- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply byQ,I'm never inclined to "debate" issues in this type of venue and my last response was not in response to anything you wrote. Most often I aim to interest folks in doing their own research as we often get it wrong. While I attempt to apply some historical perspective to current events I will be the first to acknowledge my fallibility so I offer my observations for consideration not as positions to be defended.I'm responding because you mention voter rights (suffrage) and sight a point of view that progressives (not you) inappropriately use against us. Not all of the old dead white guys stipulated that education should be a prerequisite to the right to vote.We know the opinions of the “founders” differed greatly on many topics. A fair reading of history will confirm this; attributing one single point of view to all is at least inappropriate. Most often the records I have read indicate they reviewed the history of various governments, considered their own current experiences with government, developed several possible courses of action then made often difficult choices.In the “Note to his speech on the right of suffrage” Madison illustrates this method. On the question of voter rights he draws a conclusion completely different from many of those asserted by folks these days.To understand Madison’s conclusion we should understand he felt the right to vote was a “fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions” and “of peculiar delicacy”. He recognized that if we limit voting rights “exclusively to property” holders “the rights of persons may be oppressed.” Basically he makes the distinction that all people have an interest in protecting their “person” and in addition property holders have the additional concern of protecting their “property”. NOTE: While he acknowledges the value of education he doesn't use it to deprive individuals of their fundamental right to vote.With this in mind he goes on to consider five points about three possible voter rights solutions whose goal was the protection of both person and property rights.Summarizing his notes:“Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the Mass of Citizens should not be without a voice, in making the laws which they are to obey, & in chusing the Magistrates, who are to administer them, and if the only alternative be between an equal & universal right of suffrage for each branch of the Govt. and a confinement of the entire right to a part of the Citizens…”He concludes:“…Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the Mass of Citizens should not be without a voice, in making the laws which they are to obey, & in chusing the Magistrates, who are to administer them, and if the only alternative be between an equal & universal right of suffrage for each branch of the Govt. and a confinement of the entire right to a part of the Citizens, it is better that those having the greater interest at stake namely that of property & persons both, should be deprived of half their share in the Govt.; than, that those having the lesser interest, that of personal rights only, should be deprived of the whole."Despite what progressive educators have tried to drum into our heads, and what the founders were unable to accomplish at the beginning of our Republic, one of them at least held that no one should be deprived to the right to vote. Not by reason of property or education. Reject the progressive dogma, read history, draw your own conclusions.Here's a LINK to Madison's Notes on Suffrage.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- From a friend - a true story -This is a film production, but the incident really did happen. Athens is about 20 or 25 miles north Cleveland , Tenn.Please watch this to the end. This is the real reason why we have the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States .A couple of years ago someone I know from Tennessee recounted a conversation with an old man who had been a boy at the time of the Battle of Athens. His father had taken a part in it. The man remembered how his mother had been up all night worrying about her husband. In the morning the man said that his father came home, put his shotgun behind the kitchen door and sat down to his breakfast, and no one in the family ever said another word about that night.I saw this a few years ago can you believe that shit? I would have been right with them - that politician would have been toast and his sheriffs would either lay down the guns or they could die with him inside because we are going to destroy the building.to me
i dated the daughter of j.p. kennedy the youngest in the family of ringleaders, when i was in high school. i heard several accounts from local veterans. they told it with a sense of humor like they were just bitch-slapping a bunch of punks. i read the book by the liberal author who started with the intent of discrediting the vets but was on their side by the time he finished his research.according to the vets the governor was afraid to send in the national guard because they would have sided with the vets. he was also afraid to send the state troopers because he knew some would join the vets and those that didn't would not have fared well agains a bunch of veterans.when i was a boy you could still see bullet holes in some of the buildings.when it was over the vets took the hired thug deputies out in the country, stripped 'em naked and told them to not come back.word spread and the next morning vets showed up from all the nearby towns. kind of brings a tear to your eye to think of the spirit that has slowly and methodically been removed over the decades.j.p. was only about 14 or 16 so his brothers left him guarding the armory. my uncles and father were there before daylight but by then it was over. those old guys used to laugh their asses of talking about it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- GM China motors move R & D
- Permalink Reply by on
- A Defense of the U.S. Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.by Publius HuldahIf President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…Article VI, cl. 2 says:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word & phrase. The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.3. From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”. If the Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to act on a subject, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78, 10th -11th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. (e.g., Federalist No. 78, 9th para).4. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The American People to induce them to ratify it. Because of this, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution. Thus, we must always consult The Federalist to learn what it says about any constitutional provision. In Federalist No. 44 (7th para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson:In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]5. So! We see from the above that the treaty making power of the United States is very limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…”(Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2).The Federalist Papers discuss the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd and 6th paras). Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st and 3rd paras).In addition, Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents and copyrights.6. Now, let us consider the proposed “climate change” treaty. There exists somewhere a 200 page draft agreement which, during December 2009, is to be hammered out, put into final form, and signed in Copenhagen. If signed by Obama and ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?To answer that Question, we must first ask: Does The Constitution authorize Congress to make laws about the objects of the proposed “climate change” treaty? One wants to see the actual 200 page draft agreement, but it appears, from various web sites, that the gist of the scheme is for the governments of the “rich” nations to reduce the “greenhouse gas emissions” within their borders and to send money to the “poor” nations to bribe them to sign the treaty and to compensate them for our “past emissions”. There seem also to be provisions for entrepreneurs like AlGore to sell “carbon offset credits” or “emission reduction units” to those who emit more than “their share” of “greenhouse emissions”. [By the way, from where does AlGore get them to sell?]And just what, pray, are “greenhouse emissions”? Primarily, carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Carbon dioxide: the gas which humans and other animals exhale, and which plants must have for photosynthesis [sounds like a good system to me]. Methane: The gas which animals belch. All very easy to control: Kill most of the people and most of the animals! Shut down our remaining industries. Stop the cars. Turn off the electricity. Cut off supplies of propane. Prohibit the burning of wood. And water vapor! Oh! We must stop poisoning the world with Water!So! The Questions are these: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. “emissions”? Is transferring wealth from Americans to “poor” nations to compensate them for our “past emissions”, one of the enumerated powers of Congress? Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor?The answer is NO! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the “climate change” treaty, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such. Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.7. While the statist-in-chief will surely sign a Treaty in Copenhagen, ratification requires two thirds of the Senators present (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.2). Are we such a corrupt people that we elected 67 U.S. Senators who will vote to ratify the Treaty? But even if 67 faithless Senators vote to ratify it, then we may take heart from the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 44 (16th para):… in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….Read again the foregoing passages! The statists can not enslave us without our acquiescence. For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!” We are told that “The Rule of Law” requires us to obey every order, law, court opinion, or treaty coming out of the federal government. And not only do we believe such nonsense, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Learning, Thinking and Analysis. And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!” Pay attention to the words of our beloved James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. PHOctober 27, 2009
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- Would you answer an unexpected knock at the door 1:30AM, without a gun?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I guess that it is OK for numerous people to beat on your door and fail to identify themselves - in Texas they might be dead in the yard and not the homeowner dead from a mistake there would be no mistake in Texas.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by 1 second agoJohn,Actually it all started in the time of Jimmy Carter - he forced the Banks to make loans to foreign sovereigns. This was to free up the money in the budget that went to foreign aid and IMF which he could then use for welfare and social engineering uses here in America. I fought the Senate banking committee with Barry Goldwater's help over this wrongful risk to our banking system.I reviewed the financial reports of the top ten bank holding companies and the non-performing loans to foreign governments exceed their share holder equities in 9 out of ten cases - they were bankrupt and a bank collapse was imminent. Even the National board of Accounting standards forced the banks to classify the loans = this was the final step. Carter allowed the usury laws to be suspended and over night the interest rates on prime grade loans went from 8% to 16% for businesses and then credit cards sent to 21.5 % - Prime interest rate topped out at 21% many industries and even companies like International Harvester went under and Caterpillar barely made it.The Senate banking committee kept saying oh no problem this is temporary and will pass soon. Well the next week a Bank named Continental Illinois was seized by the Federal Reserve and I spoke to a member the next morning and he assured me it was a abnormal item.Well, I then found out that the Fed paid out all deposits 100% even those with millions over the FDIC $ 100,000 limit. Why would they do that? the answer was on the tip of my tongue and it was that this was a money center bank that had parts of all the foreign loans that were not paying. If they allowed them to go BK and the loans were to be sold on the open market - it would have established the fair market value for all of those loans and Accounting rules would have required all other banks to write down to market which was much lower than cost. they were all BK that day.So, Carter allowed the banks to just tax all people with super high interest so they could stay solvent. It was just a sneak tax a Democrat progressive hidden tax. When Reagan was elected he found this out and the only way to keep the commercial banks from 1930 style collapse was to let the S&L industry to be sacrificed at the alter of the least painful way to fix the Progressive failures.Well the current collapse in 2008 was just a continuation of the 1980 problem. Very little has ever been written about these facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment