- Comment by on March 5, 2011 at 2:27pmThank you, JC!BEWARE of the Goldwater Institute! I have reason to believe it has been taken over by liberals. Furthermore, Prof. Rob Natelson of the Goldwater Institute is pushing for a con con. Any organization or anyone who pushes for a con con either doesn't know what he is doing, or has an evil agenda which he is concealing from you.Those who support a con con are LYING (or don't know what they are talking about) when they tell us "not to worry because nothing would go into effect unless 3/4 of the States ratify it."WHY is that a Lie? B/C they could write a new Constitution which provided that it would take effect upon ratification by "blue states", or any other criterion they established in the new Constitution. Remember, our present Constitution of 1787 provided at Art. VII that it would go into effect when nine States ratified it. And it is only our present Constitution which provides that 3/4 of the States must ratify Amendments.A new Constitution could set up whatever other criterion they wanted for ratification. READ this wonderful and short & easy to understand paper, "No, No, Con-Con" by Henry Lamb:http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33821 THAT paper should be read by everyone.Phillip: It would not be difficult to dismantle unconstitutional federal programs. Some, such as Depts of Education & Energy could be closed this Monday and no one would even notice. The functions of others transferred to the STATES who could keep them or phase them out. Economics Professor Dr. Walter E. Williams suggested on Rush's show last Monday that the federal government could exchange parcels of federal land to people if they give up their social security benefits. The key is an orderly dismantlement, and an understanding that some of the handouts (ss, medicare, etc.) must be phased out gradually, transferred to the States, or liquidated by means of parcels of government land, etc. Even I, a poor administrator, could get a crew together to handle it.Paul: Sometimes I wonder if God gave brains to people. I mean to ask HIM about this one day.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Constitution does not explain the meaning of “natural born”.
James Madison In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:
It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.[9]
Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government".
In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844):[25] This opinion from a New York court extensively reviewed the issue of natural born citizenship, and was later cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object. And what is true of the delegates in the convention, is equally applicable to the designs of the states, and of the people of the states, in ratifying and adopting the results of their labors.
- Permalink Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jean-Baptiste Say (5 January 1767 – 15 November 1832) was a French economist and businessman. He hadclassically liberal views and argued in favor of competition, free trade, and lifting restraints on business. He is best known due to Say's Law, which is named after him and at times credited to him, but while he discussed and popularized it, he did not originate it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I just happened across a book titled The Origin and Principles of the America Revolution Compared written in 1800. It supposed to be a direct comparison of the American and French Revolutions. I haven't read it yet. I wouldn't count it authoritative but perhaps insturctive.
- Permalink Reply by on
Truth in Jobs
Interested in reading the latest stimulus news and analysis? Want to know whether or not government regulations are affecting American jobs?Check out Truth in Jobs at:Truth in Jobs is our opportunity to make seen what until now has gone unseen and unreported:• The jobs that have been lost because of the tax increases on employers and employees needed to pay for government spending programs;
• The jobs that have been lost because of increased government regulations;
• and the truly unseen…the jobs and opportunities that would have been created, but were never brought into existence, because of the increased burdens of government in the form of higher taxes and the cost and complexity of ever increasing regulations.
- Permalink Reply by on
- International forcasters
- Permalink Reply by on
- Go to this guys web site he is worse than Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell - WOW what a opinion and a real twist of history. You will be amazed total anarchist - JMHO He sell fear and hate with his heritage food plant seeds + maybe seeds of destruction?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Macbeth soliloquy offers its own summary: “A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Oh yes we do. Lets see what the father of the Conservative movement says:"The ancient and tested truths that guided our Republic through its early days will do equally well for us. The challenge to Conservatives today is quite simply to demonstrate the bearing of a proven philosophy on the problems of our own time.""I find that America is fundamentally a Conservative nation. The preponderant judgment of the American people, especially of the young people, is that the radical, or Liberal, approach has not worked and is not working. They yearn for a return to Conservative principles.""Conservatism, we are told, is out-of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. The Conservative approach is noth ing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today.""Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material wellbeing. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place-that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role."And theres alot more where those came from.
- Permalink Reply by on
If the Lights Go Out
Regulators are letting EPA compromise U.S. electric reliability.
MORE IN OPINION »Say what you will about Obama Administration regulators, their problem has rarely been a failure to regulate. Which makes the abdication of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission especially notable—and dangerous for the U.S. power supply.Last week FERC convened a conference on the wave of new Environmental Protection Agency rules that are designed to force dozens of coal-fired power plants to shut down. The meeting barely fulfilled the commission's legal obligations, but despite warnings from expert after expert, including some of its own, the FERC Commissioners refuse to do anything about this looming threat to electric reliability.The latest body to sound the EPA alarm is the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which last Tuesday released its exhaustive annual 10-year projections. "Environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years," the report explains.NERC's forecasts are the gold standard for the U.S. power system because they are built from the bottom up, starting with finely grained data from individual plants. NERC has been doing this work since 1967, and since 2005 it has operated under the FERC umbrella as an "electric reliability organization" similar to Finra, the securities regulator with quasi-governmental duties.The threat is that the EPA is triggering what NERC calls "an unprecedented resource-mix change," with utilities switching to natural gas from coal. For the first time in U.S. history, net coal capacity is in decline. On top of the 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, NERC predicts another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the "scope and timing" of EPA demands. That could mean nearly a quarter of all coal-fired capacity.Getty ImagesAccording to the report, "the nation's power grid will be stressed in ways never before experienced" and reliability depends on building new power plants to cover the losses. But the electric industry has only three years to comply under one EPA regulation known as the utility rule that is meant to target mercury and is due to be finalized soon, while many other destructive rules are in the works.Replacing power is not like replacing a lost cellphone. There are bottlenecks in permitting, engineering, financing and building a new plant and then tying it to the electricity network. Over this same three-year window, NERC estimates that between 576 and 677 plants will need to be temporarily shut down to install retrofits like scrubbers or baghouses.All of this has been obvious to anyone paying attention. In its draft utility rule the EPA itself warned that "sources integral to reliable operation" may be forced to shut down, before it sanitized these concessions from the final proposal. Twenty-seven states say their regional reliability is at risk, concerns echoed by FBR Capital, Credit Suisse, Fitch, Bernstein Research and several grid operators. FERC's own Office of Electric Reliability produced an alarming study, before its work was disowned by Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, as we reported in the September 26 editorial "Inside the EPA."Southern Co., the utility that covers states from Mississippi to Georgia, says the EPA's timeline can't be met "at any cost" and that in its region "reliability cannot be maintained without load shedding"—that is, rationing power to large industrial consumers. American Electric Power, which operates in 11 Midwest states, says that option may be a "last resort" as well. This is the kind of political overhang that harms economic growth.Keep in mind that the EPA estimates that the benefits to society from the mercury reductions in the utility rule max out at $6.1 million, total, while imposing $11 billion in compliance costs annually. That is a crazy tradeoff even if it didn't endanger the electric grid.The best option would be to kill the utility rule and put the EPA on probation, but second best is a longer phase-in to give utilities more time to comply. FERC could do some practical good by formally issuing a "215 finding" that the EPA utility rule endangers reliability. Or the White House budget and regulatory office could require the EPA to repropose the rule with more flexibility. Or President Obama could declare that the rule endangers national security. Or Congress could block the rule, though that would take more fortitude than Senate Democrats have shown so far.None of this is likely to happen because it would interfere with the larger Administration priority to kill as much coal power as rapidly as possible to serve the global warming agenda. But when the brownouts and cost-spikes occur, don't blame the utilities. Blame their regulator.
No comments:
Post a Comment