- You ignore Bill Gates,Gordon Moore, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, Irwin Jacobs,
Andrew Viterbi , Hughes, , Henry Singleton, George Kozmetsky, Buffett, Andrew Grove, Robert Noyce, these are all technology and or conglomerates built by the named men. Started from zero - pure free enterprise Capitalism.Now here is how capital and creative thinking individuals work together to build a better business model replacing older style retailers.The Home Depot was founded in 1978 by Bernie Marcus, Arthur Blank, Ron Brill, and Pat Farrah.[6] The Home Depot's proposition was to build home-improvement warehouses, larger than any of their competitors' facilities. Investment banker Ken Langone helped Marcus and Blank to secure the necessary capital.As you can see big corporations all started as small businesses that very talented and creative people worked with providers of capital to grow huge very successful mega corporations. Political connection had zero to do with these opportunities.
- Thomas,You've been reading some strange stuff. Corporations are essential to any free market society.Many of us really don't know what a corporation is, in conceptual terms!
Why are there corporations? Why Must there be corporations.....Here's a brief overviw of the subject of corporations. Please read Corporation Primer and the Supreme Court Decision!
- Permalink Reply by on
- good book link - for Wilson's works
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- The States’ Secret Weapon: Article Vby Nick DraniasState governments have a powerful—but often overlooked—weapon against the federal government’s overreach. With it, the states could have conceivably blocked passage of the Obama Administration’s healthcare law. That power is found in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, and enables states to seek constitutional amendments.
James Madison once observed that the states could have used their Article V power to overturn the Alien and Sedition Acts. Later, in his 1830 “Letter on Nullification,” Madison urged states to use their Article V power to protect their sovereignty against federal overreach rather than employing the futile gesture of nullification.
As Madison suggested, the ability of states to constrain an overreaching federal government would be vastly increased if they used their amendment power under Article V. Indeed, the mere existence of an organized approach to Article V among the states would substantially influence congressional behavior without a convention ever being convened—whether or not one believes that an Article V convention can be limited to specific amendment ideas.Just imagine if the 28 states currently challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had not only followed Madison’s advice, but also formed an interstate compact—a treaty-like agreement—requiring them to use their Article V powers to protect healthcare freedom. Just the mere presence of a compact coordinating the introduction and approval of identical Article V applications in 28 state legislatures (only six short of the 34 state threshold needed to trigger the call for an Article V convention), may have been enough to dissuade Congress from passing PPACA.It is not too late for states to organize in this fashion. Despite a favorable oral argument, no one can guarantee that the Supreme Court will enforce our Constitution’s limitations on federal power and strike down the federal health care law. To hedge their bets, prudent constitutionalists must encourage states to regularize and institutionalize the use of their Article V powers to check and balance Washington through interstate compacts.Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.Learn More:Goldwater Institute: Federalism DIYGoldwater Institute: Article VGoldwater Institute: Interstate Compact Model LegislationRead the online version of this daily email here.
- Permalink Reply by on
How the Supreme Court Bastardized the Commerce Clause
Richard WalbaumThe federal government has no powers except those specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Those powers not granted are reserved to the states and the people. In this article I will examine how the Commerce Clause, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3, was re-interpreted to the point that today the federal government acts like an all-powerful government without any limitations except those self-imposed, with vast power to regulate all areas of our lives, and even the Supreme Court is unable to articulate a single power reserved to the states, making most of the other enumerated powers irrelevant or superfluous.The Commerce Clause reads: “The Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The original intent of our founding fathers was to prevent states from restricting or prohibiting commerce, or imposing tariffs upon, neighboring states. But today, Congress can regulate anything that has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. All aspects of American life, even your breathing (which emits carbon dioxide and some claim causes global warming) can be regulated under this doctrine.The easiest way to understand the Commerce Clause is to read Supreme Court Justice Thomas’s brilliant dissenting opinion in United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549, 584 (1995); Here are some salient quotes from the voice of authority:Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. …Of course, the United States has no powers except those expressly granted.The Founding Fathers confirmed that most areas of life (even many matters that would have substantial effects on commerce) would remain outside the reach of the Federal Government. Such affairs would continue to be under the exclusive control of the States. …This is the purpose of the Tenth Amendment, to reserve undelegated powers to the states and the people.Yet, despite being well aware that agriculture, manufacturing, and other matters substantially affected commerce, the founding generation did not cede authority over all these activities to Congress. … .Justice Thomas explained that the early meaning of “commerce” meant selling, buying, and bartering, and not productive activities such as manufacturing or farming, whose products are traded in commerce. Using the modern sense of “commerce” creates textual problems; you cannot engage in manufacturing with a foreign nation or Indian Tribe:The Constitution not only uses the word “commerce” in a narrower sense than our case law might suggest, it also does not support the proposition that Congress has authority over all activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce. …The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution, beyond the Framers intent:Clearly, the Framers could have drafted a Constitution that contained a “substantially affects interstate commerce” Clause had that been their objective. …If Congress may regulate all matters that substantially affect commerce, there is no need for the Constitution to specify that Congress may enact bankruptcy laws, cl. 4, or coin money and fix the standard of weights and measures, cl. 5, or punish counterfeiters of United States coin and securities, cl. 6, [or] establish post offices and post roads, cl. 7, or to grant patents and copyrights, cl. 8, or to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,” cl. 10. It might not even need the power to raise and support an Army and Navy, cls. 12 and 13. … [or] regulate international trade and commerce with the Indians. As the Framers surely understood, these other branches of trade substantially affect interstate commerce.Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, § 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself), would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of § 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: The power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, § 8.Indeed, if a “substantial effects” test can be appended to the Commerce Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government? There is no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment. Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that “substantially affect” the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures, and so on. In that case, the Clauses of § 8 all mutually overlap, something we can assume the Founding Fathers never intended. …When asked at oral argument if there were any limits to the Commerce Clause, the Government was at a loss for words. … Likewise, the principal dissent insists that there are limits, but it cannot muster even one example.Because the Supreme Court’s interpretation makes other phrases irrelevant, rewrites the Constitution, and supersedes the Tenth Amendment’s protection of individual and states rights, the interpretation is arbitrary and unreasonable, contrary to the grant of power, and subject to nullification under natural law principles.Richard Walbaum, the author of The LAWFUL Remedy to Tyranny and Designed for Plunder; he promotes the restoration of righteousness through natural law. Follow Richard @legaltender9
- Permalink Reply by on
- The answer you seek is there for all to see if you just open your mind to the truths they Founders – Framers- Ratifiers created for States to protect the smallest minority – the Sovereign Individual from tyranny and oppression from a Federal Central overreach. The ultimate protection in the Constitution is to just say “NO” – you Federal Government have no Constitutional authority to make such a law it is outside the Article I section 8 enumerated powers so you are usurping and that renders it null void as if it never was at all.See: Federalist 46 paragraph 7, Federalist 81 paragraph 8, Federalist 16 paragraph 10, Article I section 10 and then the 10th amendment.Now I think the power is held by the States and then the people. the courts have wrongly seized power using Case Law Precedent such as the M & M case. One case even using Hamilton’s paper on Manufacturing that was never in a case except as dicta [side conversation].So, IMO humble opinion the Courts, the Legislature, and the Executive have been in usurpation since Washington lost the first law to be declared Unconstitutional in 1789. The Constitution was written in plain ordinary language so the average citizen of the times could read and understand the document – now we have lawyer changing the meaning of words – giving power to preambles and clauses referring to specific items.No sir the Ratifiers were smarter than that – therefor the bill of rights and the tenth amendment.Comment by GoodBusiness — June 13, 2012 @ 4:27 p.m.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The answer you seek is there for all to see if you just open your mind to the truths they Founders – Framers- Ratifiers created for States to protect the smallest minority – the Sovereign Individual from tyranny and oppression from a Federal Central overreach. The ultimate protection in the Constitution is to just say “NO” – you Federal Government have no Constitutional authority to make such a law it is outside the Article I section 8 enumerated powers so you are usurping and that renders it null void as if it never was at all.See: Federalist 46 paragraph 7, Federalist 81 paragraph 8, Federalist 16 paragraph 10, Article I section 10 and then the 10th amendment.Now I think the power is held by the States and then the people. the courts have wrongly seized power using Case Law Precedent such as the M & M case. One case even using Hamilton’s paper on Manufacturing that was never in a case except as dicta [side conversation].So, IMO humble opinion the Courts, the Legislature, and the Executive have been in usurpation since Washington lost the first law to be declared Unconstitutional in 1789. The Constitution was written in plain ordinary language so the average citizen of the times could read and understand the document – now we have lawyer changing the meaning of words – giving power to preambles and clauses referring to specific items.No sir the Ratifiers were smarter than that – therefor the bill of rights and the tenth amendment.Comment by GoodBusiness — June 13, 2012 @ 4:27 p.m.So many extend power were none exists - the problem we have now is that the States are dependent on the Cash from DC for all the highways, sewer plants, water system, electricity grids, airports, and so on. We have been sold out and nwo we are slaves to the Political class.Humm, might just be living in an elected monarchy - Obama is King, Senators are the Lords, and the house members are the loyal royals. When they travel the Red carpet is rolled out and they have a great feast [party] where ever they go. they travel and live first class at the expense of we the commoners. yes, we have lost our freedoms and we are captives now.I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. – Letter to James Madison (30 January 1787)In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. – The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (16 November 1798) Thomas Jefferson
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." - James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 39, January, 1788Granted, there is a vast difference between the sales pitches in The Federalist (most notably Hamilton's essays vs his, and the Federalists, subsequent actions in govt) and how the federal govt has operated since ratification.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. - Letter to James Madison (6 September 1789) Thomas Jefferson
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. - Letter to Abigail Adams (1804) Thomas Jefferson
- Permalink Reply by on
- Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire them, and to effect this, they have perverted the best religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes. With the lawyers it is a new thing. They have, in the mother country, been generally the primest supporters of the free principles of their constitution. But there, too, they have changed. - Letter to Horatio G. Spafford (17 March 1814) Thomas Jefferson
No comments:
Post a Comment