it weakens state’s rights – why Mr, Obama what big teeth you have….. “all the better to eat you with my dear”

      Report Post » 100 Million Patriots Standing  
  • captaincameron
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:23pm

    This should not surprise anyone. Eliminate the 50 (or 57, in his mind) states and replace them with The State, with him as the leader.
    As I. Gaspar says, if Obama gets this one, we are toast. Eliminating states’ rights here is just the first step and will make it easier for him to win in 2012. We won’t get another election after that; we will have a President For Life, although I suspect he will change the title from President to distance himself as far as possible from the last 220 years of American history.

    Report Post » captaincameron  
  • Bill from NJ
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:23pm

    This POTUS should re-read the Bill of Rights; Article Ten.

    It is called States Rights!!!

    Please America wake up to what is happening to our country by these pinkos.

    Report Post » Bill from NJ  
    • dezertol
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:04pm

      10th?. didn’t the 17th more or less void that out?

      Report Post »  
    • Bill from NJ
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 2:03pm

      The 17th admendment to the Constitution:
      “With the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate ceased being elected by State legislatures, replacing it with a system of popular election”.

      Report Post » Bill from NJ  
  • smokeysmoke
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:22pm

    Ruh ROE, Waiver of Sovourgn immunity… that sounds nice

    Report Post » smokeysmoke  
  • Elena2010
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:20pm

    This bill needs to be shoved down the throats of those who dreamed it up until it comes out the other side. Maybe Obama will “hear” THAT!

    Report Post » Elena2010  
  • Grace1798
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:19pm

    This is Obama and the Progressive Socialists/Marxist’s plan. IF they tax every American to death, and you cannot PAY UP…..they will take everything you own for themselves…THEN…..you will have to live off the government….THUS, you are now the SLAVE of the Government and they are the DICTATOR. IF they can do this to EVERY AMERICAN, then they can be the Elitists they’ve always wanted to be and you will have no choice but to do their bidding. IF you think this is not the plan, why are they bankrupting everyone, every business, every bank but they take care of themselves?
    Think about it.

    Report Post » Grace1798  
  • I.Gaspar
    Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:17pm

    This is what everything is about with this guy.
    Jobs mean nothing to him; he is bypassing the constitution at every opportunity.
    If he gets this one we are toast.

    Report Post »  
    • marvlus
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:26pm

      I think it will come to war before we become toast.

      Report Post »  
    • antiencenom
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 12:56pm

      I have your back I.Gaspar

      Report Post » antiencenom  
    • veracity79
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 1:30pm

      Marvlus, sorry I had to laugh at that…war…yeah right. I used to think the same thing. I don’t believe America has the guts to stand up and fight anymore. Too complacent, we b’tch, we blog, we post, and we do NOTHING. Too many Beck-Bots now, preaching pacifism. I don’t advocate war or violence, I’d much rather do without, however, at what point is enough, enough? When is our childrens’ future and the future of this country worth it? The only guy out there that is completely in line with our much revered “founding fathers” is Ron Paul, yet the “conservatives” (and I use that term very loosely) out there, especially on this site LOVE to bash and scoff at the man because they truly have no real idea what our country was founded on. Brainwashed sheep…and then they get p’ssed off when those that do get it call them a bunch of neo-cons. If the “conservatives” don’t get a crash course in our TRUE history real fast, they will be the ones that do the country in…perfect irony.

      There is no Republican and Democrat Party, they are one in the same, working for the same people, it’s an illusion, a facade of choice. It will be too late by the time those people realize the error of their thinking and wake up. I contend that it already is. God help my children and our future generations….

      Report Post »  
    • Diego Roswell
      Posted on September 20, 2011 at 3:49pm

      Veracity79 – I am with you. Too much talk and wasteful platitudes. The two party system has been morphed into one progressive party. Only Ron Paul has spoken the truth and has been consistently ridiculed for it. When all of the “fly over” states become one big internment camp while the guns are collected by FEMA, for your own safety, maybe then you sheep will wake up.

      Report Post » Diego Roswell  
1 2 3 ... 9

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love