Prince of Fools
Author unknown"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them." – James Madison’s Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788
- Permalink Reply by on
- John Adams wrote:"This spirit, however, without knowledge, would be little better than a brutal rage......Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government..."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by 1 second agoOne might want to look to Federalist 78 by Hamilton - the Court was to have not power over the Legislative branch [Purse]or the Executive branch [Sword]. Did the courts not start usurping in the M & M cases?Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. A. HamiltonAnswer seems to be the court has no power to create or alter legislation except using usurped Case Law Precedent? Impeachment is not a real option IMO it has happened only around 35 times since the Ratifiers signed the Constitution. 35 in 235 years = no very good odds IMHO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Brushaber decision by the Supreme Court [Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co. - 240 U.S. 1 (1916)] made it absolutely clear that the Sixteenth Amendment authorized no new power of taxation which did not exist prior to that amendment:"...the Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case (an 1895 Supreme Court decision, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., ruling that the income tax is unconstitutional)…the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended... (the purpose was not) to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes."Thus the Supreme Court in Brushaber is saying that the income tax can only conform with the limitations of the Constitution as an indirect tax, which is a class of taxes falling on voluntary activities, and requiring uniformity. The income tax does not satisfy these constitutional requirements as an indirect tax except in very limited circumstances which do not affect most Americans.The Supreme Court affirms this understanding in a subsequent case [STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)]:"...by the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment..."The Supreme Court could not have made the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment more clear (even if it was legally ratified, which it was not). Yet those in government with an interest in imposing an income tax have buried the Brushaber decision, and have convinced the American people that there is a law requiring Americans to file income tax returns and pay taxes on private earnings.The fact is that no such law exists, and there is no separate class of taxes under the Constitution labeled "income tax". Any purported tax on income, or any other federal tax, must survive under one of the constitutionally-qualified tax provisions as either a direct tax which is subject to apportionment, or as an indirect tax which is subject to the requirement of uniformity.The income tax is neither (although it is unconstitutionally enforced by the IRS as an unapportioned direct tax), and this new Obamacare "tax" is likewise neither.In Mark Levin's comments on the Obamacare decision, the following statements are made:“What kind of taxes are permitted under our federal constitution? Well, there’s a tax that is called a direct tax or capitation tax…it is a tax on the individual. The Constitution requires direct or capitation taxes (a head tax if you will) to be apportioned among the states…Then under the Constitution you can have an excise tax. But excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of the individual. So surely this tax can’t be (an excise tax).What about an income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment? Even John Roberts doesn’t attempt to justify the (Obamacare) penalty as an income tax.”It is long past time for the federal income tax be exposed for the fraud that it is.Is it too much to expect from our conservative commentators that they be constitutionally accurate when discussing taxes?Perhaps you and Mark Levin should get hold of Peter Hendrickson’s expose of the income tax hoax titled “Cracking the Code”.What you will find in that little masterpiece will shock you, and make you so angry that what has been done by Chief Justice Roberts will seem trivial by comparison.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Let us review the methods of correction that PH has listed one at a time a see if they are indeed usable in our quest to Restore the Original Constitution.What can WE Do?First, we must disabuse ourselves of the monstrous lie that the federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and that the opinion of five judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers. 3 This is an evil ideology antithetical to our Founding Documents and Principles. Once you understand that, our remedies are readily apparent:1. Impeach Federal Judges who violate their Oaths of Office. The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, §1, cl. 1) – usurp power, they must be removed from office. Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 81 (8th para) of:We must elect Representatives and Senators who will support our Constitution by impeaching & removing usurping federal judges. We must elect people who will rid of us The Lawless Five.35 times the legislature has Impeached during 235 years - So, this will not seem to be useful but is a very weak tool at best.2. Elect Representatives and Senators who will also repeal obamacare and dismantle everything which has been implemented so far.This has some issues that will not be quite so simple to remove and revoke - much of the ACA will not come under the Reconciliation action - leaving only the "nuclear option" as it was called some years back to end the filibusterer rule and go to the majority vote rule. This is again not viable in mind as Senators are very protective of their traditions. Thus much of the law will remain.3. Elect Romney. He has promised he will “repeal” obamacare. His Oath of Office – which is “to preserve, protect and defend the .... By Executive Order, he must refuse to implement it, he must reverse all implementation in effect when he takes office, and he must rescind the unconstitutional rules [see, e.g., Art. I, §1] made by the baby-killing totalitarians who presently infect the Department of Health & Human Services.This will provide a path forward for some items bu the Executive powers are limited in Domestic affairs. It would appear that part of this is giving the Executive the same unconstitutional powers the people have not liked in the past. So, it appears that some would allow usurpation if it accomplishes their wants.4. States must nullify obamacare. Here are model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. These can be easily amended to specifically address obamacare and the HHS rules. State officials, legislators, and judges all take The Oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3); and that Oath requires them to nullify obamacare.Again the current SCOTUS just smacked down Arizona and other states trying to use their 10th amendment rights - so this is not a way forward as long as the 14th amendment is in place allowing the SC to reach though and forcing the entire bill of rights on the States - which was never intended to be done by the FF&R.5. We the People must stop deceiving ourselves about the motives of people such as obama and the Lawless Five. They arenot ‘basically decent people who just have different opinions”. They are Dolores Umbridges who are determined to reduce us to abject slavery. PH.If this is a correct and accurate statement then there remains only two viable options - the most peaceful and effective would be the use of 38 State Legislatures to revoke the 14th 16th and 17th amendment restoring the powers outside the Article I section 8 back to the many States. If this can not be accomplished the only the JEFFERSON FINAL OPTION REMAINS -The most fortunate of us, in our journey through life, frequently meet with calamities and misfortunes which may greatly afflict us; and, to fortify our minds against the attacks of these calamities and misfortunes, should be one of the principal studies and endeavours of our lives.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) Thomas Jefferson
- Permalink Reply by on
- My purpose in writing this paper was:To teach the true meaning of the so-called "taxing clause"; and to show that it is not a grant of authority for the federal government to tax for any purpose whatsoever, but only to fund the enumerated objects of its powers.But it seems that all I did (except for a few who got it) was to create a new forum for people to complain about how bad everyone else is, to show off what they think they know, and talk about how it is hopeless. Just *itch, *itch, *itch.I suggest that the people who are doing this are the problem. We destroy ourselves with our own malice, pride, ignorance, and laziness.Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the legislative powers We granted to Congress. Nothing in Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to control our medical care (or to exercise the other powers in the Act).I challenge those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court [Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, & Breyer], all other totalitarians, mushy liberals, gullible fools, and parasitic humans who support obamacare, to point to that clause of The Constitution where We delegated to the federal government power to control our medical care.Hamilton and Madison are telling that We don’t have to go along with obamacare just because Five totalitarians on the supreme Court want the Executive Branch to have total control over our lives. This is where we draw the line. We must Resist this tyranny. PHAll of the above is PURE 100% OPINION AND IT IS NOT ALL CORRECT OR EVEN CLOSE - MOSTLY FULL OF FALSE BRAVADO AND MISSTATEMENTS OF WHAT CAN BE DONE. It is common for PROGRESSIVES to accuse other of doing what they are doing but talking down to people in a fashion as done above does not educate anyone into anything except HATE and disappointment as the OPINIONS EXPRESSED WILL JUST NOT ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENT to a desired fix of the usurpation.Such anger and calling elected/appointed officials nasty vial names advances only disappointment as those opinion will only further divide the nation. Are not Lawyers all OFFICIALESE OF THE COURT? Can not members of the bar be removed/sanctioned for making personal attacks without proof? Nothing is advanced by using insulting poisonous statements.The issue is USURPATION by the three branches of the Federal Government and having kicked all the teeth out of the tenth amendment there is no easy way to correction. Maybe rather than complain and call people names the studious can actually address their statesmen toward the best way to freedom restored. Any idea that do not agree with the author are dismissed as lack of knowledge or proper training - maybe the mirror is in this case a useful instrument. IMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- The words of Justice Marshall still ring in my ears as I f he said them directly to me: (From Downes v Bidwell)“We heard much in argument about the 'expanding future of our country.' It was said that the United States is to become what is called a 'world power;' and that if this government intends to keep abreast of the times and be equal to the great destiny that awaits the American people, it must be allowed to exert all the power that other nations are accustomed to exercise. My answer is, that the fathers never intended that the authority and influence of this nation should be exerted otherwise than in accordance with the Constitution. If our government needs more power than is conferred upon it by the Constitution, that instrument provides the mode in which it may be amended and additional power thereby obtained. The People of the United States who ordained the Constitution never supposed that a change could be made in our system of govern- [182 U.S. 244, 387] ment by mere judicial interpretation. They never contemplated any such juggling with the words of the Constitution as would authorize the courts to hold that the words 'throughout the United States,' in the taxing clause of the Constitution, do not embrace a domestic 'territory of the United States' having a civil government established by the authority of the United States. This is a distinction which I am unable to make, and which I do not think ought to be made when we are endeavoring to ascertain the meaning of a great instrument of government.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mark,Let us consider the comments below and then apply them to the current domination of the people by all three branches working together in support of a Constitutional theory that just does not exist - the tax that never was is what it should be called IMO.I am fearful that the principles of government inculcated in Mr. Adams's treatise, and enforced in the numerous essays and paragraphs in the newspapers, have misled some well designing members of the late Convention._But it will appear in the sequel, that the construction of the proposed plan of government is infinitely more extravagant.I have been anxiously expecting that some enlightened patriot would, ere this, have taken up the pen to expose the futility, and counteract the baneful tendency of such principles. Mr. Adams's sine qua non of a good government is three balancing powers, whose repelling qualities are to produce an equilibrium of interests, and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community. He asserts that the administrators of every government, will ever be actuated by views of private interest and ambition, to the prejudice of the public good; that therefore the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare, is to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies, in the exercise of the powers of government, and balanced by those of a third. This hypothesis supposes human wisdom competent to the task of instituting three co-equal orders in government, and a corresponding weight in the community to enable them respectively to exercise their several parts, and whose views and interests should be so distinct as to prevent a coalition of any two of them for the destruction of the third. Mr. Adams, although he has traced the constitution of every form of government that ever existed, as far as history affords materials, has not been able to adduce a single instance of such a government; he indeed says that the British constitution is such in theory, but this is rather a confirmation that his principles are chimerical and not to be reduced to practice. If such an organization of power were practicable, how long would it continue? not a day_for there is so great a disparity in the talents, wisdom and industry of mankind, that the scale would presently preponderate to one or the other body, and with every accession of power the means of further increase would be greatly extended. The state of society in England is much more favorable to such a scheme of government than that of America. There they have a powerful hereditary nobility, and real distinctions of rank and interests; but even there, for want of that perfect equallity of power and distinction of interests, in the three orders of government, they exist but in name; the only operative and efficient check, upon the conduct of administration, is the sense of the people at large.Those words were written 1787 and somehow sounds like they could have been written last week after the Taxing ACA decision occurred. Who wrote them and were they considered during Ratification?His closing quote and signature -Who's here so base, that would a bondsman be?
If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who's here so vile, that will not love his country?
If any, speak; for him have I offended.[Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2 ]Centinel.link to the entire work
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Biographies of the Founding Fathers
The Signers of the Articles of Confederation
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett
John Wentworth, Jr.
Massachusetts
John Hancock
Samuel Adams
Elbridge Gerry
Francis Dana
James Lovell
Samuel Holten
Rhode Island
William Ellery
Henry Marchant
John CollinsConnecticut
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Oliver Wolcott
Titus Hosmer
Andrew Adams
New York
James Duane
Francis Lewis
William Duer
Gouverneur Morris
New Jersey
John Witherspoon
Nathaniel ScudderPennsylvania
Robert Morris
Daniel Roberdeau
Jonathan Bayard Smith
William Clingan
Joseph Reed
Delaware
Thomas McKean
John Dickinson
Nicholas Van DykeMaryland
John Hanson
Daniel Carroll
Virginia
Richard Henry Lee
John Banister
Thomas Adams
John Harvie
Francis Lightfoot LeeNorth Carolina
John Penn
Cornelius Harnett
John Williams
South Carolina
Henry Laurens
William Henry Drayton
John Mathews
Richard Hutson
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Georgia
John Walton
Edward Telfair
Edward Langworthy
- Permalink Reply by on
No comments:
Post a Comment