- Comment by on April 2, 2012 at 8:12pmAwesome, Mark! The Principle you stated applies to every social/political/economic problem we have:Adult children are supposed to take care of their aging parents. Enter SS & Medicare b/c children wanted to be relieved of their God-imposed duty.Parents are responsible for the education of their children; but the parents had better things to do. Enter government schools.Families are supposed to take care of families. Neighbors are supposed to help each other out. They don't. Enter government welfare systems.People fail to eat a healthy diet and exercise. Enter moochelle telling us all how to eat, and government agents examining the contents of childrens' lunch boxes.People fail to maintain a healthy lifestyle and so give themselves diseases (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.) Enter obamacare.All along the line - in every area - "self-government" - where people govern themselves according to the Laws of God - has been wiped out and replaced with government control.Personal Responsibility: Zero. Government Control: 100.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 4, 2012 at 8:36amIt's all very interesting. I hope Our People will learn something about "checks and balances": each branch of the federal government has a check on the other two branches.We know that comrade zero - even thou he is probably a citizen of Indonesia - knows that the federal courts have a check ("judicial review") on Congress - i.e., the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional - b/c this is the ONLY "check" we learned about in law school. And if comrade zero really has a law degree, then either he knows this, or he is even more stupid than I thought.I don't know the context in which this issue came up before the 5th Circuit. Judges only have jurisdiction over the cases pending before them. Out of the blue, a judge can't order memos of law from anyone; the party has to be submitted to the jurisdiction of the court via a lawsuit before the Court has jurisdiction over him.But if the DOJ is prosecuting a case before a federal judge, then the federal judge has jurisdiction over DOJ to request a memo of law. E.g., when I was litigating, judges would frequently tell counsel they wanted us to submit a memo of law on this issue or that. It wasn't an "order" as such - but when your judge requests a memo of law, that is seen as an opportunity to win the judge over to your side - so we always scurry to provide the memo. I could have ignored the judge's request and not submit the requested memo of law - but it would be legal malpractice! We would probably lose on that point of law before the judge.I think DOJ counsel acknowledged to the judge that federal courts have the power of "judicial review'" over Congress - the power to declare their acts unconstitutional.What is so amazing about this is that comrade zero would actually say what he said! Perhaps he believes his constituency is so extremely stupid (and he is probably correct in that assessment) that they would believe him. Or maybe he is that stupid. Or maybe he is insane - he doesn't seem to have a grasp on Reality.Federal judges are the gods of our secular state, and the lawyers are their high priests. These gods and high priests do not take kindly to being told by comrade zero that they can't do something Alexander Hamilton acknowledged they could do in Federalist No. 78 (8th -15thparas); and some 15 - 20 years later, SCOTUS said they could do in Marbury v. Madison.Of course these gods and high priests have no idea that Hamilton said it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 4, 2012 at 9:17amWell, then, it was most reasonable of the judge to request the memo of law on 'judicial review" since obama said it would be "unprecedented" for federal courts to overturn obamacare - an Act of Congress.And remember, judges do this all the time! When we are making a new argument, we LOVE it when the judge requests memos of law on the issue - that shows he is interested and will not summarily reject the new argument.
So! The DOJ attorney has to either make a complete fool of herself and side with her boss (obama), or publicly repudiate what he said (and face the consequences of that).
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 4, 2012 at 10:09amOh, Frances - Thomas Angle is right!Remember also: "The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings."We just need to be warned of what we are up against: Many people who pretend to be on our side really aren't. So we are to be on guard. And we know them by their fruits.Your homework assignment: Watch Lord of the Rings to lift you up - see how Good defeats Evil against all odds.And it is GOD, not humans, who can restore Our Country. He uses human agents, but God is the one who does it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 13, 2012 at 5:17pmFrank, it is always best to read the original; but when that is not feasible, a translation is a fine idea. Reading a translation - even thou no translation can be perfect - is always better than not reading it at all.I haven't compared it for accuracy - but as one gets used to the translation, one can always later go to the originals.If Mary Webster hadn't done it, I would have.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 16, 2012 at 1:58pmRe Jon's news: The key is who writes the curriculum. Will they say that The Federalist Papers are authoritative on the genuine meaning of the Constitution? Or will they say that they were fine 220 years ago, but now the Constitution must adapt to modern circumstances and problems?Jon, I'd like to see the Law your State passed.School districts and school board from all over the Country do go to my web site - they read primarily the papers on enumerated powers. But I do not know if they are accepting or rejecting what they read.Land shark - I'll write that book!Yes, David, I am familiar with all that. I never wrote on this b/c (1) the information is already out there and (2) the courts have apparently decided that this is a political issue - not a "legal" issue - and so they are not willing to touch it.Where there are political remedies - impeachment or rejection of unqualified candidates - courts are reluctant to interfere.And if the panting morons on our side want that brainless twit, Marco Rubio (who sees no moral difference between free markets and socialism), then we are too stupid to regain our Liberty. He is "cute", glib, and Hispanic. Wow! Guess that qualifies him to be Veep in this once great Country.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 19, 2012 at 11:05amPH hates to see people wasting their own time spinning cobwebs which merely confuse themselves and others. It is really very easy:(1) For the original intent of the original Constitution see (primarily): The Federalist Papers, an old American dictionary, and Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787.(2) For the original intent of the 14th Amendment and how the federal judges have perverted it, see: Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amend.... Berger's book proves by means of thousands of quotes from the Congressional Debates, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.Berger also explains the original intents of the "due process", "equal protection", etc., clauses. He also shows how federal judges have abused those clauses to usurp powers.Don't waste your time or anybody else's time on stuff written by people who don't refer to Berger's book or to the quotes from the congressional record. More rubbish has been written by "patriots" and progressives about the 14th Amendment than any other provision in the Constitution.In my two or so papers on the 14th Amendment I use Berger's book to prove original intent of that Amendment. I use SCOTUS decisions to show how federal courts have perverted that original intent.Black men were being lynched for offenses white men got fined for. Black people didn't get paid for work they did and had no access to the courts. Read the lists of horribles in Berger's book. THAT is the reason for the 14th Amendment. That Amendment was needed b/c southern states denied basic rights of citizenship to black people!See also Ann Coulter's latest paper where she recounts how southern democrats passed gun control laws to prevent black people from owning guns!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 23, 2012 at 9:11amExcellent question: The 12th Amendment (last sentence) expressly requires the VP to be constitutionally eligible to be president. So the VP must also be a natural born citizen (NBC).The speaker of the house, the secretary of state, etc., are not required by the Constitution to be a NBC. So if the offices of president and VP were vacated, the president would pass to the next in line who is constitutionally qualified. e.g., former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was born a citizen of Czechoslovakia; so she would have been skipped over.Marco Rubio is not even a good man - it appears he has moral failings in addition to an inability to see any moral distinctions between free markets and socialism.Mark Levin and his ilk are doing a grave disservice pushing Rubio for VP. And I add that levin and his ilk display their contempt for our Constitution when they push Rubio.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 23, 2012 at 9:32pmThe Constitution only requires that the President and VP be NBC.Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 6 grants to Congress the power to determine the line of succession in the event both the President & VP have to be replaced.If I recall correctly, the line of succession after the VP is: The Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, Secretary of State, and so forth. These need not be NBCs to hold the offices of Speaker, President of Senate, Secretary of State, etc.HOWEVER, if both the President & VP must be replaced, and if the Speaker of the House is not a NBC, then he would get skipped over and the President of the Senate would be next in line - if he is a NBC, etc.Note: Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 6 was added to by the 25th Amendment, but the provision allowing Congress to determine by law the line of succession in the event the offices of President & VP are both vacated, remains (basically) in effect.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 24, 2012 at 10:51pmDeanna, take a look at:Article I, Sec. 8, clause 4;Federalist No. 32, around the end of the 2nd para;Federalist No. 42, para 15;The Discussion here:http://www.teapartynation.com/group/constitutionstudygroup/forum/to...; and
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 24, 2012 at 11:24pmEd, there are several discussions about the 14th Amendment:I have 3 papers here on the 14th Amendment and the judicial powers of the federal courts: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/14th-amendment/Yes, It is complicated. Lawyers spend much time on this issue. Make outlines!Your State has its own Constitution, and its own body of laws. Do you really want the federal courts to use the 14th Amendment to seize power over your State?Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was enacted to protect freed slaves from Southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship. Professor Berger proves this in his book, which I quote in my papers. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with killing babies, legalizing homosexual contact, and homosexual marriage. The federal courts usurped power when they claimed that the 14th Amendment gives them power over these issues.Originally Americans were citizens of the States wherein they resided. See, e.g., the references to citizens in Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment made Americans citizens of the United States as well as citizens of their State.What of people who live permanently in the D.C.? Are they citizens of any State? Good question. Our Framers did not contemplate the permanent bureaucratic parasitic class we now have living permanently in the D.C. The federal government created in the Constitution is very small! Only a few people would be needed to administer it. Our Framers contemplated public servants going to the D.C. for short periods of time to serve, maintaining throughout their State citizenship, and then going back home.But today, with the collapse of federalism and the unlawful consolidation of our Federal Republic into one national government, the concept of "State citizenship" has disappeared and been replaced with the concept of only U.S. citizenship.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on April 25, 2012 at 7:27am"Your conclusions, William Eugene? You commit the same error the federal judges commit: Your analysis. What you think. All subjective. We were told in the public schools that what we think is "important". Most believed that monstrous lie (which has done more to destroy this Country than anything else). And so we have millions running around spouting off what they think - and no one bothers about the objective meaning or Truth.
For the original intent of the 14th Amendment, look it up in Professor Raoul Berger's book! He proves original intent by means of thousands of quotes from the Congressional Record. Berger's book is on-line. I provide the link in my papers on the 14th Amendment. Berger discusses all the clauses which supreme court judges and some self-appointed expert laymen love to interpret in the manner they like.God grant the day when the motto of the People changes from "well, Ithink" to "let's look it up and find the original intent".
No comments:
Post a Comment