- Comment by on February 12, 2012 at 10:54amYes, Frances. Which is why I am gradually withdrawing from many things and focusing on the one thing I can do: write papers which prove the original intent of the Constitution and answer peoples' questions about that original intent. But just the People who want to know. Most don't want to know. I am stopping bothering with them.I'm finding that much of what I have been doing is a waste of my time. Focus on the areas where you are specially gifted and let the rest go. Trust God to raise up people to handle the matters you can't handle. Trust God to let you know what he has in mind for you. Maybe God has in mind for you to do that which we talked about and that would give you a forum to turn some lights on in especially darkened places.And never give up!Amen, Brimstone.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on February 14, 2012 at 6:16pmEd, I think they are all insulated from us so that it is impossible to contact them. They don't care what we say, and so they don't listen.Daniel Hannan (the British Member of the EU) was on Neil Cavuto today and said that it is impossible to change a man's mind on a subject when his livelihood depends on NOT changing his mind (or words to that effect).Now, if you were a big bundler, then you might get thru.I think our only hope is to try to get our People to STOP spouting off their opinions about matters of which they know nothing [but this is proving to be an impossible task - since most of them think they are experts]; buckle down and actually learn Our Founding Principles; vote all the cursed oath breakers out of office; and elect a whole new crop of People who know and will obey Our Constitution.Fred Thompson is a Judas. And you need more than 30 pieces of silver to get thru to him.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on February 15, 2012 at 10:35amWilliam Eugene - the method you suggest really works! That is the ONLY way to increase the numbers of the constitutionally literate. I can write all day long (and just about do), but if the stuff isn't publicized, it does no good.In former times, ideas were spread slowly; and over time, some times they took root. But we have only a few months to change the mindset of a people.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on February 15, 2012 at 4:19pmWilliam, Thanks. Frances re-posted a live link in the discussion above. Be sure to read my Answer to her question!I don't know how many people you drive to my site b/c I don't know where they came from.But I sense that the word is getting out. Slowly.RE stopping the NPV in Michigan and elsewhere: Be SURE to also give them Phyllis Schlafly's paper on the NPV. She focuses on the numbers and how the NPV will actually work in practice; whereas I focus on the original intent of The Constitution.Together, we cover it well. Here is her link: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/dec11/11-12-07.html?mid=54Ignore the warning about it being an unreliable site. I think "they" put that up to discourage people from visiting conservative sites. Does someone know how to contact National Eagle Forum and tell them about this warning? I tried to warn someone and they didn't get the warning. And I don't know how to show them the warning.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on February 15, 2012 at 5:01pmI doubt Heritage will publish your list. They stopped allowing me to post on their site. Thou they do visit my site now and then. Wish it would "take".
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on March 1, 2012 at 6:17pmSomeone was disappointed b/c Sheriff Joe did not file a criminal charges against obama.But it is impossible to criminally prosecute a sitting president under federal law. Why? Because the president can fire any U.S. Attorney, and anyone in the U.S. Attorney General's office who prosecutes him. So Presidents must be impeached, convicted & removed from office before they can be criminally prosecuted under federal law. Hamilton also pointed this out in one of the Federalist Papers.In order for the State of Arizona to have criminal jurisdiction under State Law over obama, there must be a pre-existing Arizona State criminal statute which obama violated.So Give Sheriff Joe his due! He has done a great job. He is courageous. The only lawful way to get rid of obama before his term is up is for Congress to impeach, convict, and remove him. If we had he-men & she-women in Congress, they would take Sheriff Joe's work and impeach obama, try, convict, and remove him. But they don't have the Will to do this. THAT's what we get when we elect Democrats and sissies to Congress.So let's work to defeat obama in the upcoming election (no matter who gets the Republican nomination). Work on your State Legislators to stop them from passing the various idiotic proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution. And I'm drafting a model Resolution of Nullification which State Legislatures can use to nullify unconstitutional federal statutes, executive orders, and supreme Court decisions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on March 6, 2012 at 8:43amLand Shark, I don't know the Facts of the case, but I do know federal court jurisdiction (i.e., the power of the federal courts to hear and decide cases). Look at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1: "The judicial Power [of the federal courts] shall extend to all Cases...arising under this Constitution..."The 2nd Amendment "arises under this Constitution". So when a State firearms Statute is considered in respect to the 2nd Amendment, the federal courts have jurisdiction over it.[Just as a so-called "parental rights amendment" would give federal courts jurisdiction over the family, parents & their children - oh yes, we need elena kagan to dictate how parents are to raise their children. And THAT would be the result of the parental rights amendment].It is another issue altogether as to whether the 2nd Amendment properly applies to the States so as to prohibit the STATES from infringing on the right to bear arms! I suspect that it never entered the minds of our Framers that the STATES would ever attempt to disarm The People. In the second half of Federalist No. 46, James Madison speaks of how wonderful and unique it is that the American People are so heavily armed; and how in the last resort, such a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate defense against an usurping federal government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on March 6, 2012 at 9:30amThomas, the original intent of the first ten Amendments was to protect The People from the federal government. The 1st Amendment expressly applies ONLY to restrict the powers of Congress. The American people were heavily armed from the very beginning. The fear among some was that the new federal government would do as governments in Europe had done and disarm The People. The 2nd Amendment was a promise that the federal government would not disarm the People. And so on with the others: to protect the People from the federal government - not the States.One of the worst things the supreme Court ever did was to come up with its pernicious "incorporation theory" where they decided that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the 1st Amendment so as to restrict the powers of the States. THAT is how the supreme Court usurped power over the States and the people to ban Christian speech in the public square, and to overturn a host of other State statutes addressing speech. [I explain this in my paper under the category "separation of church and state?"]So technically speaking, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to restrict the States. It wasn't seen as necessary. Furthermore, it was never contemplated that the People would be disarmed. The "militia" spoken of in Our Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 & 16 and the 2nd Amendment) are the armed citizens. The Federalist Papers have much to say of the "militia".Subsequent supreme Court decisions used Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to "incorporate" other of the first Ten Amendment so as to restrict the powers of the States in the additional areas. That, e.g., is how the federal courts set themselves up as monitors over the State court systems - particularly the State criminal courts.So, it was an EVIL day when the supreme Court fabricated the "incorporation" theory - as that is how they turned the Bill of Rights (which was designed to protect us from the federal government) into a weapon which the federal courts have used to bludgeon the States into submission to their wills.I am explaining this in my "Principles & Authorities for State Legislators."And remember, it is the clause from Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 which I quoted in the post just below to Land shark which gives the federal courts judicial authority over all cases to which the Amendments to the Constitution apply.That is why, if you treasure anything, do not seek to "protect it" via an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because that gives elena kagan power over it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on March 6, 2012 at 10:34amOh, you of Ohio's 8th Congressional district! Replace Boehner!Well, Landshark, the "Bill of Rights" [it should have been called, "The Bill of Restrictions"] has caused much confusion; and I expect we would have been better off w/o it as Hamilton warned us in Federalist No. 84, 9th para.But remember Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16: These delegate to Congress constitutional authority to organize, arm, discipline, and prescribe the training for the "Militia". Under this constitutional authority, CONGRESS has power to arm the citizens. And indeed the early Militia Act of the 1790s required every able-bodied free man of certain ages to get a rifle! Get ammo! Learn to shoot! Clergy and some others could get exemptions. But if you were a man, free, able bodied, and not clergy, you were required by the early Militia Act to GET A GUN!Every able bodied free male citizen was automatically in the Militia(except for clergy, etc.)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on March 6, 2012 at 6:11pmWilliam Eugene! What am I to do with you? Thomas M. Cooley is no more authoritative on the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or of the original definition of "Militia", than is elena kagan or sonia sotomayor.To understand how our Framers understood the term "militia", one must read all the references to it in The Federalist Papers. Do not waste your time focusing on non-authoritative writers. You only confuse yourself and others. Even worse, you set a dangerous precedent of appealing to non-authoritative writers.THINK: Why is Thomas M. Cooley any more authoritative on the genuine meaning of the 2nd Amendment than are those 4 judges who voted in D.C. v. Heller (2008) that the 2nd Amendment does NOT give The People the right to keep and bear arms? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.htmlOnce you start saying that writers other than the Framers are authoritative, you open up the field to every hard core leftist who butchers the Constitution.I hope you understand the harm you can do by citing non-authoritative writers as authority. Because if Cooley is an "Authority", why isn't elena kagan?So this is why we must stick to our Framers as the Authorities.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on March 7, 2012 at 7:23amRe Ed's question about how a rent control case in New York gets in the federal courts:For purposes of this answer, I will assume that the Constitution for the State of New York permits the State or local governments in N.Y. to impose rent control.How did this case get into the federal courts? B/c the landlords claimed that the rent control ordinance amounts to a "taking" of private property under the 5th Amendment (see the very last phrase) to the U.S. Constitution.Since Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 grants to the federal courts judicial power over all cases "arising under this Constitution", and since the 5th Amendment is part of the Constitution, the federal courts have judicial power over the case.Well, you ask, "Does the 5th Amendment apply to the States?". Well, not originally. Originally, the 5th Amendment was to protect the States and the People from the federal government.But when the supreme Court decided that it was going to use Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to "incorporate" various of the first ten amendments, the federal courts usurped power over such purely local matters. The 14th Amendment expressly applies to restrict the powers of the States. So the supreme Court just claims that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" whatever provision of the Constitution which they want to use against the States. See?I illustrate step by step how the supreme Court first fabricated the "incorporation theory" and then used it to turn the 1st Amendment against the States in order to ban prayers in the public schools of the States, in my paper on "Separation of Church & State?"99.9999% of the lawyers in this Country don't question the incorporation theory! We were taught it in law school and very few question it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on March 7, 2012 at 1:09pmOh yes, Professor Raoul Berger's book on the original intent of the 14th Amendment is a masterwork. He PROVES, by means of thousands of quotes from the congressional record, the original intent of the 14th Amendment. It had nothing to do with killing babies, homosexual sodomy, homosexual marriage, etc.The purpose was to require the Southern States to extend Basic civil rights to freed slaves. Prof. Berger's book is on line and I post the link in my papers on the 14th Amendment.There are a great many lawyers in this Country. But only a handful understand the Constitution. I do not know of anyone in the House who has a clue. I thought Michele Bachmann did, but I was wrong. She supports the BBA, which shows she too is clueless.
No comments:
Post a Comment