Advocacy - Article V
Mangus Colorado, is a long-time Constitutionalist and CONSERVATIVE. Mangus has shared his commentary below. Follow the information posted as it comes in the order of the Article V process.
NOTE: We will be adding additional content here as well.
NOTE: We will be adding additional content here as well.
DEMOCRACY DEFINED
The slow moving drifting ship of state has been moving ever so slowly toward the doom of Democracy. All have seen the many examples in history here is Plato.
“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” ~Plato
How far down this wrong fork in the road has the American Republic traveled? All examples in the works of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers addressed the fear and pointed out the absolute truth that Democracies always end in failure. Not one single government that started as a democracy has not ended in revolt and wars.
Aristotle said this:
“Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” ~Aristotle
The Founders Framers and Ratifiers studied the ancient governments and history of all times. They debated each as to strengths and weaknesses. Mostly they feared degradation to a Dictatorship or a Kingdom. They used the ideas of “NATURAL LAW” and unalienable rights that flow from the Creator. If freedoms and liberties are at the center of all constitutions then the people would be protected from usurpation and Oppression.
To this end they created a COMPACT we call the Constitution and made it weak, small and LIMITED. While at the same time they allowed the States to be unlimited, strong with few limits. The States were promised a REPUBLIC form of government so they were sovereign and held enough powers to repel Unconstitutional laws from the Federal Central government or the courts. We now find ourselves bullied by usurped powers in all three branches of government. Why do we allow it? Because we the people have been bribed with our own money.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” ~Alexis de Tocqueville
Next is Socialism or Fascism as we currently operate, a Democracy ignoring the Constitution for the most part – America now owns some industries like AIG, FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie May, Chrysler, General Motors, many utility assets like dams and many E=GREEN projects. Clearly we are no longer a free market capitalist Republic. When government uses rules and regulations to control the elements of production it is Fascist, when government owns the elements of production it is Socialist. America under the current elected government – we have drifted into the era of a super controlled population.
Our schools are government and they make it very difficult to differ from the curriculum of the moment. Even Home schools are required to teach some of the required reeducation society biased materials. This has been going on for generations and the test scores have declined. The education system even made the S.A.T. Test easier so more would meet minimum entrance numbers. We then gave grants and loans to all students to attend University. We then encouraged the young to study Political correct subjects – now thousands have graduated with degrees in Minority studies, Languages, Art, Gender studies, Welfare, Social studies, Race relations, and charitable works. Many other major studies, including the before-mentioned, that cannot provide an entry level job that allows the student to make the payments on their Student loans.
The government took over the student loan program and made it so that the student cannot even go bankrupt on those loans. They will be badgered even if they are disabled or ill – no excuses for not paying the Nanny State.
Oh My God, we are for sure a DEMOCRACY full of tyranny and oppression. The youth are going to learn many lessons about the functioning of a DEMOCRACY as they struggle to earn enough to pay the taxes demanded for the Nanny State and the welfare programs. Socialism – Fascism is a very expensive form of government as it requires so many UNION employees to enforce and write the rules and regulations.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.” ~Margaret Thatcher
Today we the people are at a cross road one way leads to Restoration and the free Enterprise system of little Regulation and Maximum freedoms. The other leads to a slow failing economy with a falling standard of living. America is a very ill nation infected with the greed of other peoples’ money.
This is an illness that has never allowed a nation to return to the full and vigorous strong free economy based in the unfettered ownership of property. A will to succeed where those that would not sacrifice would surely fail. Evidence of this historical fact is the number of immigrants that came to America in the last 50 years broke and ready to work as hard as it took to win the gold metal.
Competition drives advancement in all things whether it be running, jumping, studying, building houses, business starts, business operations, finding the best people for the job at hand. America has the most natural resources and the best minds on planet earth but the DEMOCRACY is locking up all the resources and talent using the tax policies and regulations to do social engineering. No, Society has endured this much government intervention in the free operation of development of the elements of production required to drive the standard of living to higher and higher levels – more people living better should be our goal. Not bring down the super successful and leaving the bottom to remain in the ghettos of the large cities.
“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” ~Margaret Thatcher
Mangus Colorado 2013
“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” ~Plato
How far down this wrong fork in the road has the American Republic traveled? All examples in the works of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers addressed the fear and pointed out the absolute truth that Democracies always end in failure. Not one single government that started as a democracy has not ended in revolt and wars.
Aristotle said this:
“Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” ~Aristotle
The Founders Framers and Ratifiers studied the ancient governments and history of all times. They debated each as to strengths and weaknesses. Mostly they feared degradation to a Dictatorship or a Kingdom. They used the ideas of “NATURAL LAW” and unalienable rights that flow from the Creator. If freedoms and liberties are at the center of all constitutions then the people would be protected from usurpation and Oppression.
To this end they created a COMPACT we call the Constitution and made it weak, small and LIMITED. While at the same time they allowed the States to be unlimited, strong with few limits. The States were promised a REPUBLIC form of government so they were sovereign and held enough powers to repel Unconstitutional laws from the Federal Central government or the courts. We now find ourselves bullied by usurped powers in all three branches of government. Why do we allow it? Because we the people have been bribed with our own money.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” ~Alexis de Tocqueville
Next is Socialism or Fascism as we currently operate, a Democracy ignoring the Constitution for the most part – America now owns some industries like AIG, FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie May, Chrysler, General Motors, many utility assets like dams and many E=GREEN projects. Clearly we are no longer a free market capitalist Republic. When government uses rules and regulations to control the elements of production it is Fascist, when government owns the elements of production it is Socialist. America under the current elected government – we have drifted into the era of a super controlled population.
Our schools are government and they make it very difficult to differ from the curriculum of the moment. Even Home schools are required to teach some of the required reeducation society biased materials. This has been going on for generations and the test scores have declined. The education system even made the S.A.T. Test easier so more would meet minimum entrance numbers. We then gave grants and loans to all students to attend University. We then encouraged the young to study Political correct subjects – now thousands have graduated with degrees in Minority studies, Languages, Art, Gender studies, Welfare, Social studies, Race relations, and charitable works. Many other major studies, including the before-mentioned, that cannot provide an entry level job that allows the student to make the payments on their Student loans.
The government took over the student loan program and made it so that the student cannot even go bankrupt on those loans. They will be badgered even if they are disabled or ill – no excuses for not paying the Nanny State.
Oh My God, we are for sure a DEMOCRACY full of tyranny and oppression. The youth are going to learn many lessons about the functioning of a DEMOCRACY as they struggle to earn enough to pay the taxes demanded for the Nanny State and the welfare programs. Socialism – Fascism is a very expensive form of government as it requires so many UNION employees to enforce and write the rules and regulations.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.” ~Margaret Thatcher
Today we the people are at a cross road one way leads to Restoration and the free Enterprise system of little Regulation and Maximum freedoms. The other leads to a slow failing economy with a falling standard of living. America is a very ill nation infected with the greed of other peoples’ money.
This is an illness that has never allowed a nation to return to the full and vigorous strong free economy based in the unfettered ownership of property. A will to succeed where those that would not sacrifice would surely fail. Evidence of this historical fact is the number of immigrants that came to America in the last 50 years broke and ready to work as hard as it took to win the gold metal.
Competition drives advancement in all things whether it be running, jumping, studying, building houses, business starts, business operations, finding the best people for the job at hand. America has the most natural resources and the best minds on planet earth but the DEMOCRACY is locking up all the resources and talent using the tax policies and regulations to do social engineering. No, Society has endured this much government intervention in the free operation of development of the elements of production required to drive the standard of living to higher and higher levels – more people living better should be our goal. Not bring down the super successful and leaving the bottom to remain in the ghettos of the large cities.
“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” ~Margaret Thatcher
Mangus Colorado 2013
Article V - A Successful Amendment – How Will It Work?
When 38(+) State legislatures have approved a request for an Article V Amendment convention, Congress has no choice but to act on the request. They will know that the game is over and they will not fight it, nor will the courts touch the issue. And after the 38(+) States ratify the amendment, it will become the “law of the land”. This will restore America’s foundation - “RULE-BY-LAW” that LIMITS government and “they” can no longer expand and ignore the ACTUAL limits.
My Position on the State Legislative Amendment Process – The Hows and Whys Thereof
Article 5 – Amendment
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,"
As is shown - 2/3 (or 34) of the States can amend the Constitution by causing Congress to open a Convention [which the state legislatures establish the rules for as they chose to design] once open then 2/3 (or 34) of the States using the legislative process can propose any amendment they deem necessary or they can vote on a single issue as was done in the 21st amendment.
Now, many of the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers notes have been provided as reference. I provide these for back ground as In my opinion no Founders papers, notes, books, or any other document can be used to change alter or modify the exact words in the Constitution - they said what they meant in the common language of the day so average citizens of the time could understand the meaning of all inside the four corners.
There was no addendum - there was no reference to Judicial review or to Implied powers not stated. On to the question at hand - could 38+ State legislatures cause a amendment process which Congress did not agree - surely it is clear that only 2/3 (or 34) States can call for an amendment Convention which they can define the rules. If they could not define the rules then 38 States can take action to correct. There is no specific language that defines a Convention so the acts of 38+ State legislatures can surly have that power . .
If 38 State legislatures request of Congress anything - do you believe Congress would resist? Because that would mean a total collapse of the government in the next election cycles. Yes, I am of the opinion that 38 State Legislatures can do whatever they can all agree to pass and then to ratify. There is no power in the Article I - Article II or Article III that can override 34 of the States' desires for the states created the Constitution and they are the Custodian of same for the people of their individual Republics.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,"
As is shown - 2/3 (or 34) of the States can amend the Constitution by causing Congress to open a Convention [which the state legislatures establish the rules for as they chose to design] once open then 2/3 (or 34) of the States using the legislative process can propose any amendment they deem necessary or they can vote on a single issue as was done in the 21st amendment.
Now, many of the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers notes have been provided as reference. I provide these for back ground as In my opinion no Founders papers, notes, books, or any other document can be used to change alter or modify the exact words in the Constitution - they said what they meant in the common language of the day so average citizens of the time could understand the meaning of all inside the four corners.
There was no addendum - there was no reference to Judicial review or to Implied powers not stated. On to the question at hand - could 38+ State legislatures cause a amendment process which Congress did not agree - surely it is clear that only 2/3 (or 34) States can call for an amendment Convention which they can define the rules. If they could not define the rules then 38 States can take action to correct. There is no specific language that defines a Convention so the acts of 38+ State legislatures can surly have that power . .
If 38 State legislatures request of Congress anything - do you believe Congress would resist? Because that would mean a total collapse of the government in the next election cycles. Yes, I am of the opinion that 38 State Legislatures can do whatever they can all agree to pass and then to ratify. There is no power in the Article I - Article II or Article III that can override 34 of the States' desires for the states created the Constitution and they are the Custodian of same for the people of their individual Republics.
Progressives Use 'Straw Men' and 'Red Herring' to Further Their Cause
Perfect example of Straw men and Red herring uses by the Progressives ... friends of the Bar Associations . . no, Conservative - The vast majority of Lawyers are not our supporters - This is part of an argument about the current legal system . . .
Again they call names . . lots of luck . . actually I know CEO s of Insurance companies, and in fact one company where I was an Executive, owned several Insurance companies. Now as to their personal attack and just plain opinion - I have not attacked individual Attorneys , I have pointed out the issues with the system . .
http://lawyerist.com/law-schools-dont-teach-law-students/
What do law schools teach? The answer to this question is up for grabs, in this post-formalist, post-realist, interdisciplinary era. And the answer to the questions of what law schools should teach is intimately connected to a much bigger question, “What should the law become?” Some believe that the courts have been and should continue to be the battleground on which the great political issues of the day are resolved. Ultimately, the aim of legal education then would be to produce lawyers who will plan the litigation strategies that will transform society and produce the rhetoric that will empower sympathetic judges and confuse those who are not. And what about judges and academics? They too are warriors, who wage the war with the opinion or the article, rather than the brief or the motion. This is a frightening future—because law that is a battleground is unlikely to achieve the rule of law—the very great goods of predictability, certainty, and protection from arbitrary power that only formally constrained legal decision making can provide.
http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/000032.html
Many of the top law schools teach the principle of SOCIAL JUSTICE and how the law can be used to correct even the unequal distribution of wealth in the society. If you research enough you will find many article on that particular issue.
The System is flawed just as was the Star Chambers of old. As you said above - Judges do all kinds of bad things but no one takes them on . . Where does a citizen go for Justice after being mistreated by a bad Judge and a bad decision - to the appeals court where other Judges will review the work of an associate . . Yes I have won in this instance but my did it take years and a lot of money. The Judge was sanctioned by the appellant panel but he is still on the bench harming society with bad law.
I am not a Lawyer hater - except maybe when they become Politicians . . for the vast majority as you know are redistribution supporting far left LIBERALS. Just look at the trial lawyers political donations. Tort reform is a must and at the State level - all civil courts should be run like small claims courts - present the evidence from both sides - take witness testimony - the Judge or the Jury then renders a decision on the merits and the facts on hand.
No - precedent cases are required . . for all they do is increase costs and bring confusion to the real issues being questioned . . Case theory is just that theory and can not represent 100% of the issues of the day so dismiss it as immaterial. The law is in statues and cases do not have the power to change the Constitution at the State or Federal level; nor do they have the power to change statutes. They are therefor just OPINIONS and as you know OPINIONS are never findings of facts.
Again they call names . . lots of luck . . actually I know CEO s of Insurance companies, and in fact one company where I was an Executive, owned several Insurance companies. Now as to their personal attack and just plain opinion - I have not attacked individual Attorneys , I have pointed out the issues with the system . .
http://lawyerist.com/law-schools-dont-teach-law-students/
What do law schools teach? The answer to this question is up for grabs, in this post-formalist, post-realist, interdisciplinary era. And the answer to the questions of what law schools should teach is intimately connected to a much bigger question, “What should the law become?” Some believe that the courts have been and should continue to be the battleground on which the great political issues of the day are resolved. Ultimately, the aim of legal education then would be to produce lawyers who will plan the litigation strategies that will transform society and produce the rhetoric that will empower sympathetic judges and confuse those who are not. And what about judges and academics? They too are warriors, who wage the war with the opinion or the article, rather than the brief or the motion. This is a frightening future—because law that is a battleground is unlikely to achieve the rule of law—the very great goods of predictability, certainty, and protection from arbitrary power that only formally constrained legal decision making can provide.
http://www.blogdenovo.org/archives/000032.html
Many of the top law schools teach the principle of SOCIAL JUSTICE and how the law can be used to correct even the unequal distribution of wealth in the society. If you research enough you will find many article on that particular issue.
The System is flawed just as was the Star Chambers of old. As you said above - Judges do all kinds of bad things but no one takes them on . . Where does a citizen go for Justice after being mistreated by a bad Judge and a bad decision - to the appeals court where other Judges will review the work of an associate . . Yes I have won in this instance but my did it take years and a lot of money. The Judge was sanctioned by the appellant panel but he is still on the bench harming society with bad law.
I am not a Lawyer hater - except maybe when they become Politicians . . for the vast majority as you know are redistribution supporting far left LIBERALS. Just look at the trial lawyers political donations. Tort reform is a must and at the State level - all civil courts should be run like small claims courts - present the evidence from both sides - take witness testimony - the Judge or the Jury then renders a decision on the merits and the facts on hand.
No - precedent cases are required . . for all they do is increase costs and bring confusion to the real issues being questioned . . Case theory is just that theory and can not represent 100% of the issues of the day so dismiss it as immaterial. The law is in statues and cases do not have the power to change the Constitution at the State or Federal level; nor do they have the power to change statutes. They are therefor just OPINIONS and as you know OPINIONS are never findings of facts.
Constitutional Issues
Many Constitutional scholar have made the same arguments and come to the same conclusion. That being said - the Current Three branches of the Federal government have created rules and regulations promulgated by the agencies that Congress created under statutes and given to the Executive for execution.
The EPA and the Endangered Species acts are a good example - the Congress created the agencies and gave them powers to promulgate such rules and regulations as required to meet the requirements set within. Well, we now can clearly see that the Executive wanted more powers and expanded the Clean Air Act to include C02 and Ozone so they could control all industries in the many States. This is not a Article I section enumerated power so it is IMO a usurped power which after much litigation the Supreme Court has created findings that give the illusion of meeting the Constitution when in fact it does not. So, we suffer along under Federal usurpation and the States have been stripped of the 10th amendment powers to nullify by the courts.
The healthcare issue is again an invented by the court power to tax for uses not found in the taxing authorizations of the Constitution. It remind me of my favorite question for all that say they are Constitutional experts - how does any area of the Constitution including the 16th amendment permit the government to tax income at different rates depending on how much one earns - that is a Progressive tax system to redistribute wealth. Clearly the last clause of the 5th amendment forbids the TAKING of property [wealth, money, profits] from one for the use of the public needs without just compensation. Clearly then the current tax system is in conflict with the amendments of the Constitution and no where is there any authorization to take from one citizen for the benefit of another citizen.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James Madison
Mangus Colorado
The EPA and the Endangered Species acts are a good example - the Congress created the agencies and gave them powers to promulgate such rules and regulations as required to meet the requirements set within. Well, we now can clearly see that the Executive wanted more powers and expanded the Clean Air Act to include C02 and Ozone so they could control all industries in the many States. This is not a Article I section enumerated power so it is IMO a usurped power which after much litigation the Supreme Court has created findings that give the illusion of meeting the Constitution when in fact it does not. So, we suffer along under Federal usurpation and the States have been stripped of the 10th amendment powers to nullify by the courts.
The healthcare issue is again an invented by the court power to tax for uses not found in the taxing authorizations of the Constitution. It remind me of my favorite question for all that say they are Constitutional experts - how does any area of the Constitution including the 16th amendment permit the government to tax income at different rates depending on how much one earns - that is a Progressive tax system to redistribute wealth. Clearly the last clause of the 5th amendment forbids the TAKING of property [wealth, money, profits] from one for the use of the public needs without just compensation. Clearly then the current tax system is in conflict with the amendments of the Constitution and no where is there any authorization to take from one citizen for the benefit of another citizen.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James Madison
Mangus Colorado
Concerning the issues where Opinion vs. Actual Constitutional Language
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities. ~ Aristotle
I offer no opinion to tell or suggest anyone what to think. That is a personal choice. I simply put out the case law and the words of the Constitution. I will 'cherry pick' nothing. I include all cases if you take the time to look. Keep in mind, if our position, is based on a false premise that the FF& R intended that the Federalist papers are the holy grail then it follows that I must ask...how about the anti Federalist position i.e. [The Bill of Rights]?? Are the works of the entire 55 signers and the notes and papers of all of the Ratifiers not important?
The FF & R wrote the Constitution, signed the same, and ratified the document. All that is contained within the four corner of the COMPACT, is THEIR language. THAT LANGUAGE instructs one to look at certain papers if there is a difference of opinion about what the document means.
Clearly they took extra time to write the Constitution in everyday common language of the times so that the common citizen could understand the exact terms of the Compact. When discussing issues and how they qualify/do not qualify Constitutionally, please show some evidence that meanings of the actual words of the Constitution can be adjusted and not merely changed by the opinion of some later reader of the work.
Do you believe the Founders - Framers and Ratifiers were not smart enough to put in a clause or Article to instruct which papers could be used to settle differences of time and meaning of words? If you wish to provide an example, find the relevance within the original document to support your argument and share those/that example.
If you choose to inject some other meaning into the Constitution to give support to YOUR opinion, then I would offer the analogy that is no different an action than was the action of Chief Justice John Roberts pulling a "new taxing authority" under the 16th Amendment, to justify the Affordable Care Act.
The Constitution is clear and concise if you just use the meanings and definitions of the words and constructs of the time written.
The FF & R said what they meant and meant what they said, so why do so many argue "it says this because, John Jay said this or Hamilton said that." I can find works by Hamilton and Jefferson that argue with themselves so which one is the true one? I would also ask you to keep in mind, scholars are those that study, read and ponder the information in an attempt to find the meaning. Some may call themselves experts, i.e. 'Scholars' -in an attempt to prove 'themselves' an expert or to give credence to false conclusions they support.
I offer no opinion to tell or suggest anyone what to think. That is a personal choice. I simply put out the case law and the words of the Constitution. I will 'cherry pick' nothing. I include all cases if you take the time to look. Keep in mind, if our position, is based on a false premise that the FF& R intended that the Federalist papers are the holy grail then it follows that I must ask...how about the anti Federalist position i.e. [The Bill of Rights]?? Are the works of the entire 55 signers and the notes and papers of all of the Ratifiers not important?
The FF & R wrote the Constitution, signed the same, and ratified the document. All that is contained within the four corner of the COMPACT, is THEIR language. THAT LANGUAGE instructs one to look at certain papers if there is a difference of opinion about what the document means.
Clearly they took extra time to write the Constitution in everyday common language of the times so that the common citizen could understand the exact terms of the Compact. When discussing issues and how they qualify/do not qualify Constitutionally, please show some evidence that meanings of the actual words of the Constitution can be adjusted and not merely changed by the opinion of some later reader of the work.
Do you believe the Founders - Framers and Ratifiers were not smart enough to put in a clause or Article to instruct which papers could be used to settle differences of time and meaning of words? If you wish to provide an example, find the relevance within the original document to support your argument and share those/that example.
If you choose to inject some other meaning into the Constitution to give support to YOUR opinion, then I would offer the analogy that is no different an action than was the action of Chief Justice John Roberts pulling a "new taxing authority" under the 16th Amendment, to justify the Affordable Care Act.
The Constitution is clear and concise if you just use the meanings and definitions of the words and constructs of the time written.
The FF & R said what they meant and meant what they said, so why do so many argue "it says this because, John Jay said this or Hamilton said that." I can find works by Hamilton and Jefferson that argue with themselves so which one is the true one? I would also ask you to keep in mind, scholars are those that study, read and ponder the information in an attempt to find the meaning. Some may call themselves experts, i.e. 'Scholars' -in an attempt to prove 'themselves' an expert or to give credence to false conclusions they support.
Predetermined Position Regarding the Constitution
I have never said one must trust the attorneys.
I present the facts that are on the ground, all may choose to like them or dislike them. But we all must address reality if they desire to restore the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
I do not say to disregard history. When using historical example one should include it all in your OPINIONS if you desire to be convincing. For example you must find the 'historical meaning' of Natural Born in the time of King George-when discussing what the Founders meant when they were discussing that same definition. Only then, have you completely and honestly presented the history and the truth of your analogy.
It is always interesting when people attack others that have deferring OPINIONS of the Constitution than their own. - Name-calling usually accompanies a losing argument in an attempt to discredit any challenger. If an OPINION is 100% solid, it should present a real connected -well presented and documented statement -that proves a point of view. Bear in mind, if you are starting from a predetermined position and are blinded to any other result or conclusion, will you arrive at an honest destination, or the one you chose first and then figured out how to arrive there in the first place. Is the truth the honest destination or was it all about the journey?
History is what I encourage you to study. In doing so, please keep inside the four corners of the Constitution. If you have an issue with what the Constitution actually says, I would encourage you to simply go to the dictionaries of the time and find the actual meaning of the words at the point in time when they were written.
There are many sources for meanings of the time. When I do not see any them being used, it signals one thing... this person does not think the FF & R did not state in clear terms what they meant. These persons dance on the heads of history to distort the true meaning of the Constitution as it was written. They are engaged in the practice of interpretation and distortion and stretching and adapting the document to their own opinion or interpretation.
I find also, critics seldom provide solutions to the issues of usurpation and tyranny. While they may complain and complain, they never present a way to restoration. I liken it to the Preacher that keeps defining historical sin but never speaks of how sinners can stop. Progress is earned not defended.
I present the facts that are on the ground, all may choose to like them or dislike them. But we all must address reality if they desire to restore the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
I do not say to disregard history. When using historical example one should include it all in your OPINIONS if you desire to be convincing. For example you must find the 'historical meaning' of Natural Born in the time of King George-when discussing what the Founders meant when they were discussing that same definition. Only then, have you completely and honestly presented the history and the truth of your analogy.
It is always interesting when people attack others that have deferring OPINIONS of the Constitution than their own. - Name-calling usually accompanies a losing argument in an attempt to discredit any challenger. If an OPINION is 100% solid, it should present a real connected -well presented and documented statement -that proves a point of view. Bear in mind, if you are starting from a predetermined position and are blinded to any other result or conclusion, will you arrive at an honest destination, or the one you chose first and then figured out how to arrive there in the first place. Is the truth the honest destination or was it all about the journey?
History is what I encourage you to study. In doing so, please keep inside the four corners of the Constitution. If you have an issue with what the Constitution actually says, I would encourage you to simply go to the dictionaries of the time and find the actual meaning of the words at the point in time when they were written.
There are many sources for meanings of the time. When I do not see any them being used, it signals one thing... this person does not think the FF & R did not state in clear terms what they meant. These persons dance on the heads of history to distort the true meaning of the Constitution as it was written. They are engaged in the practice of interpretation and distortion and stretching and adapting the document to their own opinion or interpretation.
I find also, critics seldom provide solutions to the issues of usurpation and tyranny. While they may complain and complain, they never present a way to restoration. I liken it to the Preacher that keeps defining historical sin but never speaks of how sinners can stop. Progress is earned not defended.
SECULARISM - WHAT IS IT?
By Mangus Colorado
The Founders – Framers and Ratifiers clearly created a Constitutional protection for the free unfettered practice of Religion [s] and “LIMITED” the Ability of the Federal government to infringe upon same. Further we can be assured that without the total FREEDOM of Religion the Constitution would have never been Ratified. Therefore we can conclude that the Colonies [States] were formed by separate Religions – some had more than one major Religion but we must remember that it was mainly Religious persecution that motivated the people to flee Europe.
If you read the papers and letter of John Adams and James Madison you will find many proofs that they were men of faith. Faith was the power that bound the widely different belief systems together and motivated the formation of the Nation. These men were wise beyond common understanding as they knew that all societies must have a base from which laws and FREEDOMS flow.
Laws are limits on Society that flow from a mutual compact in the case of America it was to become the CONSTITUTION – These individuals feared the consolidation of power in a single individual [King] or in a Federal Central government. They then decided after many years of debate and arguments – some of these disagreements led to actual fist fights on the floor at Independence Hall. Heated debate of how each faction [religion] or State was to be protected from harassment and limitations became central to advancements toward the Constitution.
All know that the very first Constitution did not address Religion, rights, liberties and other natural rights – it was a LIMIT ON GOVERNMENT PERIOD. Again the wisdom the wisdom of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers arose in the form of the Anti Federalists insistence on adding the Bill Of Rights – amendment one through ten – these further LIMITED the powers of the Federal Government.
The 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now that we have addressed the history and LIMITS on Government on the subject of Religion comes the question – is Secularism a Religion in the legal sense or is it the anti Religion as it is practiced by violating the Constitution restriction to limit the free expression thereof(?) . . Secularism then becomes either a Religion, a political faction or collection of Religion hating bigots. If all presentations of the Secularists are considered – clearly they want to end all other Religions. Now comes that realization that they want to destroy the limits on government over our FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES they want the power to dictate what is taught in our schools, displayed in our public spaces.
Now read the Constitution and share with me the language that bestows the power of the Federal government over the many States rights and powers as retained in the tenth amendment. Any that attempt to answer the challenge will be frustrated as the answers all lead putting limitations on the Secular movement. So, we can now submit that Secularism use the Courts suing to remove limits in the Constitution on government interference in all things Religious – Congress shall make no law . . so if Congress does not have that power then where does the powers being used in the Courts flow from . . ???
Yes, Secularism is a bigoted biased movement that means to destroy limits on the Government over Religions – again we that support the Article V Project to Restore Liberty can point to the repeal of the Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth amendments. The repeal of the 14th removes the Courts ability to reach through and apply the Bill of Rights limits on the States [school busing, quotas, admission standards to Universities]. The 16th provides the usurpers with bribe money to force States and local governments to behave in the desired manner of Washington or to lose the project monies – it also provides the unlimited source of funds to bribe UNIONS [even federal and state government unions] to provide campaign workers and massive amounts of campaign donations – pure and simple Quid Pro Quo.
Secularism has won the first rounds of the fight for the soul of the Republic, will We the People unite and fight the destruction of our Constitutional Representative Republic. By allowing the Courts, Congress and the President to usurp the Constitution by changing word and phrase meanings, and for them to explain away their usurpation by using concepts of modernization, open frame filling, it is a living document to be changed at will - - THIS IS JUST A FLAT OUT LIE - - there is no language in the Actual Constitution that supports their acts. The Article V amendment process is required to change alter or modify the Constitution.
Thank you for reading this long piece.
The Founders – Framers and Ratifiers clearly created a Constitutional protection for the free unfettered practice of Religion [s] and “LIMITED” the Ability of the Federal government to infringe upon same. Further we can be assured that without the total FREEDOM of Religion the Constitution would have never been Ratified. Therefore we can conclude that the Colonies [States] were formed by separate Religions – some had more than one major Religion but we must remember that it was mainly Religious persecution that motivated the people to flee Europe.
If you read the papers and letter of John Adams and James Madison you will find many proofs that they were men of faith. Faith was the power that bound the widely different belief systems together and motivated the formation of the Nation. These men were wise beyond common understanding as they knew that all societies must have a base from which laws and FREEDOMS flow.
Laws are limits on Society that flow from a mutual compact in the case of America it was to become the CONSTITUTION – These individuals feared the consolidation of power in a single individual [King] or in a Federal Central government. They then decided after many years of debate and arguments – some of these disagreements led to actual fist fights on the floor at Independence Hall. Heated debate of how each faction [religion] or State was to be protected from harassment and limitations became central to advancements toward the Constitution.
All know that the very first Constitution did not address Religion, rights, liberties and other natural rights – it was a LIMIT ON GOVERNMENT PERIOD. Again the wisdom the wisdom of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers arose in the form of the Anti Federalists insistence on adding the Bill Of Rights – amendment one through ten – these further LIMITED the powers of the Federal Government.
The 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now that we have addressed the history and LIMITS on Government on the subject of Religion comes the question – is Secularism a Religion in the legal sense or is it the anti Religion as it is practiced by violating the Constitution restriction to limit the free expression thereof(?) . . Secularism then becomes either a Religion, a political faction or collection of Religion hating bigots. If all presentations of the Secularists are considered – clearly they want to end all other Religions. Now comes that realization that they want to destroy the limits on government over our FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES they want the power to dictate what is taught in our schools, displayed in our public spaces.
Now read the Constitution and share with me the language that bestows the power of the Federal government over the many States rights and powers as retained in the tenth amendment. Any that attempt to answer the challenge will be frustrated as the answers all lead putting limitations on the Secular movement. So, we can now submit that Secularism use the Courts suing to remove limits in the Constitution on government interference in all things Religious – Congress shall make no law . . so if Congress does not have that power then where does the powers being used in the Courts flow from . . ???
Yes, Secularism is a bigoted biased movement that means to destroy limits on the Government over Religions – again we that support the Article V Project to Restore Liberty can point to the repeal of the Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth amendments. The repeal of the 14th removes the Courts ability to reach through and apply the Bill of Rights limits on the States [school busing, quotas, admission standards to Universities]. The 16th provides the usurpers with bribe money to force States and local governments to behave in the desired manner of Washington or to lose the project monies – it also provides the unlimited source of funds to bribe UNIONS [even federal and state government unions] to provide campaign workers and massive amounts of campaign donations – pure and simple Quid Pro Quo.
Secularism has won the first rounds of the fight for the soul of the Republic, will We the People unite and fight the destruction of our Constitutional Representative Republic. By allowing the Courts, Congress and the President to usurp the Constitution by changing word and phrase meanings, and for them to explain away their usurpation by using concepts of modernization, open frame filling, it is a living document to be changed at will - - THIS IS JUST A FLAT OUT LIE - - there is no language in the Actual Constitution that supports their acts. The Article V amendment process is required to change alter or modify the Constitution.
Thank you for reading this long piece.
MORE ON SECULARISM
This document provides further proof about Secularism.
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson, 1786
BY STEVE STRAUB ON AUGUST 13, 2012
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom Thomas Jefferson 1789
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement;
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right;
That it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Declaration of Rights sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson, 1786
BY STEVE STRAUB ON AUGUST 13, 2012
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom Thomas Jefferson 1789
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement;
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right;
That it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Declaration of Rights sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
My Position on the State Legislative Amendment Process – The Hows and Whys Thereof
Article 5 – Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
As is shown - 3/4 of the States can amend the Constitution by causing Congress to open a Convention [which the state legislatures establish the rules for as they chose to design] once open then 3/4 of the States using the legislative process can propose any amendment they deem necessary or they can vote on a single issue as was done in the 21st amendment. Now many of the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers notes have been provided as reference. I provide these for back ground as In my opinion no Founders papers, notes, books, or any other document can be used to change alter or modify the exact words in the Constitution - they said what they meant in the common language of the day so average citizens of the time could understand the meaning of all inside the four corners.
There was no addendum - there was no reference to Judicial review or to Implied powers not stated. On to the question at hand - could 38+ State legislatures cause a amendment process which Congress did not agree - surly it is clear that only 2/3 or 34 States can call for a amendment Convention which they can define the rules. If they could not define the rules then 38 States can take action to correct. There is no specific language that defines a Convention so the acts of 38+ State legislatures can surly have that power . .
If 38 State legislatures request of Congress anything - do you believe Congress would resist? Because that would mean a total collapse of the government in the next election cycles. Yes, I am of the opinion that 38 State Legislatures can do whatever they can all agree to pass and then to ratify. There is no power in the Article I - Article II or Article III that can override 3/4 of the States desires for the states created the Constitution and they are the Custodian of same for the people of their individual Republics.
As is shown - 3/4 of the States can amend the Constitution by causing Congress to open a Convention [which the state legislatures establish the rules for as they chose to design] once open then 3/4 of the States using the legislative process can propose any amendment they deem necessary or they can vote on a single issue as was done in the 21st amendment. Now many of the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers notes have been provided as reference. I provide these for back ground as In my opinion no Founders papers, notes, books, or any other document can be used to change alter or modify the exact words in the Constitution - they said what they meant in the common language of the day so average citizens of the time could understand the meaning of all inside the four corners.
There was no addendum - there was no reference to Judicial review or to Implied powers not stated. On to the question at hand - could 38+ State legislatures cause a amendment process which Congress did not agree - surly it is clear that only 2/3 or 34 States can call for a amendment Convention which they can define the rules. If they could not define the rules then 38 States can take action to correct. There is no specific language that defines a Convention so the acts of 38+ State legislatures can surly have that power . .
If 38 State legislatures request of Congress anything - do you believe Congress would resist? Because that would mean a total collapse of the government in the next election cycles. Yes, I am of the opinion that 38 State Legislatures can do whatever they can all agree to pass and then to ratify. There is no power in the Article I - Article II or Article III that can override 3/4 of the States desires for the states created the Constitution and they are the Custodian of same for the people of their individual Republics.
FEAR AND DISTRUST
Americans are afraid and confused as to the extent of their governments involvement in discriminating against political groups by the IRS, EPA, AG, NSA and the State Department.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~ James Madison
The government is usurping the Constitution by violating our first and fourth amendment protections. The IRS picks conservative groups to delay and violate their right to free speech. The Attorney General sues our States to prevent them from protecting the people from invasion and alien law breakers. The Attorney General stops the Prosecution of the Black Panthers that harassed white voters outside a polling place. Next the White House lies about Benghazi and tries to spin it is a video caused issue.
Now we find that the PRISM spy system is much bigger than the NSA and Administration told us it was. We now know that they can listen to phone calls, videos, emails, Skype contacts and much more. The NSA head like all the other Department heads just flat-out lied to the American people - we cannot listen to your phone calls - not true now is it - they have billions of recorded calls and email or electronic communications. They told us it took a FISA court order for them to access our records, then they said - well, if you receive calls from outside the US or from someone that is in the US but under a target warrant then you are now included in that warrant.
What is the truth? It is impossible to tell as it is all SECRET and not even all of Congress is apprised of the acts.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin
All of the violations of the Constitution are pushing the limits of we the people being governed by a RULE - BY - LAW system or a simple DEMOCRACY where whatever the majority votes for becomes the RULE - BY - MAN system. Under this system the minorities are at risk and the individual has no protection from tyranny and oppression. America is now operating with all three branches USURPING the Constitution and the limits on what power the Executive, the Courts and the Legislature has. As things are now the true and actual Constitution has been suspended in the name of protecting we the people from enemies both domestic and foreign.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. ~ James Madison
Let us think out of the box for a few minutes - the Progressive politic method has been to divide and then conquer each smaller group. Is this not what we see with the all out attack on Religions both Jewish and Christians? Are they not trying to get us to fight each other and to debate over our freedom of religion and the 1st Amendment?
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. ~ James Madison
I will close by asking all to visit this Article V Project to Restore Liberty.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/advocacy---article-v.html
Thank you for reading.
Mangus Colorado 2013
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~ James Madison
The government is usurping the Constitution by violating our first and fourth amendment protections. The IRS picks conservative groups to delay and violate their right to free speech. The Attorney General sues our States to prevent them from protecting the people from invasion and alien law breakers. The Attorney General stops the Prosecution of the Black Panthers that harassed white voters outside a polling place. Next the White House lies about Benghazi and tries to spin it is a video caused issue.
Now we find that the PRISM spy system is much bigger than the NSA and Administration told us it was. We now know that they can listen to phone calls, videos, emails, Skype contacts and much more. The NSA head like all the other Department heads just flat-out lied to the American people - we cannot listen to your phone calls - not true now is it - they have billions of recorded calls and email or electronic communications. They told us it took a FISA court order for them to access our records, then they said - well, if you receive calls from outside the US or from someone that is in the US but under a target warrant then you are now included in that warrant.
What is the truth? It is impossible to tell as it is all SECRET and not even all of Congress is apprised of the acts.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin
All of the violations of the Constitution are pushing the limits of we the people being governed by a RULE - BY - LAW system or a simple DEMOCRACY where whatever the majority votes for becomes the RULE - BY - MAN system. Under this system the minorities are at risk and the individual has no protection from tyranny and oppression. America is now operating with all three branches USURPING the Constitution and the limits on what power the Executive, the Courts and the Legislature has. As things are now the true and actual Constitution has been suspended in the name of protecting we the people from enemies both domestic and foreign.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. ~ James Madison
Let us think out of the box for a few minutes - the Progressive politic method has been to divide and then conquer each smaller group. Is this not what we see with the all out attack on Religions both Jewish and Christians? Are they not trying to get us to fight each other and to debate over our freedom of religion and the 1st Amendment?
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. ~ James Madison
I will close by asking all to visit this Article V Project to Restore Liberty.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/advocacy---article-v.html
Thank you for reading.
Mangus Colorado 2013
NOTE: Before reading this article, please note that this is called usurpation . . but then that is why Article V is required to put them back under the limits of Article I section 8, which is exactly what the Article V project would do.
Justice Department Has Decided 4th Amendment Doesn’t Apply
May 10, 2013 by Mark Horne
Any Twitter user knows that, instead of “tweeting” in an open forum, he can send a private message to another user. According to the FBI and the Department of Justice, if you believe that to be the case, you are wrong. There is no such thing as a private message on Twitter.
If someone could send a private message on Twitter, then the Department of Justice would have to follow the wording of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
So a private message would be a “paper” or “effect.” The government would need a warrant to grab it off the internet. It would have to support that warrant by a description of what it was trying to obtain. It couldn’t say, “We want to check this tweeter out and see if he is doing something wrong.” The investigator would have to explain what he thinks he will find.
But, again, the FBI and the Justice Department deny that you are able to send a private message on Twitter. They also deny you can send a private Facebook message. As CNET reports:
“The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don’t need a search warrant to review Americans’ e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal. Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they’re not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail… The U.S. attorney for Manhattan circulated internal instructions, for instance, saying a subpoena – a piece of paper signed by a prosecutor, not a judge – Is sufficient to obtain nearly ‘all records from an ISP.’ And the U.S. attorney in Houston recently obtained the ‘contents of stored communications’ from an unnamed Internet service provider without securing a warrant signed by a judge first.”
I highlighted Notice that the government agencies have been basically giving themselves authority on their own authority without any public argument or notice. If there are any arguments about the Fourth Amendment they are all kept private so that there is no public scrutiny or accountability–until some group of citizens forces them to reveal what they have been doing.
Bear in mind, despite the attempt at secrecy, the courts have ruled on this issue. The Justice Department, rather than obey the court’s decision, has continued to make the same claims against the rights of the American people:
“The Justice Department’s disinclination to seek warrants for private files stored on the servers of companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft continued even after a federal appeals court in 2010 ruled that warrantless access to e-mail violates the Fourth Amendment. A previously unreleased version of an FBI manual (PDF), last updated two-and-a-half years after the appellate ruling, says field agents ‘may subpoena’ e-mail records from companies ‘without running afoul of’ the Fourth Amendment.”
I realize that some people will side with the Justice Department for the sake of keeping us safe. But even supposing the government were competent to protect us, that argument could support the immediate imprisonment of everyone. There are many things the government can do to keep us safe, but that doesn’t mean that they are the right things to do.
If the government wants to protect us from aggression and crime, they need to show that they don’t want to commit crimes against the Constitution or to aggress against our privacy.
http://lastresistance.com/2082/justice-department-has-decided-4th-amendment-doesnt-apply/
Any Twitter user knows that, instead of “tweeting” in an open forum, he can send a private message to another user. According to the FBI and the Department of Justice, if you believe that to be the case, you are wrong. There is no such thing as a private message on Twitter.
If someone could send a private message on Twitter, then the Department of Justice would have to follow the wording of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
So a private message would be a “paper” or “effect.” The government would need a warrant to grab it off the internet. It would have to support that warrant by a description of what it was trying to obtain. It couldn’t say, “We want to check this tweeter out and see if he is doing something wrong.” The investigator would have to explain what he thinks he will find.
But, again, the FBI and the Justice Department deny that you are able to send a private message on Twitter. They also deny you can send a private Facebook message. As CNET reports:
“The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don’t need a search warrant to review Americans’ e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal. Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they’re not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail… The U.S. attorney for Manhattan circulated internal instructions, for instance, saying a subpoena – a piece of paper signed by a prosecutor, not a judge – Is sufficient to obtain nearly ‘all records from an ISP.’ And the U.S. attorney in Houston recently obtained the ‘contents of stored communications’ from an unnamed Internet service provider without securing a warrant signed by a judge first.”
I highlighted Notice that the government agencies have been basically giving themselves authority on their own authority without any public argument or notice. If there are any arguments about the Fourth Amendment they are all kept private so that there is no public scrutiny or accountability–until some group of citizens forces them to reveal what they have been doing.
Bear in mind, despite the attempt at secrecy, the courts have ruled on this issue. The Justice Department, rather than obey the court’s decision, has continued to make the same claims against the rights of the American people:
“The Justice Department’s disinclination to seek warrants for private files stored on the servers of companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft continued even after a federal appeals court in 2010 ruled that warrantless access to e-mail violates the Fourth Amendment. A previously unreleased version of an FBI manual (PDF), last updated two-and-a-half years after the appellate ruling, says field agents ‘may subpoena’ e-mail records from companies ‘without running afoul of’ the Fourth Amendment.”
I realize that some people will side with the Justice Department for the sake of keeping us safe. But even supposing the government were competent to protect us, that argument could support the immediate imprisonment of everyone. There are many things the government can do to keep us safe, but that doesn’t mean that they are the right things to do.
If the government wants to protect us from aggression and crime, they need to show that they don’t want to commit crimes against the Constitution or to aggress against our privacy.
http://lastresistance.com/2082/justice-department-has-decided-4th-amendment-doesnt-apply/
NOTE: My only concern with the following is that the 3 governmental branches will not give up their power without a huge fight. Again we go back to the 14th, 16th and 17th. The Review Body they propose are.....all ELECTED politicians. It begs the question... that they will not stick to the enumerated powers as may be promised in the former, but not practiced in the latter. For example, when saying it will be shown as having the Constitutional authority in each bill - or it will be rejected by the clerk as a matter of form, the very first bill used clauses as the Constitutional authority.
We post this for your consideration as an alternative to the AV process but I do not believe this constitutes an amendment. It is rather, a new Statute to limit the actions and powers back to Article I section 8 - without clauses. Our Article V Project and the 28th Amendment is much more simple....20 words which cause no confusion and allow no molestation. Without the 14-16 and 17th Amendments, we restore ALL of the Constitution to original intent, as it concerns the balance of powers in American government designed by the Framers.
We post this for your consideration as an alternative to the AV process but I do not believe this constitutes an amendment. It is rather, a new Statute to limit the actions and powers back to Article I section 8 - without clauses. Our Article V Project and the 28th Amendment is much more simple....20 words which cause no confusion and allow no molestation. Without the 14-16 and 17th Amendments, we restore ALL of the Constitution to original intent, as it concerns the balance of powers in American government designed by the Framers.
The New Fair Deal
Read about this here: http://online-campaigns.s3.amazonaws.com/nfd_website/nfdplace.html
STATE BALANCING OF POWERS ACT
NOTE: This is interesting - it can have a profound effect on the Supreme Court but Congress and the Executive will respond by cutting off those States from funds for highways, food stamps, medicaid, schools, grants to local governments, and all other funding. Only the AV project IMO can slay the beast . . Article follows:
http://northamericanlawcenter.org/2013-state-balance-of-powers-act/
2013 State Balance of Powers Act
WHEREAS, the State of ______________ has a compelling interest as a sovereign state of the United States of America in the proper implementation of protection and justice within its borders, and it shall be enacted by the Legislature of the State of __________:
(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and reserves to the states and the people, all powers not delegated to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution as they were originally intended and publicly understood at the time that the amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, and subject only to modifications by duly ratified via subsequent amendments to the United States Constitution. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________ and the United States as of the time that _________ was admitted to statehood in __________________.
(2) In accordance with the compact between the state and people of __________ and the United States as of the time that __________ was admitted to statehood in ________________, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the state and people of __________ that other than the enumerated powers expressly delegated to the United States under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress and the federal government is prohibited from exercising any purported additional control over, or commandeering rights belonging to the State of ___________, or its people.
(3) The United States Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, affirms that the sole and sovereign power to regulate the state business and affairs rested in the state legislature and has always been a compelling state concern and central to state sovereignty and security. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________ and the United States as of the time that ____________ was admitted to statehood in ________________. Further, the power to regulate commerce among the several states as delegated to the Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, as understood at the time of the founding, was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. This power to regulate “commerce” does not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, major crimes, or land use, nor does it include activities that merely “substantially affect” commerce.
(4) At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Commerce Clause was not meant or understood to authorize Congress, the Executive Branch or the Federal Judiciary to regulate the state courts in the matter of state substantive law or state judicial procedure. This meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as they pertain to the validity of religious sectarian or foreign law as being controlling or influential precedent has never been modified by any duly ratified amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________and the United States as of the time that ____________ was admitted to statehood in ______________.
Further, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, the “necessary and proper clause,” is not a blank check that empowers the federal government to do anything it deems necessary or proper. It is instead a limitation of power under the common-law doctrine of “principals and incidents,” which restricts the power of Congress to exercise incidental powers. There are two (2) main conditions required for something to be incidental, and therefore, “necessary and proper.” The law or power exercised must be 1) directly applicable to the main, enumerated power, and 2) it must be “lesser” than the main power.
(5) In accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, the “general welfare clause,” does not empower the federal government with the ability to do anything it deems good. It is instead a general restriction limiting the exercise of the enumerated powers of Congress set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, requiring that congress only enact laws which serve all citizens well and equally. When James Madison was asked if this clause were a grant of power, he replied “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” Thus, we re-establish that this clause is a limitation on the power of the federal government to act in the welfare of all when passing laws in pursuance of the powers delegated to the United States, showing no favor to any race, creed, color or socio-economic class. Likewise, the Commerce Clause was not meant or understood to authorize Congress or the Federal Judiciary to establish religious, sectarian or foreign statutes or case law as controlling or influential precedent. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of ___________ and the United States as of the time that ___________ was admitted to statehood in ____________________.
6) We acknowledge that the “Commerce Clause”, the “General Welfare Clause”, and the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the United States Constitution were amended, and made more specific and limiting at the peoples’ insistence… through the creation of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. All Amendments within the Bill of Rights were for the purpose of further restricting federal powers, vesting and/or retaining the ultimate power and control of the states by the people within the states. Therefore, we specifically reject and deny any federal claim of expanded and/or additional authority which the federal government may from time to time attempt to exert, exercise or enforce under these clauses, as these actions totally disrupt and degrade the Founders emphasis on the Balance of Powers.
Further, the people of the State of ____________________, are aware that the federal government has amended and altered the spirit and the meaning of The Commerce Clause, all without proper legislative authority through amendment. Therefore, we reject and deny this unauthorized and excessive abuse of power which has primarily acted as a detriment to states’ rights and individual rights, a deliberate attempt to negatively alter the Balance of Powers.
7) In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the federal government is denied the power to establish or affect laws within the state which are repugnant and obtrusive to the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, state law and the citizens of the state. The Federal Government is restrained and confined in authority by the eighteen (18) items as set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
8) Congress and the federal government is hereby denied the power to bind the states under foreign statute, court order or opinion, or executive order, other than those provisions duly ratified by the Congress as a treaty, so long as the treaty does not violate the state or United States Constitution.
9) Further, no authority has ever been given to the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, or the Judicial Branch, of the federal government, to preempt state legislation, or to destroy the Balance of Powers, which is set forth in the United States Constitution.
10) This Act shall serve as a Notice and Demand to the Federal Government to cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their designated constitutionally enumerated powers, and, which attempt to diminish the Balance of Powers as established.
11) To enforce constitutional Balance of Powers, The Joint Legislative Committee on Neutralization of federal laws is established consisting of the President of the Senate or the President’s designee, who serves as co-chairperson, six(6) members of the Senate who are appointed by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Speaker’s designee who serves as Co-chairperson, and six(6) members of the House of Representatives No more than four (4) members of the Senate and no more than four (4) members of the House of Representatives may be from the same political party. Members shall serve two (2) year terms beginning and ending on the convening of the regular session of the Legislature each odd-numbered year. Further, a majority of the members constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The Committee shall meet on the call of either co-chairperson.
The Committee shall recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to neutralize in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution. The Committee shall make its recommendation within thirty (30) days after receiving the federal legislation for consideration and process.
Further, the Committee may review any and all existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders for the purpose of determining the constitutionality. The said Committee may recommend for neutralization, existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders enacted before the effective date of this Section, if and when the Committee determines said measures to be beyond the scope and power assigned to the federal government under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, or in direct violation of the state constitution.
Upon the Committee’s recommendation for neutralization, the Legislature shall vote on whether to neutralize the action within sixty (60) days after the Committee’s said recommendation. Until the vote, the issue in question is of no effect. The appropriate documentation reflecting the Legislature’s vote shall be documented in the Journals of the respective Houses.
In the event that the state legislature votes by simple majority to neutralize any federal statute, mandate or Executive order on the grounds of constitutionality, the state, nor its citizens, shall recognize or be obligated to live under said statute, mandate or Executive order.
This Commission shall further be charged to communicate the intentions of this Act to the legislatures of the several states to assure that this State continues in the same esteem and friendship as currently exists, and, that it considers union for specific national purposes, and particularly those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the states.
Once this Act has been enacted, a certified copy of the same shall be sent to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker and Clerk of the House of Representatives, each member of the States’ Congressional delegation, with the request that this Act be officially entered into the Congressional Record.
12) It is the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures that may become necessary to prevent the wrongful enforcement of any federal laws or regulations duly neutralized within the boundaries and limits of this State.
13) In accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states – In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court of the United States shall have Original Jurisdiction. In any cause of action between this State and the federal government regarding state neutralization of a federal legislation, judicial mandate or executive order, the proper jurisdiction for these disputes will lie with the Supreme Court of the United States alone. In the event of improper adjudication by the U.S. Supreme Court, the People’s interest shall be maintained and retained through State referendum.
14) Under the Tenth Amendment, the people and state of __________ retain their exclusive power to regulate the state of ____________, subject only to the fourteenth amendment’s guarantee, that the people and state of ____________ shall exercise such sovereign power in accordance with each citizen’s lawful privileges or immunities, and in compliance with the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law.
15) Whereas the ninth amendment to the United States Constitution secures and reserves to the people of ______________, as against the federal government, their natural rights to life, liberty and property as entailed by the traditional Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty and as secured by state law, including, but not limited to, their rights as they were understood and secured by the law at the time that the amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, as well as their rights as they were understood and secured by the law in the state of __________ at the time the ____________ constitution was adopted on _____________________, the people and state hereby proclaim that the guarantee of those rights is a matter of compact between the state and people of _______________ and the United States as of the time that _______________ was admitted to statehood in ________________.
http://northamericanlawcenter.org/2013-state-balance-of-powers-act/
2013 State Balance of Powers Act
WHEREAS, the State of ______________ has a compelling interest as a sovereign state of the United States of America in the proper implementation of protection and justice within its borders, and it shall be enacted by the Legislature of the State of __________:
(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and reserves to the states and the people, all powers not delegated to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution as they were originally intended and publicly understood at the time that the amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, and subject only to modifications by duly ratified via subsequent amendments to the United States Constitution. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________ and the United States as of the time that _________ was admitted to statehood in __________________.
(2) In accordance with the compact between the state and people of __________ and the United States as of the time that __________ was admitted to statehood in ________________, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the state and people of __________ that other than the enumerated powers expressly delegated to the United States under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress and the federal government is prohibited from exercising any purported additional control over, or commandeering rights belonging to the State of ___________, or its people.
(3) The United States Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, affirms that the sole and sovereign power to regulate the state business and affairs rested in the state legislature and has always been a compelling state concern and central to state sovereignty and security. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________ and the United States as of the time that ____________ was admitted to statehood in ________________. Further, the power to regulate commerce among the several states as delegated to the Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, as understood at the time of the founding, was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. This power to regulate “commerce” does not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, major crimes, or land use, nor does it include activities that merely “substantially affect” commerce.
(4) At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Commerce Clause was not meant or understood to authorize Congress, the Executive Branch or the Federal Judiciary to regulate the state courts in the matter of state substantive law or state judicial procedure. This meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as they pertain to the validity of religious sectarian or foreign law as being controlling or influential precedent has never been modified by any duly ratified amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of _________and the United States as of the time that ____________ was admitted to statehood in ______________.
Further, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, the “necessary and proper clause,” is not a blank check that empowers the federal government to do anything it deems necessary or proper. It is instead a limitation of power under the common-law doctrine of “principals and incidents,” which restricts the power of Congress to exercise incidental powers. There are two (2) main conditions required for something to be incidental, and therefore, “necessary and proper.” The law or power exercised must be 1) directly applicable to the main, enumerated power, and 2) it must be “lesser” than the main power.
(5) In accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution ratified on June 21, 1788, the “general welfare clause,” does not empower the federal government with the ability to do anything it deems good. It is instead a general restriction limiting the exercise of the enumerated powers of Congress set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, requiring that congress only enact laws which serve all citizens well and equally. When James Madison was asked if this clause were a grant of power, he replied “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” Thus, we re-establish that this clause is a limitation on the power of the federal government to act in the welfare of all when passing laws in pursuance of the powers delegated to the United States, showing no favor to any race, creed, color or socio-economic class. Likewise, the Commerce Clause was not meant or understood to authorize Congress or the Federal Judiciary to establish religious, sectarian or foreign statutes or case law as controlling or influential precedent. Accordingly, the foregoing public meaning and understanding of Article 1 Section 8, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a matter of compact between the state and people of ___________ and the United States as of the time that ___________ was admitted to statehood in ____________________.
6) We acknowledge that the “Commerce Clause”, the “General Welfare Clause”, and the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the United States Constitution were amended, and made more specific and limiting at the peoples’ insistence… through the creation of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. All Amendments within the Bill of Rights were for the purpose of further restricting federal powers, vesting and/or retaining the ultimate power and control of the states by the people within the states. Therefore, we specifically reject and deny any federal claim of expanded and/or additional authority which the federal government may from time to time attempt to exert, exercise or enforce under these clauses, as these actions totally disrupt and degrade the Founders emphasis on the Balance of Powers.
Further, the people of the State of ____________________, are aware that the federal government has amended and altered the spirit and the meaning of The Commerce Clause, all without proper legislative authority through amendment. Therefore, we reject and deny this unauthorized and excessive abuse of power which has primarily acted as a detriment to states’ rights and individual rights, a deliberate attempt to negatively alter the Balance of Powers.
7) In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the federal government is denied the power to establish or affect laws within the state which are repugnant and obtrusive to the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, state law and the citizens of the state. The Federal Government is restrained and confined in authority by the eighteen (18) items as set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
8) Congress and the federal government is hereby denied the power to bind the states under foreign statute, court order or opinion, or executive order, other than those provisions duly ratified by the Congress as a treaty, so long as the treaty does not violate the state or United States Constitution.
9) Further, no authority has ever been given to the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, or the Judicial Branch, of the federal government, to preempt state legislation, or to destroy the Balance of Powers, which is set forth in the United States Constitution.
10) This Act shall serve as a Notice and Demand to the Federal Government to cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their designated constitutionally enumerated powers, and, which attempt to diminish the Balance of Powers as established.
11) To enforce constitutional Balance of Powers, The Joint Legislative Committee on Neutralization of federal laws is established consisting of the President of the Senate or the President’s designee, who serves as co-chairperson, six(6) members of the Senate who are appointed by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Speaker’s designee who serves as Co-chairperson, and six(6) members of the House of Representatives No more than four (4) members of the Senate and no more than four (4) members of the House of Representatives may be from the same political party. Members shall serve two (2) year terms beginning and ending on the convening of the regular session of the Legislature each odd-numbered year. Further, a majority of the members constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The Committee shall meet on the call of either co-chairperson.
The Committee shall recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to neutralize in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution. The Committee shall make its recommendation within thirty (30) days after receiving the federal legislation for consideration and process.
Further, the Committee may review any and all existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders for the purpose of determining the constitutionality. The said Committee may recommend for neutralization, existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders enacted before the effective date of this Section, if and when the Committee determines said measures to be beyond the scope and power assigned to the federal government under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, or in direct violation of the state constitution.
Upon the Committee’s recommendation for neutralization, the Legislature shall vote on whether to neutralize the action within sixty (60) days after the Committee’s said recommendation. Until the vote, the issue in question is of no effect. The appropriate documentation reflecting the Legislature’s vote shall be documented in the Journals of the respective Houses.
In the event that the state legislature votes by simple majority to neutralize any federal statute, mandate or Executive order on the grounds of constitutionality, the state, nor its citizens, shall recognize or be obligated to live under said statute, mandate or Executive order.
This Commission shall further be charged to communicate the intentions of this Act to the legislatures of the several states to assure that this State continues in the same esteem and friendship as currently exists, and, that it considers union for specific national purposes, and particularly those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the states.
Once this Act has been enacted, a certified copy of the same shall be sent to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker and Clerk of the House of Representatives, each member of the States’ Congressional delegation, with the request that this Act be officially entered into the Congressional Record.
12) It is the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures that may become necessary to prevent the wrongful enforcement of any federal laws or regulations duly neutralized within the boundaries and limits of this State.
13) In accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states – In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court of the United States shall have Original Jurisdiction. In any cause of action between this State and the federal government regarding state neutralization of a federal legislation, judicial mandate or executive order, the proper jurisdiction for these disputes will lie with the Supreme Court of the United States alone. In the event of improper adjudication by the U.S. Supreme Court, the People’s interest shall be maintained and retained through State referendum.
14) Under the Tenth Amendment, the people and state of __________ retain their exclusive power to regulate the state of ____________, subject only to the fourteenth amendment’s guarantee, that the people and state of ____________ shall exercise such sovereign power in accordance with each citizen’s lawful privileges or immunities, and in compliance with the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law.
15) Whereas the ninth amendment to the United States Constitution secures and reserves to the people of ______________, as against the federal government, their natural rights to life, liberty and property as entailed by the traditional Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty and as secured by state law, including, but not limited to, their rights as they were understood and secured by the law at the time that the amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, as well as their rights as they were understood and secured by the law in the state of __________ at the time the ____________ constitution was adopted on _____________________, the people and state hereby proclaim that the guarantee of those rights is a matter of compact between the state and people of _______________ and the United States as of the time that _______________ was admitted to statehood in ________________.
Read this article with a eye for who gets paid what and why . . Some Hospitals get paid more because they serve the POOR [illegal immigrants] - check the population of illegals in the States that get more - So, DC Politicians have been using the Medicare system to fund the CHARITY CASES with our tax dollars and then saying Medicare is going broke - yes because they raided it for UNCONSTITUTIONAL [charity payments] - As James Madison said: "I have read the entire Constitution and I find no authorization to spend Treasury money on CHARITY."
One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000
Posted by Sarah Kliff and Dan Keating on May 8, 2013 at 12:01 am
Consumers on Wednesday will finally get some answers about one of modern life’s most persistent mysteries: how much medical care actually costs.
For the first time, the federal government will release the prices that hospitals charge for the 100 most common inpatient procedures. Until now, these charges have been closely held by facilities that see a competitive advantage in shielding their fees from competitors. What the numbers reveal is a health-care system with tremendous, seemingly random variation in the costs of services.
Having trouble viewing this on your phone? See the full graphic here.
In the District, George Washington University’s average bill for a patient on a ventilator was $115,000, while Providence Hospital’s average charge for the same service was just under $53,000. For a lower joint replacement, George Washington University charged almost $69,000 compared with Sibley Memorial Hospital’s average of just under $30,000.
Virginia’s highest average rate for a lower limb replacement was at CJW Medical Center in Richmond, more than $117,000, compared with Winchester Medical Center charging $25,600 per procedure. CJW charged more than $38,000 for esophagi and gastrointestinal conditions, while Carilion Tazewell Community Hospital averaged $8,100 in those cases.
Maryland has a unique system for hospital rate charges, so differences were smaller, and its average rate was lower than that of any other state in the most common procedures reviewed by The Washington Post. The highest average charge for a lower joint replacement was $36,000 by University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, much lower than the highest rates in other states.
Elsewhere, Las Colinas Medical Center just outside Dallas billed Medicare, on average, $160,832 for lower joint replacements.
Five miles away and on the same street, Baylor Medical Center in Irving, Tex., billed the government an average fee of $42,632.
In downtown New York City, two hospitals 63 blocks apart varied by 321 percent in the prices they charged to treat complicated cases of asthma or bronchitis. One charged an average of $34,310; the other billed, on average, $8,159.
Experts attribute the disparities to a health system that can set prices with impunity because consumers rarely see them — and rarely shop for discounts. Although the government has collected this information for years, it was housed in a bulky database that researchers had to pay to access.
The hospital charges being released Wednesday — all from 2011 — show the hospitals’ average list prices. Adding another layer of opacity, Medicare and private insurance companies typically negotiate lower charges with hospitals. But the data shed light on fees that the uninsured could pay.
READ: The government’s data on hospital charges
“It’s true that Medicare and a lot of private insurers never pay the full charge,” said Renee Hsia, an assistant professor at the University of California at San Francisco Medical School whose research focuses on price variation. “But you have a lot of private insurance companies where the consumer pays a portion of the charge. For uninsured patients, they face the full bill. In that sense, the price matters.”
Hospitals contend that these prices, which come from a master list known as a “chargemaster,” are rarely relevant to consumers. Hospitals often provide assistance to uninsured patients in paying their bills.
“The chargemaster can be confusing because it’s highly variable and generally not what a consumer would pay,” said Carol Steinberg, vice president at the American Hospital Association. “Even an uninsured person isn’t always paying the chargemaster rate.”
The public release of the data is part of an effort by Medicare to increase transparency in the health system. The agency will announce Wednesday new funding for data centers that can analyze and publish research on health-care prices.
“Historically, the mission of our agency has been to pay claims,” said Deputy Medicare Administrator Jonathan Blum. “We’ll continue to pay claims, but our mission has also shifted to be a trusted source in the marketplace for information. We want to provide more clarity and transparency on charge data.”
Hospitals nationwide showed a large variation for many common procedures.
For joint replacements, which are the most common hospital procedure for Medicare patients, prices ranged from a low of $5,304 in Ada, Okla., to $223,373 in Monterey, Calif. The average charge across the 427,207 Medicare patients’ joint replacements was $52,063.
Similar variation showed up for hospitals that treated particularly complicated cases of heart failure. At the high end, a hospital in Newark charged Medicare $173,250. At the low end, a hospital in western Tennessee submitted a bill for $7,304.
Treating a simple case of pneumonia, with no complications, cost $124,051 in Philadelphia and $5,093 in Water Valley, Miss., with an average charge of $24,549.
“There’s tremendous variation between hospitals,” Blum said. “Geography doesn’t seem to explain it.”
A Washington Post analysis of the 10 most common medical procedures showed certain patterns by state. Hospitals in six states — California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas — routinely had higher prices than the rest of the country.
Hospitals in more northern states, such as Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, tended to have the lowest prices.
Even within a small geographic area, though, prices can vary dramatically. Los Angeles tended to have the highest variation in costs. The average price there for treating a breathing problem that required a ventilator (for less than four days) ranged from $78,000 to $273,000.
For-profit hospitals tended to bill Medicare at a 29 percent higher rate, on average, than nonprofit or government-owned hospitals.
The bills that hospitals submit to Medicare have little relationship with the amount that the government paid the provider. In many cases, hospitals that submitted higher bills ultimately received lower payments than competitors.
Las Colinas, the Texas hospital that billed more than $160,000 for a joint replacement, was reimbursed, on average, $12,643. Nearby Baylor Medical Center submitted significantly lower charges but received a larger reimbursement: $14,202.
Medicare analysts said that teaching hospitals such as Baylor Medical Center receive a higher overhead in their payments to cover the costs of treating low-income patients and also to fund medical education.
Las Colinas spokesman Tyler Adams said that hospital’s charges do not reflect what patients pay, because the hospital negotiates discounts with insurers and subsidizes bills for uninsured patients.
How consumers might use the new data remains to be seen. Some advocates for greater transparency in health care worry about releasing costs without any information about quality.
“I think a lot of politicians are thinking more about transparency as a principle than actually creating a strategy that would help consumers purchase health care,” said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.
Patients might assume, as they do in shopping for cars or houses, that the more expensive hospital will provide superior care.
“It’s not that irrational to say, ‘I want to go to the expensive provider because their quality might be better,’ ” Ginsburg said. “What if you go to the low-quality provider and things don’t go well? How will you explain that to yourself?”
Consumers on Wednesday will finally get some answers about one of modern life’s most persistent mysteries: how much medical care actually costs.
For the first time, the federal government will release the prices that hospitals charge for the 100 most common inpatient procedures. Until now, these charges have been closely held by facilities that see a competitive advantage in shielding their fees from competitors. What the numbers reveal is a health-care system with tremendous, seemingly random variation in the costs of services.
Having trouble viewing this on your phone? See the full graphic here.
In the District, George Washington University’s average bill for a patient on a ventilator was $115,000, while Providence Hospital’s average charge for the same service was just under $53,000. For a lower joint replacement, George Washington University charged almost $69,000 compared with Sibley Memorial Hospital’s average of just under $30,000.
Virginia’s highest average rate for a lower limb replacement was at CJW Medical Center in Richmond, more than $117,000, compared with Winchester Medical Center charging $25,600 per procedure. CJW charged more than $38,000 for esophagi and gastrointestinal conditions, while Carilion Tazewell Community Hospital averaged $8,100 in those cases.
Maryland has a unique system for hospital rate charges, so differences were smaller, and its average rate was lower than that of any other state in the most common procedures reviewed by The Washington Post. The highest average charge for a lower joint replacement was $36,000 by University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, much lower than the highest rates in other states.
Elsewhere, Las Colinas Medical Center just outside Dallas billed Medicare, on average, $160,832 for lower joint replacements.
Five miles away and on the same street, Baylor Medical Center in Irving, Tex., billed the government an average fee of $42,632.
In downtown New York City, two hospitals 63 blocks apart varied by 321 percent in the prices they charged to treat complicated cases of asthma or bronchitis. One charged an average of $34,310; the other billed, on average, $8,159.
Experts attribute the disparities to a health system that can set prices with impunity because consumers rarely see them — and rarely shop for discounts. Although the government has collected this information for years, it was housed in a bulky database that researchers had to pay to access.
The hospital charges being released Wednesday — all from 2011 — show the hospitals’ average list prices. Adding another layer of opacity, Medicare and private insurance companies typically negotiate lower charges with hospitals. But the data shed light on fees that the uninsured could pay.
READ: The government’s data on hospital charges
“It’s true that Medicare and a lot of private insurers never pay the full charge,” said Renee Hsia, an assistant professor at the University of California at San Francisco Medical School whose research focuses on price variation. “But you have a lot of private insurance companies where the consumer pays a portion of the charge. For uninsured patients, they face the full bill. In that sense, the price matters.”
Hospitals contend that these prices, which come from a master list known as a “chargemaster,” are rarely relevant to consumers. Hospitals often provide assistance to uninsured patients in paying their bills.
“The chargemaster can be confusing because it’s highly variable and generally not what a consumer would pay,” said Carol Steinberg, vice president at the American Hospital Association. “Even an uninsured person isn’t always paying the chargemaster rate.”
The public release of the data is part of an effort by Medicare to increase transparency in the health system. The agency will announce Wednesday new funding for data centers that can analyze and publish research on health-care prices.
“Historically, the mission of our agency has been to pay claims,” said Deputy Medicare Administrator Jonathan Blum. “We’ll continue to pay claims, but our mission has also shifted to be a trusted source in the marketplace for information. We want to provide more clarity and transparency on charge data.”
Hospitals nationwide showed a large variation for many common procedures.
For joint replacements, which are the most common hospital procedure for Medicare patients, prices ranged from a low of $5,304 in Ada, Okla., to $223,373 in Monterey, Calif. The average charge across the 427,207 Medicare patients’ joint replacements was $52,063.
Similar variation showed up for hospitals that treated particularly complicated cases of heart failure. At the high end, a hospital in Newark charged Medicare $173,250. At the low end, a hospital in western Tennessee submitted a bill for $7,304.
Treating a simple case of pneumonia, with no complications, cost $124,051 in Philadelphia and $5,093 in Water Valley, Miss., with an average charge of $24,549.
“There’s tremendous variation between hospitals,” Blum said. “Geography doesn’t seem to explain it.”
A Washington Post analysis of the 10 most common medical procedures showed certain patterns by state. Hospitals in six states — California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas — routinely had higher prices than the rest of the country.
Hospitals in more northern states, such as Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, tended to have the lowest prices.
Even within a small geographic area, though, prices can vary dramatically. Los Angeles tended to have the highest variation in costs. The average price there for treating a breathing problem that required a ventilator (for less than four days) ranged from $78,000 to $273,000.
For-profit hospitals tended to bill Medicare at a 29 percent higher rate, on average, than nonprofit or government-owned hospitals.
The bills that hospitals submit to Medicare have little relationship with the amount that the government paid the provider. In many cases, hospitals that submitted higher bills ultimately received lower payments than competitors.
Las Colinas, the Texas hospital that billed more than $160,000 for a joint replacement, was reimbursed, on average, $12,643. Nearby Baylor Medical Center submitted significantly lower charges but received a larger reimbursement: $14,202.
Medicare analysts said that teaching hospitals such as Baylor Medical Center receive a higher overhead in their payments to cover the costs of treating low-income patients and also to fund medical education.
Las Colinas spokesman Tyler Adams said that hospital’s charges do not reflect what patients pay, because the hospital negotiates discounts with insurers and subsidizes bills for uninsured patients.
How consumers might use the new data remains to be seen. Some advocates for greater transparency in health care worry about releasing costs without any information about quality.
“I think a lot of politicians are thinking more about transparency as a principle than actually creating a strategy that would help consumers purchase health care,” said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.
Patients might assume, as they do in shopping for cars or houses, that the more expensive hospital will provide superior care.
“It’s not that irrational to say, ‘I want to go to the expensive provider because their quality might be better,’ ” Ginsburg said. “What if you go to the low-quality provider and things don’t go well? How will you explain that to yourself?”
Regarding Article III
Madison wrote extensively on the subject of religion. Let me add that the Courts are LIMITED by the Constitution to Article III and Maritime courts - they have no authority except as usurped in Maybury V Madison and McColloch V Maryland; they have no authority to use British Common law and Case Law Precedent - so all cases you mentioned are in my opinion void null as if they never existed at all. Read Article III.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services aCompensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
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.
See, they just have no power to hold such trials and have no such power to render a decision on any matter whatsoever. The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers were mostly Lawyers so they would have put any such powers the courts have usurped in the actual Constitution if they intended for the court to have power over the Executive [Sword] or the Legislature [Purse] - they even said the courts shall have no power over either. So, IMHO only the individual States have the ability to address Religion as most of the original Colonies were made up of only one or two religions. In fact this is what caused DC to be located in it's own land as Maryland and Virginia would not agree to let the seat of government to be in the Religious area of the other.
You will find that being a very strict originalist when viewing the limits and powers allowed within the FOUR CORNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION - The FF&R said what they meant and meant what they said - no language in the Constitution allows for expansion, modernization, using introductory or clarifying clauses to expand powers . . If it is not explicit and needs to be correct then Article V was provided for all those events.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services aCompensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
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.
See, they just have no power to hold such trials and have no such power to render a decision on any matter whatsoever. The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers were mostly Lawyers so they would have put any such powers the courts have usurped in the actual Constitution if they intended for the court to have power over the Executive [Sword] or the Legislature [Purse] - they even said the courts shall have no power over either. So, IMHO only the individual States have the ability to address Religion as most of the original Colonies were made up of only one or two religions. In fact this is what caused DC to be located in it's own land as Maryland and Virginia would not agree to let the seat of government to be in the Religious area of the other.
You will find that being a very strict originalist when viewing the limits and powers allowed within the FOUR CORNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION - The FF&R said what they meant and meant what they said - no language in the Constitution allows for expansion, modernization, using introductory or clarifying clauses to expand powers . . If it is not explicit and needs to be correct then Article V was provided for all those events.
IS THE UNITED STATES A CORPORATION?
Let me tell you of an interesting thought - It goes back to the territorial days - It is an issue where some believe that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation? Let me first state that we are citizens of the State we reside in, and that State is a member of the United States - under a Compact we call the Constitution.
Therefore: the Federal Government has some limited rights and that the various State citizens will vote to elect certain elected officials in certain methods and manners.
Federal laws have no force or effect inside States unless within the Four corners of the Constitution, of which there are very few.
The Federal government has no CONSTITUTIONAL POLICE POWERS.
I pose this question for you. Have you ever seen any language that would permit a Federal police force? The answer, of course, is we have not - for it is not there.
Even the existence of Federal district courts are not provided for in the Constitution. Therefore; they have no real power except -as perceived by the people and the fear of arrest and harassment by the Federal Attorney General's office and the US attorney for that State district?
The topic deserves interest, but for me, I am a supporter for the AV process and the 28th proposed amendment- IT GETS IT ALL DONE!
The end of the AV process is controlled by needing 38+ State legislatures to Ratify the amendment.
I would submit that can not happen if the amendments (14-16-17) are rewritten. The ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and its protections concern the smallest minority - the SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL .
WE THE PEOPLE created and approved the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION which is a COMPACT with specific powers and limits.
*It bestows no citizenship on any person nor does it limit who can be a State citizen.
*It does not say who and who can not vote in elections for the Federal Offices.
*The Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT.
It does not pass any rights to anyone!
* Rights are from the CREATOR.
All unstated rights go to the States and to the people.
So, we are all citizens of our Home State - I was born in (edit), but I am a citizen of (edit).
Keep in mind that all case law precedent on the Federal Level are usurped as Article III does not allow British case law theory nor does it allow for Judicial review.
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.
"DEAR SIR, While Burr's case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law."
"I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case.you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive."
USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it's intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and viod because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.)
Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
Therefore: the Federal Government has some limited rights and that the various State citizens will vote to elect certain elected officials in certain methods and manners.
Federal laws have no force or effect inside States unless within the Four corners of the Constitution, of which there are very few.
The Federal government has no CONSTITUTIONAL POLICE POWERS.
I pose this question for you. Have you ever seen any language that would permit a Federal police force? The answer, of course, is we have not - for it is not there.
Even the existence of Federal district courts are not provided for in the Constitution. Therefore; they have no real power except -as perceived by the people and the fear of arrest and harassment by the Federal Attorney General's office and the US attorney for that State district?
The topic deserves interest, but for me, I am a supporter for the AV process and the 28th proposed amendment- IT GETS IT ALL DONE!
The end of the AV process is controlled by needing 38+ State legislatures to Ratify the amendment.
I would submit that can not happen if the amendments (14-16-17) are rewritten. The ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and its protections concern the smallest minority - the SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL .
WE THE PEOPLE created and approved the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION which is a COMPACT with specific powers and limits.
*It bestows no citizenship on any person nor does it limit who can be a State citizen.
*It does not say who and who can not vote in elections for the Federal Offices.
*The Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT.
It does not pass any rights to anyone!
* Rights are from the CREATOR.
All unstated rights go to the States and to the people.
So, we are all citizens of our Home State - I was born in (edit), but I am a citizen of (edit).
Keep in mind that all case law precedent on the Federal Level are usurped as Article III does not allow British case law theory nor does it allow for Judicial review.
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.
"DEAR SIR, While Burr's case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law."
"I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case.you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive."
USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it's intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and viod because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.)
Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
“Fiction of Law” or “Legal Fiction”
There is a legal concept called “fiction of law”, or “legal fiction”, the presumption being when a “fiction” is presented in a court of law UNOPPOSED, it prevails by default. Should this now established “fiction” (fantasy) mature into a precedent, it is as hard or impossible to overturn as if it was based on actual fact. Roe vs. Wade and the “separation of church and state” myth are prime examples of a fraud being legitimized by default. We have been asleep at the switch while the liberal “domestic enemy within” has been actively working behind our backs advancing their sedition.
American history is no longer taught in our schools, it has been replaced with Marxist “social studies”. When Hitler ran the Marxist “Frankfurt School” out of Germany, they came here and set up shop in Columbia University, and polluted the entire University system from there.
Like Hitler's Mein Kampf, they have exposed their agenda in the humanist manifestos. Secular humanism (the “religion” of atheism) is the excrement of Marxism and the foundation of communism. The last article of faith states: “what greater goal for humankind than for each individual to be in IDEAL (brainwashed) as well as in practice, a world citizen in a world community”.
The “world” authority this global government is to be built on is a militaristic commercial jurisdiction that derives from the ancient Laws of Oleron. Its purpose is to regulate commerce and the conduct of warfare between nations. It does not recognize and protect rights; it only enforces contract and legislated positive law. UN “Human Rights” and our statutory “civil rights” are founded in statutes, decreed by and conferred by political consensus. They are not absolute and unalienable as are our God given “natural” rights, but are subject to change or revocation at every election or change of whim by a current voting majority in Congress.
Our supreme court issued us a stern warning in Ramsay vs. Allegrie to keep this despotic (federal) jurisdiction within its proper bounds. As it does not recognize and protect rights, no one can be subject to its jurisdiction but by his consent, by entering into a contract with it.
In DeLovio vs. Boit, policies of insurance were held to be “maritime contracts” regulated by the “world” maritime commercial authority. We have contracted ourselves into global Marxism through “social insurance” (which is what communism is), as enrolled “members” in a regulated commercial society, we belong to the body of the “whole” in which we are but components. It's like being in the army.
Ready to fight back yet? Ready to take back our REPUBLIC? Ready to save our children form becoming wards of the Federal government? Will you do the work necessary to teach your children and grand children the truth?
If you want to RESTORE LIBERTY and RIGHTS you must go into the streets and State Capitals giving out the brochures in this project to all elected officials in your state. yes, it will be work but as Franklin said - "WE GAVE YOU A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT?
GoodBusiness
This is a very large Constitutional/American history free library in our large video sections - share it with the children:
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-basic-library.html
American history is no longer taught in our schools, it has been replaced with Marxist “social studies”. When Hitler ran the Marxist “Frankfurt School” out of Germany, they came here and set up shop in Columbia University, and polluted the entire University system from there.
Like Hitler's Mein Kampf, they have exposed their agenda in the humanist manifestos. Secular humanism (the “religion” of atheism) is the excrement of Marxism and the foundation of communism. The last article of faith states: “what greater goal for humankind than for each individual to be in IDEAL (brainwashed) as well as in practice, a world citizen in a world community”.
The “world” authority this global government is to be built on is a militaristic commercial jurisdiction that derives from the ancient Laws of Oleron. Its purpose is to regulate commerce and the conduct of warfare between nations. It does not recognize and protect rights; it only enforces contract and legislated positive law. UN “Human Rights” and our statutory “civil rights” are founded in statutes, decreed by and conferred by political consensus. They are not absolute and unalienable as are our God given “natural” rights, but are subject to change or revocation at every election or change of whim by a current voting majority in Congress.
Our supreme court issued us a stern warning in Ramsay vs. Allegrie to keep this despotic (federal) jurisdiction within its proper bounds. As it does not recognize and protect rights, no one can be subject to its jurisdiction but by his consent, by entering into a contract with it.
In DeLovio vs. Boit, policies of insurance were held to be “maritime contracts” regulated by the “world” maritime commercial authority. We have contracted ourselves into global Marxism through “social insurance” (which is what communism is), as enrolled “members” in a regulated commercial society, we belong to the body of the “whole” in which we are but components. It's like being in the army.
Ready to fight back yet? Ready to take back our REPUBLIC? Ready to save our children form becoming wards of the Federal government? Will you do the work necessary to teach your children and grand children the truth?
If you want to RESTORE LIBERTY and RIGHTS you must go into the streets and State Capitals giving out the brochures in this project to all elected officials in your state. yes, it will be work but as Franklin said - "WE GAVE YOU A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT?
GoodBusiness
This is a very large Constitutional/American history free library in our large video sections - share it with the children:
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-basic-library.html
Virtue in 1828
The meaning of virtue in 1828 was more commonly less of what you believe it to say today . . the first three would have been the most common usage of the times . . not religious.
virtue
VIRTUE, n. vur'tu. [L. virtus, from vireo, or its root. See Worth.] The radical sense is strength, from straining, stretching, extending. This is the primary sense of L. vir, a man.]
1. Strength; that substance or quality of physical bodies, by which they act and produce effects on other bodies. In this literal and proper sense, we speak of the virtue or virtues of plants in medicine, and the virtues of drugs. In decoctions, the virtues of plants are extracted. By long standing in the open air, the virtues are lost.
2. Bravery valor. This was the predominant signification of virtus among the Romans.
Trust to thy single virtue.
[This sense is nearly or quite obsolete.]
3. Moral goodness; the practice of moral duties and the abstaining from vice, or a conformity of life and conversation to the moral law. In this sense, virtue may be, and in many instances must be, distinguished from religion. The practice of moral duties merely from motives of convenience, or from compulsion, or from regard to reputation, is virtue, as distinct from religion. The practice of moral duties from sincere love to God and his laws, is virtue and religion. In this sense it is true,
That virtue only makes our bliss below.
Virtue is nothing but voluntary obedience to truth.
4. A particular moral excellence; as the virtue of temperance, of chastity, of charity.
Remember all his virtues.
5. Acting power; something efficacious.
Jesus, knowing that virtue had gone out of him, turned - Mark 3.
6. Secret agency; efficacy without visible or material action.
She moves the body which she doth possess,
Yet no part toucheth, but by virtue's touch.
7. Excellence; or that which constitutes value and merit.
- Terence, who thought the sole grace and virtue of their fable, the sticking in of sentences.
8. One of the orders of the celestial hierarchy.
Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers.
9. Efficacy; power.
He used to travel through Greece by virtue of this fable, which procured him reception in all the towns.
10. Legal efficacy or power; authority. A man administers the laws by virtue of a commission.
In virtue, in consequence; by the efficacy or authority.
This they shall attain, partly in virtue of the promise of God, and partly in virtue of piety.
virtue
VIRTUE, n. vur'tu. [L. virtus, from vireo, or its root. See Worth.] The radical sense is strength, from straining, stretching, extending. This is the primary sense of L. vir, a man.]
1. Strength; that substance or quality of physical bodies, by which they act and produce effects on other bodies. In this literal and proper sense, we speak of the virtue or virtues of plants in medicine, and the virtues of drugs. In decoctions, the virtues of plants are extracted. By long standing in the open air, the virtues are lost.
2. Bravery valor. This was the predominant signification of virtus among the Romans.
Trust to thy single virtue.
[This sense is nearly or quite obsolete.]
3. Moral goodness; the practice of moral duties and the abstaining from vice, or a conformity of life and conversation to the moral law. In this sense, virtue may be, and in many instances must be, distinguished from religion. The practice of moral duties merely from motives of convenience, or from compulsion, or from regard to reputation, is virtue, as distinct from religion. The practice of moral duties from sincere love to God and his laws, is virtue and religion. In this sense it is true,
That virtue only makes our bliss below.
Virtue is nothing but voluntary obedience to truth.
4. A particular moral excellence; as the virtue of temperance, of chastity, of charity.
Remember all his virtues.
5. Acting power; something efficacious.
Jesus, knowing that virtue had gone out of him, turned - Mark 3.
6. Secret agency; efficacy without visible or material action.
She moves the body which she doth possess,
Yet no part toucheth, but by virtue's touch.
7. Excellence; or that which constitutes value and merit.
- Terence, who thought the sole grace and virtue of their fable, the sticking in of sentences.
8. One of the orders of the celestial hierarchy.
Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers.
9. Efficacy; power.
He used to travel through Greece by virtue of this fable, which procured him reception in all the towns.
10. Legal efficacy or power; authority. A man administers the laws by virtue of a commission.
In virtue, in consequence; by the efficacy or authority.
This they shall attain, partly in virtue of the promise of God, and partly in virtue of piety.
The Politics of Reality
by Mangus Colorado
Let's begin this discussion by referencing two main points. They are illustrated in the following:
I would like to share with you an email forwarded by a friend. It is a discussion posted on a conservative website addressing the 'autopsy report by the RNC concerning the Republican Party's future.
'AUTOPSY' IS THE RIGHT WORD: RNC RELEASES REPORT ON PARTY'S FUTURE
by (edited)
------
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has released its long-awaited study on the 2012 elections, with detailed recommendations about how the party can improve its future.
The report, entitled the “Growth and Opportunity Project,” was compiled by a special committee consisting of former Gov. Haley Barbour of
Mississippi, veteran GOP adviser Sally Bradshaw, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Puerto Rico committeewoman Zori Fonalledas, and South Carolina committeeman Glenn McCall.
For several months, RNC chairman Reince Priebus has referred to the committee’s report on the state of the party as an “autopsy.” It is an
apt description, because the 100-page report has as much chance of reviving the GOP as an autopsy has of reviving a corpse.
The report effectively suggests Republicans try to compete with Democrats by imitating them--not just in tactics and appearance, but in policy and ideas as well. Thus far, media coverage of the report has anticipated its recommendations for a shorter primary process, fewer debates, an earlier national convention, and closer engagement with minority communities.
Whatever the merits of these suggestions, they mask the fundamental flaw of the report: a failure to acknowledge, much less learn from, the successes of the recent past--all of which were built on conservative revival. Instead, the report declares that the GOP is stuck in an “ideological cul-de-sac” and requires “a more welcoming conservatism.”
To that end, the report insists that the party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” It also calls for Republicans to
imitate the left’s identity politics, creating a “Growth and Opportunity Inclusion Council” composed of “nonwhites” who are meant to help
increase diversity.
There is nothing in the report about strengthening the Republican Party’s commitment to conservative principles--the winning formula in 1980, 1994, and 2010. Instead, the report declares that Republicans “make sure that the government works for those truly in need”--a worthy goal, but one that cannot be accomplished without shrinking it and focusing it. (The word “smaller” does not appear anywhere in the report’s 100 pages.)
The report suggests that the GOP focus on “growth.” But the sort of growth the report’s authors seem to envision is of the party bureaucracy
itself. Repeatedly, the report calls for hiring new staff, creating new committees, and spending more money. In many ways the RNC’s report reads like a government policy prospectus--full of earnest exhortations and ambitious targets, bereft of common sense principles and clear, attainable priorities.
There are some bright spots in the report. It recognizes that “there is a need for greater competition among vendors to spur more creativity and better outcomes.” . Yet the RNC seems to have no idea how to foster that competition. The committee suggests that the RNC itself lead the way in technological innovation, data collection, and setting the message for third-party groups such as Super PACs and issue-based organizations.
One striking passage reads:
Chairman Priebus should call for a command performance meeting of the leadership of our friends and allies and not allow anyone to leave the room until it’s determined, to the extent allowed by law, who is doing what that can be divided legally. This is likely the most important recommendation in this friends and allies section of this report.”
Yet elsewhere, it insists: “Groupthink is a loser.”
Amazingly, a key recommendation for the revival of the Republican Party depends on the support of Democrats. The report calls for bipartisan
cooperation to relax campaign finance restrictions in order to strengthen the power and cohesion of the two national parties relative to “third-party groups.”
The obvious targets are not just outside PACs but groups like the Tea Party that challenge the Republican Party’s claim to conservatism.
Even while suggesting ways to “raise corporate money,” the report calls on Republicans to adopt the Democrats’ class warfare and to attack bonuses and large CEO retirement packages.
It rightly calls for Republicans to reach out to minorities through coalitions, then treats minorities likewindow-dressing, calling on the party to “elevate Hispanic leaders” as if it has not already done so--on merit, and more often than the Democrats.
There is very little in the report about how Republicans can improve their performance in the media. The only relevant recommendation is that
“Republican leaders should participate in and actively prepare for interviews with The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, MTV and magazines such as People, UsWeekly, etc.”--left-leaning outlets that are often hostile and which are useless in mobilizing the core conservative voter base.
That is not to say Republicans should avoid those outlets, but to focus on them is also a mistake. The primary key to the Obama campaign’s success in 2012 was that it brought the Democrats’ base to the polls. Mitt Romney won independents in 2012, but lost the election. Until Republicans improve their communication with their own base--reaching out through conservative media, and new media in particular--their message will be lost.
Instead, the report recommends that Republicans reach out to organizations such as the NAACP--ignoring the fact that the NAACP’s policies are decidedly radical and do not even represent public opinion in the black community on issues such as voter ID and school reform. At the same time, the report implies that the GOP should back away from “Third-party groups that promote purity” --an apparent swipe at the Tea Party.
The only part of the “Growth and Opportunity” report that has any real coherence is the section on fundraising. There, Chairman Priebus can boast some real successes. The report highlights the improvement in party finances, and also points out that the Romney campaign made improvements in efficiency, using a financial platform that coordinated “over $1 billion” between various groups through the efforts of only nine employees.
That fundraising role is where the RNC is most effective. Elsewhere, it can coordinate, but not control. The authors seem to realize this at times. They implicitly rebuke Karl Rove: “Washington should not try to dictate candidate choices. Voters will ultimately decide.” Yet the authors
cannot resist the urge to centralize. And rather than finding ways to sell conservative principles, they chart a leftward course--one that cannot win.
This is the comment from that thread.....
This is, in my opinion, an excellent editorial. I whole-heartedly agree and would like to conclude with these thoughts of my own. The Republicans are scrambling for purchase on the slippery-slope of politics they have chosen to put their footing upon.
I have been a 'party loyalist' for all the years of my voting life. Just considering the past 15 years when I have been my most politically active-meaning informed and involved-I have come full circle in my assessment of politics and political party power.
When I was naive, I thought this when looking at politics-it is a game-where the people involved care more about their own agenda and political power than they do about what is best for our Country. Then 911 happened, my family grew-my attention to our world-their world became very focused, familiar, and personal. Politics and current events became a very large part of my consciousness and attention. I learned the truth about politics-I had to care because what 'they' did as it was going to matter to me and mine and I better damn straight start knowing 'what up'?!
Now that I am so far from naive that I would not even recognize that person, I realize that my instincts about politics and politicians have proven spot-on. I am sick of party politics and the political animal that plays that game. I held my nose and voted for John McCain-party loyalty and listened to the pundits rationalize their choice-he had put in his time/it was his turn/he was a war hero/he had earned his spurs....bullshit-he is about as far from conservative in his thinking as I am from being the head of the DNC.
Mitt Romney the same. Neither person do I feel any personal disregard for-it is the idea that they are somehow entitled to take their turn on the stage, by what they have contributed to the party and the game. Forget that mentality!
Run the best candidate that can win-the best man that is the best choice for the Country.! Not the old guy that has finally risen to the top of the choice chart. And certainly let us not turn into a watered-down alternative to the Democrats.
When your old, you get the benefit of learned experience, and also the freedom to be blunt and brutally honest. I don't give one great big stinking crap about political correctness. I am tired of being asked to compromise our principles in order to compete with a political agenda that I think is destructive to my Country.
Compromise is this-the hybrid of 2 words. 'Composite' and 'promise'. Promise -being what I believe and say is my truth and what you believe and say is your truth. Somewhere in between is supposed to be the common ground we come to (a composite position)....compromise. Well compromise between the democrats and the republicans in recent history is what the democrats will take and what the republicans loose or give away.
If the Republicans are moving toward 'another middle' then they can do so without me. Slide on down that slope of decay on your own. I want no part of your new direction. I will stay where I believe right is right and wrong is wrong. I will stand with the Constitution that the Founders left me-and you go 'into that dark night' with your modern 'take' on liberty and freedom without me.
You become that RINO-DEM-REPUBLICAN party if you so choose. Don't ask me for any more money, or phone work and mailing, no signs in my yard. Don't ask me to pretend that I trust this current president. HELL NO. If his lips are moving-I had better take another healthy breath of skepticism and I do not believe he or his party want the best for our country or our people. Becoming Euro- America might be the future you are positioning yourselves for a place in, I'll be damned if I will put a stamp of approval on that.
You Republicans, go on ahead and play the game of 'politics' and we patriots will do the hard work of trying to save our Country and restore our Constitution. I pray God will back the cause which is most worthy, and that He still can find enough of us worthy to keep us in His Good Graces and Blessings. My wish for you is that you fall flat on your ass on that slippery-slope you have chosen.
.......and another........
Local Grassroots Leaders to RNC:
'Join Us or Get the Hell Out of Our Way'
4/06/13 By Michael Patrick Leahy (maybe we should edit this name out as well)
Tuesday's remarks by new Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Mike Shields seen as critical of conservative grassroots activists have not been well received by either the icons of the conservative movement or local grassroots leaders.
Despite efforts by RNC spokesperson Sean Spicer to walk those comments back, local conservative grassroots leaders--almost all of whom have been working hard for over four years with no compensation--remain unimpressed.
Ben Cunningham, founder of the Nashville Tea Party and one of the leaders of the decade earlier Tennessee Tax Revolt, told Breitbart News that "we are not about to be led by a bunch of timid Washington, D.C. Brahmins who are interested in making a buck off of people they see as naive. Either join us in the fight or get the hell out of the way."
Cunningham added that "the problem for Washington, D.C.-based Republican consultants is they have become almost completely detached from the passion and purpose of the grassroots. To the grassroots Tea Party activist," Cunningham continued, "the future of the country is at stake and they immediately distrust 'consultants' who feel uneasy about manifesting their passion and fighting for the cause. Tea Party activists have been demonized and vilified and called every name in the book by liberals for four years and it has only made us stronger and more determined than ever."
Zan Green, founder of the Rainy Day Patriots, a local tea party in Birmingham, Alabama organized in February 2009, echoed Cunningham's sentiments. "The RNC is welcome to join 'We The People' in our self funded, personal-time-spent efforts to restore our republic. We could use some team players and there is always room for more boots on the ground."
Eric Olsen, co-founder of the 5,000 member Montana Shrugged Teaparty Patriots of Billings, Montana, told Breitbart News that "I take exception to all the reports coming from the Republican old guard. They do not realize it, but they are losing their base with such remarks."
According to Olsen "the GOP should totally embrace the teaparty/grassroots followers as it is to their best interest. But they lack the political will to do so. Instead they demean the success of the movement. They purposely went out of their way last election cycle to disenfranchise the tea party, libertarian and Ron Paul supporters. We all know what happened then. They lost crucial elections across the nation while successful teaparty backed candidates like Ted Cruz won handily."
Olsen called the RNC Autopsy report "a joke," and added that "it shows the willingness of the old guard GOP to throw their platform under the bus giving in to the pressure from the extreme left."
"Passion for America," Olsen concluded, "is the only force that will resurrect real hope and change for the United States."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/06/Local-Grassroots...
IT IS MY OPINION THAT:
All Conservatives must stand back and take a real hard look at the body politics. First is that if we demand Social and fiscal Conservatives only about 20% of Republics registered classify themselves to fit this mold. Such a Candidate as this would not be electable in the entire North East, Lake States, and most of the West coast States.
This would lead to a guaranteed Progressive Democrat landslide in every election. This would result in a veto proof Senate and House lead by a Democrat President - that is exactly what happened in 2008 and then again 2012 when 4 million less voted.
I have seen this before - let us consider the issue of NATIONAL POLITICS. The House and the Senate can not be won by the R's unless they take more moderate position on many issues - it has always been this way - the Rockefeller Republicans - all middle of the road country club types, and the entire east coast and west coast is comprised of that persuasion.
Conservatives make up about 30 to 40% of the voting public depending on the poll - now voting is different - 47% as Romney said have been bought and paid for with tax dollars from the Democrats and Republicans but the R's get no credit for any Progressive programs and they had many . . so now if you take a 100% conservative view point you will have your hat handed to you as has happened in California, NY, Mass, Oregon, Washington, the NE, Florida, ND, SD, Mont. and more are just not supporting hard conservative options.
So, to stand tall on one side of a teeter-doter and have those on the center right and left of center stand on the other - when they jump the Conservatives will be tossed in the ocean and lost forever. It is pure foolishness to even think that way = total losing theory - these people will not even get 170 elected to the national House and maybe 30 Senators at best.
AV is the only way - no money or power in DC they will all leave and then those leaning conservative will move to conservative States and the left will have their own. My bet is soon the left loses most of the States as they, like California go broke with broken promises all over their States.
Elections will not fix our nations problems at this point in time as history has shown us being ruled by Progressives in both parties - only the Article V State amendment process can save the REPUBLIC and that will require all fiscal or social or center rights to unite and pressure the State legislatures [38 States] to do the repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments.
If we can not do this then it is game over and the Progressives holding a lock on 48% of the entire population by bribing them with our tax money. Then you add the center left and they will get 55% + in every election except maybe 8 to 10 States.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/
Let's begin this discussion by referencing two main points. They are illustrated in the following:
I would like to share with you an email forwarded by a friend. It is a discussion posted on a conservative website addressing the 'autopsy report by the RNC concerning the Republican Party's future.
'AUTOPSY' IS THE RIGHT WORD: RNC RELEASES REPORT ON PARTY'S FUTURE
by (edited)
------
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has released its long-awaited study on the 2012 elections, with detailed recommendations about how the party can improve its future.
The report, entitled the “Growth and Opportunity Project,” was compiled by a special committee consisting of former Gov. Haley Barbour of
Mississippi, veteran GOP adviser Sally Bradshaw, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Puerto Rico committeewoman Zori Fonalledas, and South Carolina committeeman Glenn McCall.
For several months, RNC chairman Reince Priebus has referred to the committee’s report on the state of the party as an “autopsy.” It is an
apt description, because the 100-page report has as much chance of reviving the GOP as an autopsy has of reviving a corpse.
The report effectively suggests Republicans try to compete with Democrats by imitating them--not just in tactics and appearance, but in policy and ideas as well. Thus far, media coverage of the report has anticipated its recommendations for a shorter primary process, fewer debates, an earlier national convention, and closer engagement with minority communities.
Whatever the merits of these suggestions, they mask the fundamental flaw of the report: a failure to acknowledge, much less learn from, the successes of the recent past--all of which were built on conservative revival. Instead, the report declares that the GOP is stuck in an “ideological cul-de-sac” and requires “a more welcoming conservatism.”
To that end, the report insists that the party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” It also calls for Republicans to
imitate the left’s identity politics, creating a “Growth and Opportunity Inclusion Council” composed of “nonwhites” who are meant to help
increase diversity.
There is nothing in the report about strengthening the Republican Party’s commitment to conservative principles--the winning formula in 1980, 1994, and 2010. Instead, the report declares that Republicans “make sure that the government works for those truly in need”--a worthy goal, but one that cannot be accomplished without shrinking it and focusing it. (The word “smaller” does not appear anywhere in the report’s 100 pages.)
The report suggests that the GOP focus on “growth.” But the sort of growth the report’s authors seem to envision is of the party bureaucracy
itself. Repeatedly, the report calls for hiring new staff, creating new committees, and spending more money. In many ways the RNC’s report reads like a government policy prospectus--full of earnest exhortations and ambitious targets, bereft of common sense principles and clear, attainable priorities.
There are some bright spots in the report. It recognizes that “there is a need for greater competition among vendors to spur more creativity and better outcomes.” . Yet the RNC seems to have no idea how to foster that competition. The committee suggests that the RNC itself lead the way in technological innovation, data collection, and setting the message for third-party groups such as Super PACs and issue-based organizations.
One striking passage reads:
Chairman Priebus should call for a command performance meeting of the leadership of our friends and allies and not allow anyone to leave the room until it’s determined, to the extent allowed by law, who is doing what that can be divided legally. This is likely the most important recommendation in this friends and allies section of this report.”
Yet elsewhere, it insists: “Groupthink is a loser.”
Amazingly, a key recommendation for the revival of the Republican Party depends on the support of Democrats. The report calls for bipartisan
cooperation to relax campaign finance restrictions in order to strengthen the power and cohesion of the two national parties relative to “third-party groups.”
The obvious targets are not just outside PACs but groups like the Tea Party that challenge the Republican Party’s claim to conservatism.
Even while suggesting ways to “raise corporate money,” the report calls on Republicans to adopt the Democrats’ class warfare and to attack bonuses and large CEO retirement packages.
It rightly calls for Republicans to reach out to minorities through coalitions, then treats minorities likewindow-dressing, calling on the party to “elevate Hispanic leaders” as if it has not already done so--on merit, and more often than the Democrats.
There is very little in the report about how Republicans can improve their performance in the media. The only relevant recommendation is that
“Republican leaders should participate in and actively prepare for interviews with The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, MTV and magazines such as People, UsWeekly, etc.”--left-leaning outlets that are often hostile and which are useless in mobilizing the core conservative voter base.
That is not to say Republicans should avoid those outlets, but to focus on them is also a mistake. The primary key to the Obama campaign’s success in 2012 was that it brought the Democrats’ base to the polls. Mitt Romney won independents in 2012, but lost the election. Until Republicans improve their communication with their own base--reaching out through conservative media, and new media in particular--their message will be lost.
Instead, the report recommends that Republicans reach out to organizations such as the NAACP--ignoring the fact that the NAACP’s policies are decidedly radical and do not even represent public opinion in the black community on issues such as voter ID and school reform. At the same time, the report implies that the GOP should back away from “Third-party groups that promote purity” --an apparent swipe at the Tea Party.
The only part of the “Growth and Opportunity” report that has any real coherence is the section on fundraising. There, Chairman Priebus can boast some real successes. The report highlights the improvement in party finances, and also points out that the Romney campaign made improvements in efficiency, using a financial platform that coordinated “over $1 billion” between various groups through the efforts of only nine employees.
That fundraising role is where the RNC is most effective. Elsewhere, it can coordinate, but not control. The authors seem to realize this at times. They implicitly rebuke Karl Rove: “Washington should not try to dictate candidate choices. Voters will ultimately decide.” Yet the authors
cannot resist the urge to centralize. And rather than finding ways to sell conservative principles, they chart a leftward course--one that cannot win.
This is the comment from that thread.....
This is, in my opinion, an excellent editorial. I whole-heartedly agree and would like to conclude with these thoughts of my own. The Republicans are scrambling for purchase on the slippery-slope of politics they have chosen to put their footing upon.
I have been a 'party loyalist' for all the years of my voting life. Just considering the past 15 years when I have been my most politically active-meaning informed and involved-I have come full circle in my assessment of politics and political party power.
When I was naive, I thought this when looking at politics-it is a game-where the people involved care more about their own agenda and political power than they do about what is best for our Country. Then 911 happened, my family grew-my attention to our world-their world became very focused, familiar, and personal. Politics and current events became a very large part of my consciousness and attention. I learned the truth about politics-I had to care because what 'they' did as it was going to matter to me and mine and I better damn straight start knowing 'what up'?!
Now that I am so far from naive that I would not even recognize that person, I realize that my instincts about politics and politicians have proven spot-on. I am sick of party politics and the political animal that plays that game. I held my nose and voted for John McCain-party loyalty and listened to the pundits rationalize their choice-he had put in his time/it was his turn/he was a war hero/he had earned his spurs....bullshit-he is about as far from conservative in his thinking as I am from being the head of the DNC.
Mitt Romney the same. Neither person do I feel any personal disregard for-it is the idea that they are somehow entitled to take their turn on the stage, by what they have contributed to the party and the game. Forget that mentality!
Run the best candidate that can win-the best man that is the best choice for the Country.! Not the old guy that has finally risen to the top of the choice chart. And certainly let us not turn into a watered-down alternative to the Democrats.
When your old, you get the benefit of learned experience, and also the freedom to be blunt and brutally honest. I don't give one great big stinking crap about political correctness. I am tired of being asked to compromise our principles in order to compete with a political agenda that I think is destructive to my Country.
Compromise is this-the hybrid of 2 words. 'Composite' and 'promise'. Promise -being what I believe and say is my truth and what you believe and say is your truth. Somewhere in between is supposed to be the common ground we come to (a composite position)....compromise. Well compromise between the democrats and the republicans in recent history is what the democrats will take and what the republicans loose or give away.
If the Republicans are moving toward 'another middle' then they can do so without me. Slide on down that slope of decay on your own. I want no part of your new direction. I will stay where I believe right is right and wrong is wrong. I will stand with the Constitution that the Founders left me-and you go 'into that dark night' with your modern 'take' on liberty and freedom without me.
You become that RINO-DEM-REPUBLICAN party if you so choose. Don't ask me for any more money, or phone work and mailing, no signs in my yard. Don't ask me to pretend that I trust this current president. HELL NO. If his lips are moving-I had better take another healthy breath of skepticism and I do not believe he or his party want the best for our country or our people. Becoming Euro- America might be the future you are positioning yourselves for a place in, I'll be damned if I will put a stamp of approval on that.
You Republicans, go on ahead and play the game of 'politics' and we patriots will do the hard work of trying to save our Country and restore our Constitution. I pray God will back the cause which is most worthy, and that He still can find enough of us worthy to keep us in His Good Graces and Blessings. My wish for you is that you fall flat on your ass on that slippery-slope you have chosen.
.......and another........
Local Grassroots Leaders to RNC:
'Join Us or Get the Hell Out of Our Way'
4/06/13 By Michael Patrick Leahy (maybe we should edit this name out as well)
Tuesday's remarks by new Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Mike Shields seen as critical of conservative grassroots activists have not been well received by either the icons of the conservative movement or local grassroots leaders.
Despite efforts by RNC spokesperson Sean Spicer to walk those comments back, local conservative grassroots leaders--almost all of whom have been working hard for over four years with no compensation--remain unimpressed.
Ben Cunningham, founder of the Nashville Tea Party and one of the leaders of the decade earlier Tennessee Tax Revolt, told Breitbart News that "we are not about to be led by a bunch of timid Washington, D.C. Brahmins who are interested in making a buck off of people they see as naive. Either join us in the fight or get the hell out of the way."
Cunningham added that "the problem for Washington, D.C.-based Republican consultants is they have become almost completely detached from the passion and purpose of the grassroots. To the grassroots Tea Party activist," Cunningham continued, "the future of the country is at stake and they immediately distrust 'consultants' who feel uneasy about manifesting their passion and fighting for the cause. Tea Party activists have been demonized and vilified and called every name in the book by liberals for four years and it has only made us stronger and more determined than ever."
Zan Green, founder of the Rainy Day Patriots, a local tea party in Birmingham, Alabama organized in February 2009, echoed Cunningham's sentiments. "The RNC is welcome to join 'We The People' in our self funded, personal-time-spent efforts to restore our republic. We could use some team players and there is always room for more boots on the ground."
Eric Olsen, co-founder of the 5,000 member Montana Shrugged Teaparty Patriots of Billings, Montana, told Breitbart News that "I take exception to all the reports coming from the Republican old guard. They do not realize it, but they are losing their base with such remarks."
According to Olsen "the GOP should totally embrace the teaparty/grassroots followers as it is to their best interest. But they lack the political will to do so. Instead they demean the success of the movement. They purposely went out of their way last election cycle to disenfranchise the tea party, libertarian and Ron Paul supporters. We all know what happened then. They lost crucial elections across the nation while successful teaparty backed candidates like Ted Cruz won handily."
Olsen called the RNC Autopsy report "a joke," and added that "it shows the willingness of the old guard GOP to throw their platform under the bus giving in to the pressure from the extreme left."
"Passion for America," Olsen concluded, "is the only force that will resurrect real hope and change for the United States."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/06/Local-Grassroots...
IT IS MY OPINION THAT:
All Conservatives must stand back and take a real hard look at the body politics. First is that if we demand Social and fiscal Conservatives only about 20% of Republics registered classify themselves to fit this mold. Such a Candidate as this would not be electable in the entire North East, Lake States, and most of the West coast States.
This would lead to a guaranteed Progressive Democrat landslide in every election. This would result in a veto proof Senate and House lead by a Democrat President - that is exactly what happened in 2008 and then again 2012 when 4 million less voted.
I have seen this before - let us consider the issue of NATIONAL POLITICS. The House and the Senate can not be won by the R's unless they take more moderate position on many issues - it has always been this way - the Rockefeller Republicans - all middle of the road country club types, and the entire east coast and west coast is comprised of that persuasion.
Conservatives make up about 30 to 40% of the voting public depending on the poll - now voting is different - 47% as Romney said have been bought and paid for with tax dollars from the Democrats and Republicans but the R's get no credit for any Progressive programs and they had many . . so now if you take a 100% conservative view point you will have your hat handed to you as has happened in California, NY, Mass, Oregon, Washington, the NE, Florida, ND, SD, Mont. and more are just not supporting hard conservative options.
So, to stand tall on one side of a teeter-doter and have those on the center right and left of center stand on the other - when they jump the Conservatives will be tossed in the ocean and lost forever. It is pure foolishness to even think that way = total losing theory - these people will not even get 170 elected to the national House and maybe 30 Senators at best.
AV is the only way - no money or power in DC they will all leave and then those leaning conservative will move to conservative States and the left will have their own. My bet is soon the left loses most of the States as they, like California go broke with broken promises all over their States.
Elections will not fix our nations problems at this point in time as history has shown us being ruled by Progressives in both parties - only the Article V State amendment process can save the REPUBLIC and that will require all fiscal or social or center rights to unite and pressure the State legislatures [38 States] to do the repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments.
If we can not do this then it is game over and the Progressives holding a lock on 48% of the entire population by bribing them with our tax money. Then you add the center left and they will get 55% + in every election except maybe 8 to 10 States.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/
Article V Discussion
The solutions will not come from the Federal Government and most likely not the Courts. The solution will come from WE THE PEOPLE through our State Legislatures. Virginia is now in the R column which I think is not number 33 and we need 38 to get the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments revoked, thus restoring the Original Constitutional Republic and the Federal government would be placed back under the Article I section 8 enumerated powers.
Now, as to the importance of the removal of Obama with any candidate and to regain the Senate is as follows. The congress can be pressured to start a process of restoring the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION by defining what the words meant and what the Founders actually wrote. The usurpers have attacked the true meaning by changing the definitions of words and to modernizing the Constitution to serve the new demands of the Progressive movement.
Yes, they have used the court to alter the actual meaning of the Constitution as the Founders made clear could not be done without using the methods they created to allow adjustments as required over the decades and centuries. The Founders wrote the Constitution in very simple straight forward language using everyday words that all people of the times could read and understand. They then gave us the Article V amendment process so we could make changes if necessary and we have used it 17 times since the bill of rights [first ten amendments] and one of those was to revoke a previous mistaken amendment.
So, clearly the Amendment process was set in place to protect the PEOPLE and allow them to make corrections to limit the usurping of a oppressive tyrannical central government. This gave us the State convention option in the Article V method to permit the States to take action when the Congress refuses to make amendments to correct usurpation and to send them to the many States for ratifying. The States can directly make amendments and force them on the Central Federal government without debate by having 38 States [3/4] create an amendment that revokes the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments - then present it to Congress to send out for ratification by the 38 States [3/4] - Congress cannot refuse and if they do, then the State 38 LEGISLATURES CAN RATIFY THE AMENDMENT[S] and present the ratified amendment to Congress as law of the land. the Congress and the Courts have no ability to refuse or even consider for it is done. This option is clearly in article V and there is not prohibiting language as the Founders intended this to be the last option before rebellion.
The Republic can be kept and we can do our duty as Franklin would have instructed.
Now, as to the importance of the removal of Obama with any candidate and to regain the Senate is as follows. The congress can be pressured to start a process of restoring the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION by defining what the words meant and what the Founders actually wrote. The usurpers have attacked the true meaning by changing the definitions of words and to modernizing the Constitution to serve the new demands of the Progressive movement.
Yes, they have used the court to alter the actual meaning of the Constitution as the Founders made clear could not be done without using the methods they created to allow adjustments as required over the decades and centuries. The Founders wrote the Constitution in very simple straight forward language using everyday words that all people of the times could read and understand. They then gave us the Article V amendment process so we could make changes if necessary and we have used it 17 times since the bill of rights [first ten amendments] and one of those was to revoke a previous mistaken amendment.
So, clearly the Amendment process was set in place to protect the PEOPLE and allow them to make corrections to limit the usurping of a oppressive tyrannical central government. This gave us the State convention option in the Article V method to permit the States to take action when the Congress refuses to make amendments to correct usurpation and to send them to the many States for ratifying. The States can directly make amendments and force them on the Central Federal government without debate by having 38 States [3/4] create an amendment that revokes the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments - then present it to Congress to send out for ratification by the 38 States [3/4] - Congress cannot refuse and if they do, then the State 38 LEGISLATURES CAN RATIFY THE AMENDMENT[S] and present the ratified amendment to Congress as law of the land. the Congress and the Courts have no ability to refuse or even consider for it is done. This option is clearly in article V and there is not prohibiting language as the Founders intended this to be the last option before rebellion.
The Republic can be kept and we can do our duty as Franklin would have instructed.
The Convention
Rhode Island, the thirteenth state, declined to send delegates.
Thomas Jefferson characterized the 55 men who showed up in Philadelphia as "demi-gods," who created a Constitution that would last into remote futurity. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the work of the American Founders: never before in the history of the world had the leaders of a country declared the existing government to be bankrupt, and the people, after debate, calmly elected delegates who proposed a solution, which, in turn, was debated up and down the country for nearly a year, and not a drop of blood was spilled.Madison, in Federalist 37, indicates the uniqueness of the Founding: never before had there been a democratic founding; all previous foundings had been the work of a single founder like Romulus. And Hamilton, in Federalist 1, suggested that this was a unique event in the history of the world; finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud. And what is also unique is the fact that the framers were relatively young, well educated, and politically experienced. Like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was written by delegates immersed in 1) the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu, and 2) a world of political experience at both the state and continental level. Both basic documents were written in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, and thirty signers of the Declaration in 1776 played a vital part in the creation and adoption of the Constitution, 1787-1789.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/intro.html
Thomas Jefferson characterized the 55 men who showed up in Philadelphia as "demi-gods," who created a Constitution that would last into remote futurity. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the work of the American Founders: never before in the history of the world had the leaders of a country declared the existing government to be bankrupt, and the people, after debate, calmly elected delegates who proposed a solution, which, in turn, was debated up and down the country for nearly a year, and not a drop of blood was spilled.Madison, in Federalist 37, indicates the uniqueness of the Founding: never before had there been a democratic founding; all previous foundings had been the work of a single founder like Romulus. And Hamilton, in Federalist 1, suggested that this was a unique event in the history of the world; finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud. And what is also unique is the fact that the framers were relatively young, well educated, and politically experienced. Like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was written by delegates immersed in 1) the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu, and 2) a world of political experience at both the state and continental level. Both basic documents were written in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, and thirty signers of the Declaration in 1776 played a vital part in the creation and adoption of the Constitution, 1787-1789.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/intro.html
The Convention
There is no such thing as a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; that is a boogieman created by Phyllis Schlafly and the John Birch Society to scare people out using the only method that is clearly designed and intended by the Founders to stop a oppressive tyrannical Federal government. As you will read there is no Con Con - there is a STATE LEGISLATURE CONVENTION REQUIRING 3/4 OR 38 STATES TO AMEND BY CONVENTION AND TO RATIFY THE AMENDMENT.
No limitations on the States methods, no requirement for Congress to be consulted, no rights or powers to the Congress to set rules or even participate. So, the rumors of the runaway convention is just so much bunk - The Constitution means what it says and says what it means - it speaks for the people not the government -
38 State legislatures can revoke the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments which will reduce the federal government to the Article I section 8 enumerated powers and taxing authority by enumeration [per head] or tariffs, duties.
Where are these limits in the constitution? Not required are they?
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times
Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall bedeprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The States write the rules for themselves so it is up to the 38 State legislatures to just write a proposal agree on it by sending it out and then voting to adopt, after that they either instruct the Congress to send it to the States for ratification or the States can simply hold 38 sessions to ratify the amendment.
All of the so-called experts [scholars] on Article V Need to show the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements to do any of the things they yap endlessly about - it is just not there. They fear the poser reverting to the States and the PEOPLE more than they want our nation to return to the original Constitution. I think they are modernist, revisionist, Progressives and Supporters of a single all powerful Democracy. JMHO
No limitations on the States methods, no requirement for Congress to be consulted, no rights or powers to the Congress to set rules or even participate. So, the rumors of the runaway convention is just so much bunk - The Constitution means what it says and says what it means - it speaks for the people not the government -
38 State legislatures can revoke the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments which will reduce the federal government to the Article I section 8 enumerated powers and taxing authority by enumeration [per head] or tariffs, duties.
Where are these limits in the constitution? Not required are they?
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times
Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall bedeprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The States write the rules for themselves so it is up to the 38 State legislatures to just write a proposal agree on it by sending it out and then voting to adopt, after that they either instruct the Congress to send it to the States for ratification or the States can simply hold 38 sessions to ratify the amendment.
All of the so-called experts [scholars] on Article V Need to show the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements to do any of the things they yap endlessly about - it is just not there. They fear the poser reverting to the States and the PEOPLE more than they want our nation to return to the original Constitution. I think they are modernist, revisionist, Progressives and Supporters of a single all powerful Democracy. JMHO
Nullification and Con Con Myth
Read the information here on the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions - they were rejected by most States and no other State supported the position so how in the world can you now say they were Constitutional the correct way forward - do you have a single case where nullification under the Current Constitution or the original Constitution has happened? No you do not, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
The current health care case might shed some light on the issue but that will be next week. I have done a lot more research than you can imagine and have read many many scholarly books on the Constitution and the history of many governments. I have read Locke, Vattel, Paine, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Brutus, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. So, you can not bluff your way here.
Like Phyllis Schlafly - Eagle Forum and PH or Lamb - The John Birch Society - They are all wet - there is not one bit of support in the invented term CON CON - it is just not mentioned anywhere. In fact if you read the law2 link below you will find that the convention did not run away - that is a myth - each State had one vote. Only the three referenced have pushed the panic button because they can not get their hands around the concept of each individual State placing a contract [agreement] before their legislature to vote up or down - now if 38 State legislatures vote to approve the contract [amendment] how can Congress not send it to the States for final ratification? All of the above think there is a requirement for a convention - that is just not true and if it was here is the definition of a convention in 1828.
1828 Definition
CONVENTION, n. [L. See Convene.]
1. The act of coming together; a meeting of several persons or individuals.
2. Union; coalition.
3. An assembly. In this sense, the word includes any formal meeting or collection of men for civil or ecclesiastical
purposes; particularly an assembly of delegates or representatives for consultation on important concerns, civil, political or
ecclesiastical. In Great Britain, convention is the name given to an extraordinary assembly of the estates of the realm,
held without the kings writ; as the assembly which restored Charles II. to the throne, and that which declared the throne
to be abdicated by James II. In the United States, this name is given to the assembly of representatives which forms a
constitution of government, or political association; as the convention which formed the constitution of the United States
in 1787.
4. An agreement or contract between two parties, as between the commanders of two armies; an agreement previous to a
definitive treaty.
So, a convention could be two States or more no number is required. You fear what is just plain old conspiratorial theory that is not based in fact or supported in way by the Current or original Constitution. Like PH, she has her options and some of them are wrong - ask her about the 5th amendment taking clause and the Progressive income tax conflict - she will not answer you as she has no explanation.
Sorry for the continued discussion but what you and the group above are saying is just not factual or one of them would have produced some evidence other than OPINION by now. PS. the history and the Founders works [the entire body of works] do not and can not change one single word of the Constitution - is is what it is and means what it says in the definitions of the words at the time of ratification.
These are my opinions backed by the links and the actual words of the [Contract] Compact called the Constitution. Unlike PH, I will not call people names and accuse them of being a threat to the nation and God's words.
Thank you for reading.
The Constitutional Convention[1] (also known as the Philadelphia Convention,[1] the Federal Convention,[1] or the Grand
Convention at Philadelphia) took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
The current health care case might shed some light on the issue but that will be next week. I have done a lot more research than you can imagine and have read many many scholarly books on the Constitution and the history of many governments. I have read Locke, Vattel, Paine, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Brutus, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. So, you can not bluff your way here.
Like Phyllis Schlafly - Eagle Forum and PH or Lamb - The John Birch Society - They are all wet - there is not one bit of support in the invented term CON CON - it is just not mentioned anywhere. In fact if you read the law2 link below you will find that the convention did not run away - that is a myth - each State had one vote. Only the three referenced have pushed the panic button because they can not get their hands around the concept of each individual State placing a contract [agreement] before their legislature to vote up or down - now if 38 State legislatures vote to approve the contract [amendment] how can Congress not send it to the States for final ratification? All of the above think there is a requirement for a convention - that is just not true and if it was here is the definition of a convention in 1828.
1828 Definition
CONVENTION, n. [L. See Convene.]
1. The act of coming together; a meeting of several persons or individuals.
2. Union; coalition.
3. An assembly. In this sense, the word includes any formal meeting or collection of men for civil or ecclesiastical
purposes; particularly an assembly of delegates or representatives for consultation on important concerns, civil, political or
ecclesiastical. In Great Britain, convention is the name given to an extraordinary assembly of the estates of the realm,
held without the kings writ; as the assembly which restored Charles II. to the throne, and that which declared the throne
to be abdicated by James II. In the United States, this name is given to the assembly of representatives which forms a
constitution of government, or political association; as the convention which formed the constitution of the United States
in 1787.
4. An agreement or contract between two parties, as between the commanders of two armies; an agreement previous to a
definitive treaty.
So, a convention could be two States or more no number is required. You fear what is just plain old conspiratorial theory that is not based in fact or supported in way by the Current or original Constitution. Like PH, she has her options and some of them are wrong - ask her about the 5th amendment taking clause and the Progressive income tax conflict - she will not answer you as she has no explanation.
Sorry for the continued discussion but what you and the group above are saying is just not factual or one of them would have produced some evidence other than OPINION by now. PS. the history and the Founders works [the entire body of works] do not and can not change one single word of the Constitution - is is what it is and means what it says in the definitions of the words at the time of ratification.
These are my opinions backed by the links and the actual words of the [Contract] Compact called the Constitution. Unlike PH, I will not call people names and accuse them of being a threat to the nation and God's words.
Thank you for reading.
The Constitutional Convention[1] (also known as the Philadelphia Convention,[1] the Federal Convention,[1] or the Grand
Convention at Philadelphia) took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
50 STATE REPUBLICS - ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4
Let me outline very briefly how AV should work in the current paradigm.
The people in the 50 States need to go to the State legislators one on one asking for them assist in our effort to restore States' powers and rights to protect we the people from an OPPRESSIVE Central government. We need 50% plus one legislator to passe the item.
The Central government is violating the Constitution using clauses and the Courts to usurp the rights of the people to be governed by each Separate Republic as so stated below:
Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So as you see each State is a independent Republic [nation for the example of the Compact] The States created the Constitution and therefor own same. The Federal government is one of LIMITED powers shown in Article I section 8. All other powers are vested in the States and then the people.
Now we are at the point where the State legislators are to represent the people as they are the closest to the people. Each State Republic is charged with protecting the people per the many letters and papers of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. Article V and the 10th amendment were put in place for a reason and we can now see the reason - Freedoms and Liberties.
Freedoms and Liberties are well known and understood by the many people of the many States - the majority of all State Legislators would support restoring Freedoms and Liberties to the State from the DC Central dictators. Look at our schools - as you said they are failed well those rules and regulations that destroyed the little red school house system came from the Federal government dictates and the use of the courts through the 14th amendment - they sized control of the school from the locals.
The 16th amendment allows the DC machine to raise all the money they need to bribe the many voters so we effectively become a democracy. Remove the money and we starve the beast.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
~ Alexis de Tocqueville
The 17th amendment makes the Senate just another House of representatives leaving the States without a seat at the table. It is like if we let the UN make all our laws using a majority vote to create rules and regulations for all independent Nations. States are Independent Republics so they are being ruled by popular vote and the small states are being dictated to by the big population center states. This being said, some States did vote for Senators prior to the 17th but then that would be a State right would it not?
Let us now construct the 28th amendment using the 21st as a template that is proven to function in the Article V method -
Amendment 21 - 18th Amendment Repealed
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Only number 1. above is needed for our purpose, so here is the 28th amendment -
The 14th, the 16th and the 17th amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
The people in the 50 States need to go to the State legislators one on one asking for them assist in our effort to restore States' powers and rights to protect we the people from an OPPRESSIVE Central government. We need 50% plus one legislator to passe the item.
The Central government is violating the Constitution using clauses and the Courts to usurp the rights of the people to be governed by each Separate Republic as so stated below:
Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
So as you see each State is a independent Republic [nation for the example of the Compact] The States created the Constitution and therefor own same. The Federal government is one of LIMITED powers shown in Article I section 8. All other powers are vested in the States and then the people.
Now we are at the point where the State legislators are to represent the people as they are the closest to the people. Each State Republic is charged with protecting the people per the many letters and papers of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. Article V and the 10th amendment were put in place for a reason and we can now see the reason - Freedoms and Liberties.
Freedoms and Liberties are well known and understood by the many people of the many States - the majority of all State Legislators would support restoring Freedoms and Liberties to the State from the DC Central dictators. Look at our schools - as you said they are failed well those rules and regulations that destroyed the little red school house system came from the Federal government dictates and the use of the courts through the 14th amendment - they sized control of the school from the locals.
The 16th amendment allows the DC machine to raise all the money they need to bribe the many voters so we effectively become a democracy. Remove the money and we starve the beast.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
~ Alexis de Tocqueville
The 17th amendment makes the Senate just another House of representatives leaving the States without a seat at the table. It is like if we let the UN make all our laws using a majority vote to create rules and regulations for all independent Nations. States are Independent Republics so they are being ruled by popular vote and the small states are being dictated to by the big population center states. This being said, some States did vote for Senators prior to the 17th but then that would be a State right would it not?
Let us now construct the 28th amendment using the 21st as a template that is proven to function in the Article V method -
Amendment 21 - 18th Amendment Repealed
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Only number 1. above is needed for our purpose, so here is the 28th amendment -
The 14th, the 16th and the 17th amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
START ARTICLE V WITH THE STATE LEGISLATORS
We all need to start contacting our [Local] State legislation members - just think how powerful the message will be if they receive hundreds of thousands of individual requests to use the Article V powers to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments - we need to explain that this action will restore our States rights and bring the money back home for our local control.
The courts again today used the 14th amendment to put down the Louisiana school voucher program. Yes it does matter, the Congress and Executive use money to purchase States agreement to limit our freedoms and liberties to run our own schools, churches, local governments, land use and zoning, water rights, harvesting our natural resources for industrial uses. Yes all this has been co-opted by the Federal Central Government and their one size fits all programs and laws - well what NY or California needs is not required in most RED states.
Most State Representatives are well aware of the Federal government using the Supremacy clause force [via Courts] the State to act in a certain manner. The Federal then bribe us with money like education funds to then control our schools, the same with game management, fishing rules, farming rules, development rules, employment rules, wages paid for work, health care insurance, - if the State takes one dime they have agreed and now are contracted to do the wishes of the Federal government. Look at highways, airports and even railroads all controlled in DC.
The local elected officials all know these problems but are hesitant to start a fight as they do not want to lose the Federal assistance money for sewer and water systems plus all the previously mentioned items. See we can not vote new people to DC and get out of the problems -we have tried that for 50 years and we have failed to even alter the direction. As Einstein said: continuing to repeat over and over for decades expecting a different result is a form of insanity.
Learn about how Article V can be used by the 38+ State legislatures to save the REPUBLIC. It is really not that complicated we the people have a lot of help already in place - keep in mind that 28 States sued over the Constitutionality of Obamacare. There are 6 or 8 other States that have separate actions in the courts as we speak. So, if we the people bring pressure and support to the current legislature we can bring the corrections into the world of reality. yes - it will cause a lot of disruption but those issues can be worked out - Each State must pay it's share of the national debt and the cost of the military but the States would be in control as they have the money in hand not the Federal government.
The savings by eliminating the duplication, thousands of agencies and sub-agencies will save trillions over the next 10 years. It will eliminate the high price of government pensions - let them participate in 401Ks and SS like the citizens. Eliminate special pensions for elected officials again a 401k and SS should be good enough for one if it is good enough for We the People.
Many here will be working on a presentation that all can take to their own legislator and put it to them that we expect this to be enacted as it is the only way to restore Freedom and Liberty. If they can not support then we must ask them for their alternate plan for the current path leads to a Dictatorship after the nations goes into hyper inflation, making our currency worthless letting them print enough to pay off all debts.
The time is now we will succeed as a group or we shall surly fail individually. Just as the Founders said - we might hang together but we will surly hang individually.
The courts again today used the 14th amendment to put down the Louisiana school voucher program. Yes it does matter, the Congress and Executive use money to purchase States agreement to limit our freedoms and liberties to run our own schools, churches, local governments, land use and zoning, water rights, harvesting our natural resources for industrial uses. Yes all this has been co-opted by the Federal Central Government and their one size fits all programs and laws - well what NY or California needs is not required in most RED states.
Most State Representatives are well aware of the Federal government using the Supremacy clause force [via Courts] the State to act in a certain manner. The Federal then bribe us with money like education funds to then control our schools, the same with game management, fishing rules, farming rules, development rules, employment rules, wages paid for work, health care insurance, - if the State takes one dime they have agreed and now are contracted to do the wishes of the Federal government. Look at highways, airports and even railroads all controlled in DC.
The local elected officials all know these problems but are hesitant to start a fight as they do not want to lose the Federal assistance money for sewer and water systems plus all the previously mentioned items. See we can not vote new people to DC and get out of the problems -we have tried that for 50 years and we have failed to even alter the direction. As Einstein said: continuing to repeat over and over for decades expecting a different result is a form of insanity.
Learn about how Article V can be used by the 38+ State legislatures to save the REPUBLIC. It is really not that complicated we the people have a lot of help already in place - keep in mind that 28 States sued over the Constitutionality of Obamacare. There are 6 or 8 other States that have separate actions in the courts as we speak. So, if we the people bring pressure and support to the current legislature we can bring the corrections into the world of reality. yes - it will cause a lot of disruption but those issues can be worked out - Each State must pay it's share of the national debt and the cost of the military but the States would be in control as they have the money in hand not the Federal government.
The savings by eliminating the duplication, thousands of agencies and sub-agencies will save trillions over the next 10 years. It will eliminate the high price of government pensions - let them participate in 401Ks and SS like the citizens. Eliminate special pensions for elected officials again a 401k and SS should be good enough for one if it is good enough for We the People.
Many here will be working on a presentation that all can take to their own legislator and put it to them that we expect this to be enacted as it is the only way to restore Freedom and Liberty. If they can not support then we must ask them for their alternate plan for the current path leads to a Dictatorship after the nations goes into hyper inflation, making our currency worthless letting them print enough to pay off all debts.
The time is now we will succeed as a group or we shall surly fail individually. Just as the Founders said - we might hang together but we will surly hang individually.
WHY WE THE PEOPLE MUST ACT NOW
Notes to all that read this thread . . .
In my opinion all Patriots are needed to lead the American Republic back from the edge of the abyss of Socialism/Democracy doom forever. Most can agree that the current SUPER STRONG CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has destroyed many of the States rights and powers and the LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUALS.
Yes all, I am yelling from the roof tops - WE THE PEOPLE ARE AT RISK OF LOSING OUR NATION - leaving our next generations in a huge debt hole requiring them to pay our DINNER TAB. Jefferson said that there would be no greater sin than for the current generation that received the nation free and clear of debt to pass it on to the next burdened by debts of the elders. We have now borrowed and/or promised over $ 100 trillion if you fully fund all entitlements and pension commitments along with the medical care for all.
Is this a problem that is just to big to overcome? Some say yes and wee must let the system collapse on itself while others say no as the current GDP is over $ 16 trillion and if we use our natural resources, oil, gas, minerals, metals, lumber, water, and the selling of Federal land we can pay for it all - just once though for the assets will be gone. So, that being said would it no be a more prudent system to restore the powers of the Individual States to manage their resources using them to develop a new industrial paradigm that can sustain our economy? The Federal Central planning model has failed and all know this fact - it can not even support it's current plan much less the planned and promised further growth in government services.
Therefore the people of this nation must study the principle of the Article V State amendment process so that they might teach other citizens and legislators so we can repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments which will reduce the Federal Central Government back into the small, weak government designed and delivered to WE THE PEOPLE by the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers. The above mentioned amendments are the primary source of our problems with the Legislature, the Executive and the Courts so they must be removed for Freedom and Liberty along with States rights and powers to be RESTORED.
It is my sincere prayer that millions will join the effort and that we can be the cause that save the REPUBLIC as Franklin said - A Republic if you can keep it!
Thank you for reading and may God give us the strength and dedication to complete the task in our life time.
In my opinion all Patriots are needed to lead the American Republic back from the edge of the abyss of Socialism/Democracy doom forever. Most can agree that the current SUPER STRONG CENTRAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has destroyed many of the States rights and powers and the LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUALS.
Yes all, I am yelling from the roof tops - WE THE PEOPLE ARE AT RISK OF LOSING OUR NATION - leaving our next generations in a huge debt hole requiring them to pay our DINNER TAB. Jefferson said that there would be no greater sin than for the current generation that received the nation free and clear of debt to pass it on to the next burdened by debts of the elders. We have now borrowed and/or promised over $ 100 trillion if you fully fund all entitlements and pension commitments along with the medical care for all.
Is this a problem that is just to big to overcome? Some say yes and wee must let the system collapse on itself while others say no as the current GDP is over $ 16 trillion and if we use our natural resources, oil, gas, minerals, metals, lumber, water, and the selling of Federal land we can pay for it all - just once though for the assets will be gone. So, that being said would it no be a more prudent system to restore the powers of the Individual States to manage their resources using them to develop a new industrial paradigm that can sustain our economy? The Federal Central planning model has failed and all know this fact - it can not even support it's current plan much less the planned and promised further growth in government services.
Therefore the people of this nation must study the principle of the Article V State amendment process so that they might teach other citizens and legislators so we can repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments which will reduce the Federal Central Government back into the small, weak government designed and delivered to WE THE PEOPLE by the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers. The above mentioned amendments are the primary source of our problems with the Legislature, the Executive and the Courts so they must be removed for Freedom and Liberty along with States rights and powers to be RESTORED.
It is my sincere prayer that millions will join the effort and that we can be the cause that save the REPUBLIC as Franklin said - A Republic if you can keep it!
Thank you for reading and may God give us the strength and dedication to complete the task in our life time.
LAWYERS VIEW OF CASE LAW THEORY AND POWERS OF THE COURT
The lawyers view of case law theory and the M&M cases -
The Professor is a Law trained individual and I on the other hand am a strict Constitutionalist; the two schools will never agree as Lawyers are trained to be adversarial - they can never provide the LANGUAGE in the Constitution that permits or forms our current legal system - Judicial Review was invented by Marshall in Washington's Presidential time and Implied Powers were an advent of the McCullough V Maryland case. the court to build a case law precedent used dicta to bring Hamilton's paper on Manufacturing in as actual precedent which is pure fabrication on the courts part.
As for case law theory - it is so prevalent because that what law schools teach - Most only have one small course on the Constitution - this is the error - they all assume that all laws and courts were based on the British Common law. That would have been true in the Colonial era and even under the Confederacy but then that was at what we would now call the State level. Not even all of old States used the British Common law in fact the Louisiana system is based on French law.
The wording of Article III clearly lays out a very limited weak Court system and that is why the courts have usurped the powers. Not one Lawyer or law Professor that I have debated on the merits of their Case law theory can provide any language that this is even allowed in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT which we are - all law on the Federal level is based in Constitutional law for it is the base that restricts usurpation. The Constitution is mute on what States could do for that is the Construct of the Constitution it is a Federal Central government limiting document and the States can do as they please - see 10th amendment.
I write this so you will understand where the Lawyers and most of those with vested interest will come from. they do not want limitation put on argument in court as the more case laws they can present the higher the fees go.
The Professor is a Law trained individual and I on the other hand am a strict Constitutionalist; the two schools will never agree as Lawyers are trained to be adversarial - they can never provide the LANGUAGE in the Constitution that permits or forms our current legal system - Judicial Review was invented by Marshall in Washington's Presidential time and Implied Powers were an advent of the McCullough V Maryland case. the court to build a case law precedent used dicta to bring Hamilton's paper on Manufacturing in as actual precedent which is pure fabrication on the courts part.
As for case law theory - it is so prevalent because that what law schools teach - Most only have one small course on the Constitution - this is the error - they all assume that all laws and courts were based on the British Common law. That would have been true in the Colonial era and even under the Confederacy but then that was at what we would now call the State level. Not even all of old States used the British Common law in fact the Louisiana system is based on French law.
The wording of Article III clearly lays out a very limited weak Court system and that is why the courts have usurped the powers. Not one Lawyer or law Professor that I have debated on the merits of their Case law theory can provide any language that this is even allowed in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT which we are - all law on the Federal level is based in Constitutional law for it is the base that restricts usurpation. The Constitution is mute on what States could do for that is the Construct of the Constitution it is a Federal Central government limiting document and the States can do as they please - see 10th amendment.
I write this so you will understand where the Lawyers and most of those with vested interest will come from. they do not want limitation put on argument in court as the more case laws they can present the higher the fees go.
Usurped powers, Hamilton and President John Quincy Adams
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it's intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and viod because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.) Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation - either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public
trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise, the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.) Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation - either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public
trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise, the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
Progressive Liberals
The Progressive Liberals [left leaning] have maintained the Constitution is just a outline, or rough draft of a government for Congress and Courts to modernize, change or alter anytime they feel it is required to permit their desired goals. The FDR black mailing of the Black Robes has left a black stain on our Freedoms and rights - IMHO it will take mass nullification and most likely the Article V convention to restore the original Constitution and the intend of the founders.Congress, the court, the executive will not vote to reduce their power and tenure in office so it is up to the States to protect "WE THE PEOPLE" by declaring the usurped powers and all laws passed by those usurpations "NULL, VOID AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED".
Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.
Hugo Black: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
US Supreme Court Judge
Source: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States,
277 US 479 (1928)
You are like me in that one single word is twisted and forged into a new paradigm by those that want to hold power over the people. However let us look at the words:
We the people [all of the Americans from the various individual States] of the "UNITED" States [meaning they have agreed to unite the Various States under these conditions] in order to FORM a more perfect Union [dissolving the Confederation] . . . . . . . . .
Now under these circumstances the People through their fiduciary [The ratifiers] gave instructions for the Various State to Unite under this new contract that the PEOPLE have given the government to form under and to operate under it's words, statements, clauses, and direct instructions and limits on all levels of government and its branches. The People maintained the final power over both Federal and State governments and it was their responsibly to enforce the Constitution upon the governments.
We are now living under a triple usurpation - a trifecta of law breakers, the Executive declaring wars, the Legislatures forcing laws upon the States and the people outside of the Article I section 8 limits, the SCOTUS approving of the wanton destruction of the fabric of the Constitution by using clauses to supersede the direct items they were to apply toward.
Clearly the courts are outside the Article III limits of the powers of the court but they will not be punished as they have expanded the powers of the other two branches so now we have mutual usurpation. Many of the Founders warned this would occur and instructed the States to protect the people and if necessary for the people to rebel even with force of arms to restore the Constitution.
And my friends, I believe we are coming to the end of days of our Republic if the States nullifying is not upheld by SCOTUS. The last attempt at peaceful restoration would be the States and 38 of them revoking the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments while reinforcing the limits on the courts through a new amendment.
Thank you for reading this long post.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.
For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? ~ Tocqueville
This all proves to us that nothing is new in the attempts by man to rule man by any means possible since recorded time. I assume that it was that way in the caves. Man is mans only prey for we are the top of all other food chains. There is nothing good in evil men and history has proved that well, there is nothing good in being complacent and weak history has proven that - So. in hard time my friends we must unite under a common goal and push until the goal is crossed and then we must secure that by restoring the original Constitution and the limits of power on governments. They must be kept small and weak for other wise we will just repeat history.
According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by
another. ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
Freedom is a man's natural power of doing what he pleases, so far as he is not prevented by force or law. ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. ~ Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798) John Adams
“May it please your Excellency - We, his majesty's loyal subjects, the representatives of the people of this colony, in congress assembled, beg leave to disclose to your Excellency, the true cause of our present proceedings… It is unnecessary to enumerate the grievances of America; they have been so often represented, that your Excellency cannot be a stranger to them.— Let it, therefore, suffice to say, that the hands of his majesty's ministers, having long lain heavy, now press with intolerable weight. …solely for the preservation and defense of our lives, liberties, and properties, we have been impelled to associate and to take up arms.”
“…we only desire the secure enjoyment of our invaluable rights, and we wish for nothing more ardently, than a speedy reconciliation with our mother country, upon constitutional principles.”
“Conscious of the justice of our cause, and the integrity of our views, we readily profess our loyal attachment to our sovereign, his crown, and dignity; and, trusting the event to Providence, we prefer death to slavery. These things, we have thought it our duty to declare, that your Excellency, and through you, our august sovereign—our fellow subjects—and the whole world—may clearly understand, that our taking up arms, is the result of dire necessity, and in compliance with the first law of nature [self defense, my emphasis].” ~ By order of the Provincial Congress, at Charles Town, June 20, 1775.
They taught us the American Revolution about taxation without representation. It was fought for independence and liberties sake. I’m beginning to think it was none of these. I see it as a case of self defense against a government aiming to achieve complete submission.
Does history repeat itself?
Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.
Hugo Black: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
US Supreme Court Judge
Source: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States,
277 US 479 (1928)
You are like me in that one single word is twisted and forged into a new paradigm by those that want to hold power over the people. However let us look at the words:
We the people [all of the Americans from the various individual States] of the "UNITED" States [meaning they have agreed to unite the Various States under these conditions] in order to FORM a more perfect Union [dissolving the Confederation] . . . . . . . . .
Now under these circumstances the People through their fiduciary [The ratifiers] gave instructions for the Various State to Unite under this new contract that the PEOPLE have given the government to form under and to operate under it's words, statements, clauses, and direct instructions and limits on all levels of government and its branches. The People maintained the final power over both Federal and State governments and it was their responsibly to enforce the Constitution upon the governments.
We are now living under a triple usurpation - a trifecta of law breakers, the Executive declaring wars, the Legislatures forcing laws upon the States and the people outside of the Article I section 8 limits, the SCOTUS approving of the wanton destruction of the fabric of the Constitution by using clauses to supersede the direct items they were to apply toward.
Clearly the courts are outside the Article III limits of the powers of the court but they will not be punished as they have expanded the powers of the other two branches so now we have mutual usurpation. Many of the Founders warned this would occur and instructed the States to protect the people and if necessary for the people to rebel even with force of arms to restore the Constitution.
And my friends, I believe we are coming to the end of days of our Republic if the States nullifying is not upheld by SCOTUS. The last attempt at peaceful restoration would be the States and 38 of them revoking the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments while reinforcing the limits on the courts through a new amendment.
Thank you for reading this long post.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.
For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? ~ Tocqueville
This all proves to us that nothing is new in the attempts by man to rule man by any means possible since recorded time. I assume that it was that way in the caves. Man is mans only prey for we are the top of all other food chains. There is nothing good in evil men and history has proved that well, there is nothing good in being complacent and weak history has proven that - So. in hard time my friends we must unite under a common goal and push until the goal is crossed and then we must secure that by restoring the original Constitution and the limits of power on governments. They must be kept small and weak for other wise we will just repeat history.
According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by
another. ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
Freedom is a man's natural power of doing what he pleases, so far as he is not prevented by force or law. ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. ~ Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798) John Adams
“May it please your Excellency - We, his majesty's loyal subjects, the representatives of the people of this colony, in congress assembled, beg leave to disclose to your Excellency, the true cause of our present proceedings… It is unnecessary to enumerate the grievances of America; they have been so often represented, that your Excellency cannot be a stranger to them.— Let it, therefore, suffice to say, that the hands of his majesty's ministers, having long lain heavy, now press with intolerable weight. …solely for the preservation and defense of our lives, liberties, and properties, we have been impelled to associate and to take up arms.”
“…we only desire the secure enjoyment of our invaluable rights, and we wish for nothing more ardently, than a speedy reconciliation with our mother country, upon constitutional principles.”
“Conscious of the justice of our cause, and the integrity of our views, we readily profess our loyal attachment to our sovereign, his crown, and dignity; and, trusting the event to Providence, we prefer death to slavery. These things, we have thought it our duty to declare, that your Excellency, and through you, our august sovereign—our fellow subjects—and the whole world—may clearly understand, that our taking up arms, is the result of dire necessity, and in compliance with the first law of nature [self defense, my emphasis].” ~ By order of the Provincial Congress, at Charles Town, June 20, 1775.
They taught us the American Revolution about taxation without representation. It was fought for independence and liberties sake. I’m beginning to think it was none of these. I see it as a case of self defense against a government aiming to achieve complete submission.
Does history repeat itself?
The Progressive media outlets all have said they will no longer use "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT"
The Progressive media outlets all have said they will no longer use "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" - Jay Leno said they will now use 'UNDOCUMENTED DEMOCRAT".
Here is my take . .
Maybe The Progressives that change the meaning of the words in the Constitution at will - can use this to replace the offensive "illegal immigrant" - they can say Alien Unauthorized Invaders. This wold be a very accurate description of what this group is in fact.
Visit this huge Constitutional - American History - classic History free on site Library - all side of issues are presented for the serious students. It is not debate forum.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html
Here is my take . .
Maybe The Progressives that change the meaning of the words in the Constitution at will - can use this to replace the offensive "illegal immigrant" - they can say Alien Unauthorized Invaders. This wold be a very accurate description of what this group is in fact.
Visit this huge Constitutional - American History - classic History free on site Library - all side of issues are presented for the serious students. It is not debate forum.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html
PROGRESSIVE ROSETTA STONE
BY MANGUS COLORADO
The American people are owed a Rosetta stone so they can actually understand what the newly invented definition of words by the Progressives in government and the main stream media truly mean. Below are just a few examples of the massive distortion of the fabric of our language. They commonly use words and phrases that actually mean the opposite of what is being presented as factual accurate assessment of the current paradigm.
1) FAIR SHARE OF TAXES ON INCOMES . . actually means tax the top 10% the vast majority of all income taxes collected.
2) SPECIAL TAX BREAKS FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY . . in fact almost all American Manufacturing industries receive a 9% credit to keep jobs here. The oil and gas industry actually is only given a 6% credit - they pay a higher tax not less.
3) Health care cost will be reduced by the ACA - it will increase the cost drastically and now the Progressives say we need single payer to fix the disaster they created with ACA and 15,000 pages of rules and regulations . . it is going to fall apart and they know it - so now change the argument to single payer.
4) The EPA is saving millions of lives by changing rules and regulations of industries and transportation. The propose $ .09 per gallon new tax will save Americans much more than it costs with health care reductions. They have no hard evidence to back up either claim. Just a computer projection [AKA dream].
5) Education is doing a good job of preparing the youth of today for the jobs and opportunities of the future . . Teachers Union is blocking any real reforms and will not stop teaching diversity and Political correctness in lieu of STEM courses [Science, technology, engineering, math] that has many full ride scholarships going unfilled due to lack of QUALIFIED students applying.
6) University education loans and government grants provide millions young poor with a education that will get them to a financial middle class. The truth is that there are few or no jobs in the Liberal arts majors like teaching, minority studies, Race studies, Gender studies, Political science, Non-profit studies, English and other languages, even Journalism is now gone as a real option. The only thing the graduate finds is retails sales, fast food, non-profit, and other very low paying jobs. Meanwhile they are buried in a mountain of debt for student loans from the Government which they can not escape even with bankruptcy. Their future is dim and they are becoming more and more angry.
7) The Constitution is a living document that allows the Legislature, Executive and the Courts can change or modify as required without any amendments. The Truth is that all three branches of the Federal government have exceeded the Article I, 2, 3, limits placed on their powers by the Actual language of the Constitution. There is ZERO language within the four corners of the Constitution that supports a single one of their acts.
8) Diversity is required by the Constitution and all minorities are entitled to special treatment to offset the past sins of the Fathers. This is total bunk the Constitution is silent on race, religion, economic class, - all men are created equal and the Original Constitution did say WHITE people have special rights. People will not get over the minority complex unless we just stop giving any SPECIAL Unconstitutional treatment which creates envy and anger.
9) No religious items can be displayed in public areas - there is no basis in the Constitution for this silly argument - the proof Progressives are attempting to Educate Christian religion out of our children is when they teach Muslim religious traditions but no bible can be in schools. Progressive cities like NY let the Muslims block streets during the prayer hours - they let Muslims blast out the call to the Mosque - no Christian church can do either of these things in NYC.
10) Radical Progressive College Professors and government agencies along with the Teachers Union have attacked the home school programs. Why did they Attack, because the children were being instructed in the Christian faith and not the POLITIC CORRECT requirements of Diversity, white guilt, black discrimination and other minority requirements to create a equal OUTCOME for all. Opportunity equality is not good enough, society needs to correct what happened 200 years ago.
11) Revenues that come to government to spend on Programs - really? How about taxes and fees they have taken from the citizens. The government must take every dollar it spends from the the taxpayers as it makes no product on which to earn a profit.
12) Investments by government - again they make nothing so they can not invest as all they do is an expense to society. We the people must pay the bill.
13) Redistribution of income and wealth - this means like Marx and Lenin "FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS."
14) Equal rights - not rights from the Creator but rights from government to bestow money on some to make them more equal. Government has no rights with which to grant anything to anyone - the Constitution is Limit on government not a list of rights for citizens . .
15) Voting rights - Progressives do not want to cause all voters to have a valid Picture ID - why? they require them to have a drivers license, passport to travel, Welfare insurance ID, picture ID and social Security card to get a job. the only logical conclusion is that progressives know that some voters are not qualified and that some are voting more than once. They vote for Progressive candidates and for Progressive State programs and bonds.
Clearly the government protect itself by making laws rules and regulations that prevent citizens from halting Unconstitutional behavior - they are protected from law suits. Impeachment is almost a joke - less than 50 in all of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
The American people are owed a Rosetta stone so they can actually understand what the newly invented definition of words by the Progressives in government and the main stream media truly mean. Below are just a few examples of the massive distortion of the fabric of our language. They commonly use words and phrases that actually mean the opposite of what is being presented as factual accurate assessment of the current paradigm.
1) FAIR SHARE OF TAXES ON INCOMES . . actually means tax the top 10% the vast majority of all income taxes collected.
2) SPECIAL TAX BREAKS FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY . . in fact almost all American Manufacturing industries receive a 9% credit to keep jobs here. The oil and gas industry actually is only given a 6% credit - they pay a higher tax not less.
3) Health care cost will be reduced by the ACA - it will increase the cost drastically and now the Progressives say we need single payer to fix the disaster they created with ACA and 15,000 pages of rules and regulations . . it is going to fall apart and they know it - so now change the argument to single payer.
4) The EPA is saving millions of lives by changing rules and regulations of industries and transportation. The propose $ .09 per gallon new tax will save Americans much more than it costs with health care reductions. They have no hard evidence to back up either claim. Just a computer projection [AKA dream].
5) Education is doing a good job of preparing the youth of today for the jobs and opportunities of the future . . Teachers Union is blocking any real reforms and will not stop teaching diversity and Political correctness in lieu of STEM courses [Science, technology, engineering, math] that has many full ride scholarships going unfilled due to lack of QUALIFIED students applying.
6) University education loans and government grants provide millions young poor with a education that will get them to a financial middle class. The truth is that there are few or no jobs in the Liberal arts majors like teaching, minority studies, Race studies, Gender studies, Political science, Non-profit studies, English and other languages, even Journalism is now gone as a real option. The only thing the graduate finds is retails sales, fast food, non-profit, and other very low paying jobs. Meanwhile they are buried in a mountain of debt for student loans from the Government which they can not escape even with bankruptcy. Their future is dim and they are becoming more and more angry.
7) The Constitution is a living document that allows the Legislature, Executive and the Courts can change or modify as required without any amendments. The Truth is that all three branches of the Federal government have exceeded the Article I, 2, 3, limits placed on their powers by the Actual language of the Constitution. There is ZERO language within the four corners of the Constitution that supports a single one of their acts.
8) Diversity is required by the Constitution and all minorities are entitled to special treatment to offset the past sins of the Fathers. This is total bunk the Constitution is silent on race, religion, economic class, - all men are created equal and the Original Constitution did say WHITE people have special rights. People will not get over the minority complex unless we just stop giving any SPECIAL Unconstitutional treatment which creates envy and anger.
9) No religious items can be displayed in public areas - there is no basis in the Constitution for this silly argument - the proof Progressives are attempting to Educate Christian religion out of our children is when they teach Muslim religious traditions but no bible can be in schools. Progressive cities like NY let the Muslims block streets during the prayer hours - they let Muslims blast out the call to the Mosque - no Christian church can do either of these things in NYC.
10) Radical Progressive College Professors and government agencies along with the Teachers Union have attacked the home school programs. Why did they Attack, because the children were being instructed in the Christian faith and not the POLITIC CORRECT requirements of Diversity, white guilt, black discrimination and other minority requirements to create a equal OUTCOME for all. Opportunity equality is not good enough, society needs to correct what happened 200 years ago.
11) Revenues that come to government to spend on Programs - really? How about taxes and fees they have taken from the citizens. The government must take every dollar it spends from the the taxpayers as it makes no product on which to earn a profit.
12) Investments by government - again they make nothing so they can not invest as all they do is an expense to society. We the people must pay the bill.
13) Redistribution of income and wealth - this means like Marx and Lenin "FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS."
14) Equal rights - not rights from the Creator but rights from government to bestow money on some to make them more equal. Government has no rights with which to grant anything to anyone - the Constitution is Limit on government not a list of rights for citizens . .
15) Voting rights - Progressives do not want to cause all voters to have a valid Picture ID - why? they require them to have a drivers license, passport to travel, Welfare insurance ID, picture ID and social Security card to get a job. the only logical conclusion is that progressives know that some voters are not qualified and that some are voting more than once. They vote for Progressive candidates and for Progressive State programs and bonds.
Clearly the government protect itself by making laws rules and regulations that prevent citizens from halting Unconstitutional behavior - they are protected from law suits. Impeachment is almost a joke - less than 50 in all of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
|
Liberalism is like a restaurant with ugly decor, terrible food, overflowing toilets and roaches scurrying across the floor -- that stays packed every night. Sure, liberals may be sanctimonious, mean spirited and advocate policies that don't work, but you can't help but admire the excellence of their public relations network. They can laud themselves for courage because they take a stand everyone they know agrees with, pat themselves on the back for their compassion as they maliciously insult someone that disagrees with them and congratulate themselves for their charitable behavior as they give other people's money away. Liberal mythology is one thing, but what it actually looks like is a different beast entirely. |
1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, "Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution." The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in Western, non-drug using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.
2) Liberals care about education: If you define "education" as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don't care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there's a divergence between what's best for the teachers’ unions and what's best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.
3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don't understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian "Fairness Act." They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That's not open-minded; it's a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.
4) Liberals don't moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they're moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term "fair share" if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don't moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.
5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin's words of wisdom,
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
On the other hand, liberals "love" the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who're claiming the destitute can have better lives when any "compassionate" person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That's not love; that's a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
On the other hand, liberals "love" the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who're claiming the destitute can have better lives when any "compassionate" person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That's not love; that's a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/12/11/5-myths-liberals-have-created-about-themselves-n1464234
2) Liberals care about education: If you define "education" as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don't care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there's a divergence between what's best for the teachers’ unions and what's best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.
3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don't understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian "Fairness Act." They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That's not open-minded; it's a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.
4) Liberals don't moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they're moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term "fair share" if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don't moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.
5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin's words of wisdom,
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
On the other hand, liberals "love" the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who're claiming the destitute can have better lives when any "compassionate" person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That's not love; that's a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
On the other hand, liberals "love" the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who're claiming the destitute can have better lives when any "compassionate" person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That's not love; that's a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/12/11/5-myths-liberals-have-created-about-themselves-n1464234
About The Federalists
Careful, back then Federalists were not federalist in the terms we now use. Hamilton if you have read his bio was convinced that the nation needed a very strong Executive office - kind of what we have now IMO. He did not trust the voters and the Congress. Below are some quotes that can shine some light on Hamilton.
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government.
Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself
In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.
It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.
Learn to think continentally.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will.
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.
The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right.
Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal into my affections without my consent.
~ Alexander Hamilton
Jefferson was not always a non-progressive in our current understanding.
You say that I have been dished up to you as an antifederalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that than of the Antifederalists. ~ Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 March 1789)
I have more but just showing that all were educated in Europe and were all over the place at different times.
Here are some quotes from Madison which will provide some insight into his thinking in Federalist Nbr. 10:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. ~ Letter to Edmund Pendleton (1792-01-21)
Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact. – “Property” in The National Gazette (29 March 1792)
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. ~ Annals of Congress (1794-01-10)
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. ~ Political Observations” (1795-04-20)
Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. ~ Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-05-13)
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government.
Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself
In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.
It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.
Learn to think continentally.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will.
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.
The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right.
Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal into my affections without my consent.
~ Alexander Hamilton
Jefferson was not always a non-progressive in our current understanding.
You say that I have been dished up to you as an antifederalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that than of the Antifederalists. ~ Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 March 1789)
I have more but just showing that all were educated in Europe and were all over the place at different times.
Here are some quotes from Madison which will provide some insight into his thinking in Federalist Nbr. 10:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. ~ Letter to Edmund Pendleton (1792-01-21)
Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact. – “Property” in The National Gazette (29 March 1792)
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. ~ Annals of Congress (1794-01-10)
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. ~ Political Observations” (1795-04-20)
Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. ~ Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-05-13)
Will Our Constitution Survive?
by FOUNDER on MAY 22, 2012
in VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
The Obama administration is giving our great Constitution its greatest test.
At every turn, and since he has been in office, Obama has ignored, trampled on and spit on our great Constitution and yet it seems only a handful of our elected officials – and of course the tax payers, are outraged.
Will our great Constitution actually survive another Obama term? The answer is “no”, it would not.
Will it survive and thrive if Obama is voted OUT of office in 2012? The answer is a definitive “yes”!
As you remember, when he was inaugurated Obama nevereven took the Presidential oath as all his predecessors have – he, instead, purposely stumbled through it and eventually it had to be done “in private”, away from the cameras – in other words – it was never done.
Obama has side stepped and stepped on the Constitution in all he has done.
We know he does not like the Constitution – calling it a document of “negative liberties” – only stating what the Federal government CANNOT do – not outlining – in his sick Socialist mind what he feels the Federal government “should” do for the people.
This is the typical liberal view – thinking that the Federal government should do MANY things for the people – not just protect them – but rather feed them, house them and provide them free Health Care.
This is the sickness that is theDemocrats/Progressives/Marxists – they believe the government should do all things for all people – no matter what the cost or consequences.
However THIS is NOT what America was built on and it is NOT what is outlined in our Constitution.
The Constitution spells out Capitalism – Obama spells out Socialism – there is a big difference – one works (Capitalism) the other does not work and has proven not to work.
Obama has gone around the Constitution with regards todeclaring war and appointing “czars”. He has declared wars at his whim and is appointing radical Marxists to powerful decision making positions – without the approval of Congress and AGAINST the will of the people.
To Obama – Congress is unnecessary. He wants to make all the decisions himself.
Obama doesn’t want the people to make decisions – he wants to decide everything FOR the people – after all he believes “We the People” are weak and stupid, right? Thus these elected losers believe the government should make all our decisions for us, ie. Socialism/Marxism.
The Constitution gives all the decision making capabilities to the states NOT the Federal government.
The Constitution gives the decision making process at the Federal level to Congress, the House and the Executive branch.
The Constitution breaks our government into three branches – Congress, the House and the Executive branch – which is the President.
The Executive branch is only one of three – not the ONLY decision making branch! THIS is where Obama abuses the system – he believes HE and only HE should be making the decisions NOT the representatives of the people.
If it were up to Obama he would re-write the Constitution and throw out much of what the Founders wrote. Good thing it is NOT up to Obama. It is up to “We the People”.
Obama underestimates the power of the American people. We are not the Socialist minded Europeans that do whatever their government tells them – we are the American people – who are free, strong, independent and fully capable of determining our own future, our own life and our own finances. We do NOT need a nanny state government telling us what to do.
Please join us here at Americans for the Constitution and help us rid the poison that is Obamafrom Washington.
Join the 50,00+ other members who are against all that Obama is doing and plans on doing.
Join us and make your voice heard today if you are for our great Constitution, Capitalism, freedom and lack of government interference.
God bless America and our brave troops.
www.AmericansForTheConstitution.com
in VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
The Obama administration is giving our great Constitution its greatest test.
At every turn, and since he has been in office, Obama has ignored, trampled on and spit on our great Constitution and yet it seems only a handful of our elected officials – and of course the tax payers, are outraged.
Will our great Constitution actually survive another Obama term? The answer is “no”, it would not.
Will it survive and thrive if Obama is voted OUT of office in 2012? The answer is a definitive “yes”!
As you remember, when he was inaugurated Obama nevereven took the Presidential oath as all his predecessors have – he, instead, purposely stumbled through it and eventually it had to be done “in private”, away from the cameras – in other words – it was never done.
Obama has side stepped and stepped on the Constitution in all he has done.
We know he does not like the Constitution – calling it a document of “negative liberties” – only stating what the Federal government CANNOT do – not outlining – in his sick Socialist mind what he feels the Federal government “should” do for the people.
This is the typical liberal view – thinking that the Federal government should do MANY things for the people – not just protect them – but rather feed them, house them and provide them free Health Care.
This is the sickness that is theDemocrats/Progressives/Marxists – they believe the government should do all things for all people – no matter what the cost or consequences.
However THIS is NOT what America was built on and it is NOT what is outlined in our Constitution.
The Constitution spells out Capitalism – Obama spells out Socialism – there is a big difference – one works (Capitalism) the other does not work and has proven not to work.
Obama has gone around the Constitution with regards todeclaring war and appointing “czars”. He has declared wars at his whim and is appointing radical Marxists to powerful decision making positions – without the approval of Congress and AGAINST the will of the people.
To Obama – Congress is unnecessary. He wants to make all the decisions himself.
Obama doesn’t want the people to make decisions – he wants to decide everything FOR the people – after all he believes “We the People” are weak and stupid, right? Thus these elected losers believe the government should make all our decisions for us, ie. Socialism/Marxism.
The Constitution gives all the decision making capabilities to the states NOT the Federal government.
The Constitution gives the decision making process at the Federal level to Congress, the House and the Executive branch.
The Constitution breaks our government into three branches – Congress, the House and the Executive branch – which is the President.
The Executive branch is only one of three – not the ONLY decision making branch! THIS is where Obama abuses the system – he believes HE and only HE should be making the decisions NOT the representatives of the people.
If it were up to Obama he would re-write the Constitution and throw out much of what the Founders wrote. Good thing it is NOT up to Obama. It is up to “We the People”.
Obama underestimates the power of the American people. We are not the Socialist minded Europeans that do whatever their government tells them – we are the American people – who are free, strong, independent and fully capable of determining our own future, our own life and our own finances. We do NOT need a nanny state government telling us what to do.
Please join us here at Americans for the Constitution and help us rid the poison that is Obamafrom Washington.
Join the 50,00+ other members who are against all that Obama is doing and plans on doing.
Join us and make your voice heard today if you are for our great Constitution, Capitalism, freedom and lack of government interference.
God bless America and our brave troops.
www.AmericansForTheConstitution.com
The Constitution and Finding New Meanings Where There are None.
That is not what I said or even eluded to - THE CONSTITUTION SAYS WHAT IT MEANS AND MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. The FF&R did not include any references to the British common Law or to John Locke or to Hobbs and many others that they took from. They wrote the document in plain ordinary language of the time so that the everyday common man could read it and understand what they were agreeing to be bound by.
Most problems with the constitution and issues revolve around someone trying to read into the Document what it does not say - How many 9-0 decisions would the SCOTUS issue if they had to relay only on the actual words and meanings of the time to develop findings. No extensions of clauses, no creating new meanings, no creating new rights, no implied reach through to other laws and doctrines, no modernization, no using Stare decsis, no using case law theory to gain new powers, no use of dicta as in the Maybury V Madison - McCulloch V. Maryland, and others.
Now if we do not allow any of the above then all items not in Article I section 8 would be the areas that each State would need to decide on their own. Again ending the usurping by the legislature, the executive and the courts of the LIMITED powers of the Federal government. Life would be more simple and States would compete to make their State more free and open to new businesses and ideas or they would lag behind the leaders. No one should be free to "INTERPRET" the Constitution as there is no authority in the Constitution to allow that now is there?
The desire to create new rights and to control more commerce and dictate how and when the people can do what ever the government wants to limit is why Lawyers, Politicians, Judges all have been trying to change and expand the Federal limitations as the Constitution tells the government what it can do and gives all other powers and rights to the States and to the people. So, unless they can bring in the Federalist papers, letters, speeches, debates, notes and papers like Hamilton's letter on Manufacturing to confused the issue they stand no chance of usurping.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9272959520166823796&...
The question now becomes to me is that will Congress now admit that they have usurped powers they do not have - I have just been reading the Hamilton on Manufacturing and how his words were used by the SC to make decisions that the Congress could spend what ever they wanted - Hamilton's theory remained dormant until 1936, when the Supreme court issued dicta [side comments] referring favorably to Hamilton's view. Later, the Court adopted those dicta as authoritative, and ever since that time the Court has acquiesced in nearly all federal spending - even spending that most people would deem inconsistent with the "general welfare."
Why haven't legal scholars challenged the accuracy of the is manifest distortion? A few have. But legal scholars are, overwhelmingly, supporters of the federal welfare state, and Hamilton's theory is the major Constitutional prop for the federal domestic spending. Most legal academics want to increase that spending, not strip away its constitutional fig leaf.
So, most members of Congress are Lawyers - we the people have a long and difficult road to restore our rights and powers. Maybe the 10th amendment and challenge to the commerce clause will make our task a lot easier.
Most problems with the constitution and issues revolve around someone trying to read into the Document what it does not say - How many 9-0 decisions would the SCOTUS issue if they had to relay only on the actual words and meanings of the time to develop findings. No extensions of clauses, no creating new meanings, no creating new rights, no implied reach through to other laws and doctrines, no modernization, no using Stare decsis, no using case law theory to gain new powers, no use of dicta as in the Maybury V Madison - McCulloch V. Maryland, and others.
Now if we do not allow any of the above then all items not in Article I section 8 would be the areas that each State would need to decide on their own. Again ending the usurping by the legislature, the executive and the courts of the LIMITED powers of the Federal government. Life would be more simple and States would compete to make their State more free and open to new businesses and ideas or they would lag behind the leaders. No one should be free to "INTERPRET" the Constitution as there is no authority in the Constitution to allow that now is there?
The desire to create new rights and to control more commerce and dictate how and when the people can do what ever the government wants to limit is why Lawyers, Politicians, Judges all have been trying to change and expand the Federal limitations as the Constitution tells the government what it can do and gives all other powers and rights to the States and to the people. So, unless they can bring in the Federalist papers, letters, speeches, debates, notes and papers like Hamilton's letter on Manufacturing to confused the issue they stand no chance of usurping.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9272959520166823796&...
The question now becomes to me is that will Congress now admit that they have usurped powers they do not have - I have just been reading the Hamilton on Manufacturing and how his words were used by the SC to make decisions that the Congress could spend what ever they wanted - Hamilton's theory remained dormant until 1936, when the Supreme court issued dicta [side comments] referring favorably to Hamilton's view. Later, the Court adopted those dicta as authoritative, and ever since that time the Court has acquiesced in nearly all federal spending - even spending that most people would deem inconsistent with the "general welfare."
Why haven't legal scholars challenged the accuracy of the is manifest distortion? A few have. But legal scholars are, overwhelmingly, supporters of the federal welfare state, and Hamilton's theory is the major Constitutional prop for the federal domestic spending. Most legal academics want to increase that spending, not strip away its constitutional fig leaf.
So, most members of Congress are Lawyers - we the people have a long and difficult road to restore our rights and powers. Maybe the 10th amendment and challenge to the commerce clause will make our task a lot easier.
Principles of Liberty
The Principles of Liberty America's 5,000 Year Leap
The Value of Knowing Principles
The Political Spectrum
Natural Law
Only a Virtuous People are Capable Being Free
The Proper Role of Government
Protecting the People from the Frailties of Their Leaders
Property Rights
Separation of Powers
Strong Local Self Government
No Entangling Alliances
Avoiding the Burden of Debt
Manifest Destiny
The Value of Knowing Principles
The Political Spectrum
Natural Law
Only a Virtuous People are Capable Being Free
The Proper Role of Government
Protecting the People from the Frailties of Their Leaders
Property Rights
Separation of Powers
Strong Local Self Government
No Entangling Alliances
Avoiding the Burden of Debt
Manifest Destiny