Saturday, May 3, 2014

Goldwater page 100

 Mangus Colorado, Moderator on November 25, 2011 at 12:14pm
Delete
y Glenn Neal 4 minutes ago
Atlas:
The Madison Amendment gives States the same power as Congress to propose an individual amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"ARTICLE ___.  The Congress, on application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, which all contain an identical Amendment, shall call a Convention solely to decide whether to propose that specific Amendment to the States, which, if proposed whall be valid to all intents and purposes a part of this Constitution when ratified pursuant to Article V."
[The quote, as well as the headline, is from http://www.madisonamendment.org/ (q.v.)]
After reading Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), I believe SCOTUS tacitly approved Congress having a veto power [by inaction] over any amendments sent up by the States. Coleman is the source for the "political doctrine" which says SCOTUS will not require Congress to do anything because of the separation of powers tradition.  I believe the proposed amendment should contain an additional sentence, something to the effect,
Upon presentation by the States of 34 valid petitionst to Congress, proposing an identical amendment , it shall be a ministerial act by Congress to send the single proposed amendment out to all the States for their consideration to ratify or not.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on November 25, 2011 at 1:50pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 21, 2012 at 4:29pm
Delete
Hi,
Thanks for taking the time to refresh my memory, Lock!
It takes time and effort to back up into older discussions....
For your info, we experimented a bit with multiple forums! One each for international,states, health care defense and so on. Too much maintenance, and I bombed the site!
Indeed, I was watching the "fur fly", with PH but I stayed out of it! And I had totally forgotten about the Larry Self thing. PH was right, by definition.
PH doesn't like people who insist on different interpretations and logically support them!
I got into a similar "dust up" with her. She didn't even try to throw me out: good luck with that.
Oh well. I now stay out of that group, but it's one of about 100 that I monitor regularly..... 
Perhaps she's getting a bit feeble minded?
Did you see her latest post? Links to a recent presentation entitled The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution. I have no problem with, but I'd never waste my time  watching it, or even reading it! Probably a kernel of truth there, but perhaps the time would be better spent on the Constitution, rather than speculating as to the mind-set of the Founders, or one's interpretation thereof.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:04am
Delete
Comment by Publius Huldah on January 15, 2011 at 10:08am
Once the 16th Amendment was (supposedly) ratified, Congress was thereby granted constitutional power to lay and collect "income" taxes.  So exercising that power is not an "usurpation".  [However, taxing Gifts & Estates is an usurpation as Congress has no constitutional authority to lay & collect taxes on Gifts & Estates.]
The battle cry of the proponents of the 16th Amendment was "Soak the Rich!"; and the People, who were by then consumed with Envy & love of Plunder, loved it.  Here is a great article:http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.477/pub_detail.asp
It was the 16th Amendment which gave the federal government the money to engage in its thousands of unconstitutional programs.  So!  The solution is NOT a "Balance the Budget Amendment" - the solution is to starve the beast by repealing the 16th Amendment.
And we must NOT jump out of the frying pan into the fire by replacing the income tax with the so-called "Fair tax" or a national sales tax. Those are terrible ideas.  We can't return to constitutional government where Congress is restricted to its enumerated powers (Art. I, §8), if we give them the "Fair tax" or a national sales tax.  Starve them.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:10am
Delete
Comment by Publius Huldah on January 29, 2011 at 7:23am
The so-called "exceptions clause" at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 2,  refers to Congress' power to determine the scope of Congress' appellate jurisdiction  (This Paper explains the "exceptions clause".  It is technical, but litigation is technical.) The "exceptions" clause is not what authorizes Congress to determine the number of judges on the supreme Court.
And it was The Judiciary Act of 1869 which set at nine (9) the number of judges on the supreme Court.  [See Sec. 1 of the Act.]  FDR tried to "pack the court" to increase that number, but he did not succeed.
And no, the number can not be ratcheted down through attrition.  Congress determines the number by law.  [Besides, no sitting president would decline an opportunity to appoint a supreme Court judge!]
But the rest of Joshua's comment is right on, except that repealing the 16th Amendment is not a "kooky" idea - it is a wonderful idea.  We can't starve The Beast into submission unless we cut off the money. 

Finally, Folks:  Much of what we think we know just ain't so.  We must look things up!  I look things up.  E.g., I didn't remember when the number of  judges was increased to 9.  So, I looked it up before I made a public statement.  I look for original sources; here it was  the Act of Congress which increased the number to 9. You must learn to do the same.
Comment by Publius Huldah on January 29, 2011 at 6:37am
Who decides the number of supreme Court judges?
Great Question!  The answer requires us to consider together various provisions of the Constitution.  We will also see how our Framers divided power on this issue between the executive & legislative branches.  
Art. II, Sec. 2, cl 2, says the President shall have the Power - with the Advice & Consent of the Senate - to appoint Judges of the supreme Court.
Art I, Sec. 8, cl 9, says Congress has the power to constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.   Art III, Sec. 1, cl 1, says 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.
But the Constitution doesn't say how many judges are supposed to be on the supreme Court (just as it doesn't say how many judges are supposed to be on the inferior Courts which Congress may create).
Now look at the "necessary & proper" clause at Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause.  Read that clause in the Constitution, & then read the 12th para of this paper.
So, in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress, by law, set the number of judges on the supreme Court at 6.  Subsequent Judiciary Acts have raised and lowed the number of judges on that Court.  [And remember!  The President can sign or veto such acts setting the number of Judges.]
Note how the power is divided between the executive and legislative branches.  This is an illustration of the "Division of Powers" Principle our Framers gave us.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:13am
Delete
Comment by Publius Huldah on January 31, 2011 at 4:08pm
Thank you, Charlie & Chad!  I will read the decision.  I'd be surprised if any judge did understand "enumerated powers" - we didn't have that in law school.  But we did have the "elastic clause" (which the leftist Progressives just made up).  Re the Congressman who cited the "good and plenty" clause:  Did his brain dead constituents re-elect him?
Comment by Publius Huldah on January 31, 2011 at 3:39pm
Frank Justice: You are quite right!   Under Art. III, § 2, cl.2, U.S. Constitution, the States' lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of obamacare should have been filed in the supreme Court which has original ["trial"] jurisdiction.
But a while back, Congress made a "law" which purports to give the Federal District Courts  trial jurisdiction over such cases.  Of course, it's unconstitutional; but since lawyers & judges read supreme court opinions instead of the Constitution and The Federalist Papers, they don't know.  There is a discussion above, "The TRIAL of the case against Arizona: Must SCOTUS obey the Constitution?", which explains the whole thing.  Study it, it is the key to understanding supreme Court jurisdiction (their power to hear cases).
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:15am
Delete
Comment by Publius Huldah on February 15, 2011 at 11:39am
Re Danny Kilpatrick's Question re czars:  Basically you are correct.  Just this restriction: Congress would be acting outside the scope of its enumerated powers if it appointed officers to handle "drugs", "emissions", etc. - b/c these are not among the enumerated powers of Congress.
Comment by Publius Huldah on February 15, 2011 at 11:33am
Re Willie B's comment of Feb 9:  Yes!  Congress may (and should) hold hearings inquiring into obama's constitutional qualifications for office; and YES!  Congress has subpoena power!  If House Republicans have any guts at all, they should subpoena obama's personal records.
Private citizens who have filed the "birther" lawsuits also have the right to demand that obama produce his birth records.  [In litigation, we have the right to demand that the other side produce whatever records relevant to the litigation we want to see!]  HOWEVER, the courts have dismissed all these lawsuits - and the supreme court has approved every such dismissal. So it is unlikely that private lawsuits will achieve the desired results.
But the federal courts can't stop Congress from holding hearings and subpoenaing documents.   
Comment by Publius Huldah on February 15, 2011 at 11:21am
Re Frank Justice's Question re Art. V:  Both methods for proposing amendments require action by Congress.  There is no other way.  Thankfully!  All the proposed amendments I hear about every day are all terrible ideas.
The only Amendments  I would support are those repealing some of the previous ill-considered amendments (e.g., the 16th & 17th). 
Comment by Publius Huldah on February 15, 2011 at 11:12am
Re David Edward's comment of Feb 7 below:
As a People, we have been looking at the First Amendment the wrong way.  Because of this, the "first amendment jurisprudence" of the supreme court makes no sense at all. 
If you read anything, read this, where I prove that our Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29383

Where we went wrong was when we started looking at the First Amendment as the SOURCE of our "right" of free speech. That is what got us in the pickle of worrying about whether the First Amendment "protects" the "right" of pedophiles to publish "how-to" manuals; and whether it "gives" a right to advocate the brutal murders of our best sitting supreme court justice and his very lovely wife. [I've met them both.]
REMEMBER: Properly speaking, all the First Amendment actually does is list some of the things Congress may NOT make laws about. 
States may make whatever laws they please (subject to the constraints of their own state Constitutions about "speech". 
Comment by Publius Huldah on February 15, 2011 at 10:51am
Thank you for the get well wishes.  I am weak, but will live! 
Re John Brunke's comment below of Feb 6:  Applause!  Applause!  Yes, you nailed it.  Judge Vinson properly uses the Federalist Papers to explain the original meaning of the "interstate commerce" and "necessary & proper" clauses. 
But then!  He stabs us in the back and says those clauses now mean whatever the supreme Court says they mean; and, he miss-characterized Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 34 as justification!  What a sloppy bit of stupidity! 
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:17am
Delete
The Federalist Papers  (online)

Comment by Publius Huldah on February 27, 2011 at 6:21pm
The Federalist Papers explain the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson also recognized them as the highest authority on the genuine meaning of the Constitution:  http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=2006_04/uvaGenText/tei/b...
Do check out the link:  James Madison & Thomas Jefferson selecting the texts to be used at the Univ. of Virginia law School.  Among the handful of texts selected was The Federalist Papers as the most authoritative commentary. Imagine being at that meeting!
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:17am
Delete
Comment by Publius Huldah on February 27, 2011 at 5:52pm
Bruce, this explains the "supremacy clause"  - Art. VI, clause 2: http://www.teapartynation.com/group/constitutionstudygroup/forum/to...
It is a monstrous lie that "federal law trumps state law".  Alexander Hamilton explains the truth, and I quote what he says in the linked paper.
No, the courts do not have to uphold an act of Congress before it is "law".  If it is passed by Congress, it IS "law", IF the Constitution authorizes Congress to make the law.
There is also a discussion on "administrative law".  Do read that.  But the short answer is that Art. I, Sec. 1 vests all legislative powers granted in the Constitution in CONGRESS!   So, the executive branch has NO constitutional authority to make "rules and regulations"  We all ought to *iss on their precious rules.   
I have a discussion on "checks and balances"  Read that!  It is very important.  I'm finishing up a paper now on something else.  But my next paper will be on that.  Rush Limbaugh is spreading some serious MISinformation about this issue, and I need to correct what he is saying.  I do love him, but when he pontificates on the Constitution, I cringe.  He is ALWAYS WRONG.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:18am
Delete
Comment by Publius Huldah on March 4, 2011 at 10:14am
Folks, I had to delete a recent Discussion and all comments.  There was so much wrong stuff in there, I couldn't let it stand.  Some of those who posted  have obviously never read a word I have written, & lack even a basic knowledge of the Constitution. Yet they propose amendments to the Constitution!
Learn first - speak second (except to ask questions).  This is not an opinion forum for people to spout off about what they think they know (but just ain't so).  Read the TPN newsletter when it comes out today.  My paper addresses this issue.  It really is immoral to speak of topics of which one is ignorant.
OK!  Now I must go to a forum where they are discussing the safety of nuclear power plants and tell those physicists a thing or two.  I had high school physics (50+ years ago), and saw a program on PBS about particle physics and another on string theory.  So I qualify as an expert on the safety of nuclear power plants, right? 
But yes, Congress may repeal all unconstitutional laws.  However, not all unconstitutional programs can be eliminated outright.  Some can, others must be phased out. 
    Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:24am
    Delete
    Comment by Publius Huldah on March 3, 2011 at 10:07am
    No! No! No!  Properly understood, the U.S. Constitution does NOT "protect" "homosexual rights" or "hate speech" or porn.  The federal government has no (general) jurisdiction over "homosexuals", "speech" & "porn".  None whatsoever.

    Their jurisdiction is restricted to their enumerated powers:  READ this:  
    http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-p...

    The supreme Court has reversed the original meaning of the First Amendment.  I explained it here   http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/
    Our great human weakness is that we hear stuff, uncritically accept it, and repeat it as if we were experts.  In that way, misinformation and lies are spread.
    Is ANYBODY in this group actually learning from me?  Would you prefer a forum where people just spout off whatever THEY "feel" about issues?  
      Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 11:25am
      Delete
      Comment by Publius Huldah on March 5, 2011 at 3:38pm
      Oh yes, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), wherein Executive Agencies violate the Separation of Powers Principle  AND Art. I, Sec. 1 by making "rules" which have the effect of "law",  should be used for toilet paper. The CFR takes up over 22 feet of library shelves.

      NOTICE: My website is being visited more & more frequently byDepartment of Homeland Security.  The visits are from DHS offices in Washington DC, Arlington, Alexandria, Centreville, & Falls Church.
      Just so all of you know:  I will never "commit suicide".  To those of you who are 'puter gifted, please consider copying my website so you can make it available to others if I ever "commit suicide", or if DHS takes me off the internet.
      Of course, I could be making too much of this:  it might just be that people in those 5 different locations really want to learn the original intent of the Constitution.  Or it could be that we now have a Secret Police.
      It's pretty pathetic when the federal government monitors little old retired ladies who write about our Founding Fathers, the Federalist Papers, and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.  They don't have the guts or the intellect to take me on intellectually.  So will they drop a bomb on my house or just shoot me? Cowards.
      Posted by at

      No comments:

      Post a Comment

      Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)