Thursday, May 15, 2014

Goldwater page 165

 Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:11am
Delete
JAMES MADISON AND THE CONSTITUTION’S “CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AMENDMENTS”
http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2012/07/JM-Conventions-final.pdf JAMES MADISON AND THE CONSTITUTION’S “CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AMENDMEN…
Started by you


Read more: http://www.912communique.com/groups/group/forum?groupUrl=article-v-...
Follow us: @912Communique on Twitter | TheConstitutionalConservatives on Facebook
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:12am
Delete

10 FACTS TO REBUT THE MYTHOLOGY OF A RUNAWAY ARTICLE V CONVENTION

To be absolutely clear...we do not advocate a constitutional convention.
We propose an Article V amendment convention...specific and defined agenda...limited scope...established as  by the Founders stated in the U.S. Constitution.

THERE IS MUCH CON/CON DEBATE OUT THERE AND RUNAWAY CONVENTION MYTHOLOGY...LET US BEGIN TO ADDRESS IT.

PREPARED BY NICK DRANIAS
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE

10 FACTS TO REBUTE THE MYTHOLOGY OF A RUNAWAY CONVENTION

1. ARTICLE V does not authorize a constitutional convention; it authorizes a convention for proposing specific amendments.

2. When the Founders drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they specifically rejected the language for Article V that would have allowed the states to later call for an open convention.

3. Thirty eight (38) states must ratify any proposal from an amendments convention, requiring a broad consensus that makes sure the amendments convention cannot "runaway".

4. The limited scope of an amendments convention is underscored by the fact that it specifically says amendments cannot alter the equal number of votes for each state in the U.S. Senate without the consent of the affected state. This established that an Article V convention couldn't simply re-write the entire Constitution.

5. The states define the agenda of an amendments convention through their  for the convention and through the commission of the delegates. Amendments conventions can be limited to specific topics.

6. The Constitution was sold by the Founders to the ratifying states on the basis that they retained their ultimate authority over the federal government through their Article V amendment powers.
James  Federalist No. 43 specifically argued that the states should use the power to correct the errors in the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton in the "final argument" of the Federalist Papers, in Federalist No. 85, said the amendment process was the means by which the states would rein in an out-of-control federal government.
One cannot take the Constitution seriously and contend that Article V was not meant to be used. It is critical and "deal closing" element of the balance of power created by the Constitution.

7. There is ZERO PRECEDENT that any convention of the states has ever "runaway" from its assigned agenda. There have been 12 interstate conventions in the history of our country. ALL OF THEM stayed within their stated agenda. Even the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was not convened to "amend" the Articles of Confederation, but to "revise" and "alter" the Articles to establish an effective national government. This was fully consistent with the Article of Confederation because the Article authorized alterations- a term that had revolutionary significance because it echoed the language of the Declaration of Independence. The broad purpose of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was specifically mentioned in the call of Congress and in nearly all of the commissions for the delegates for each state. The 1787 convention did not runaway at all; it did what it was charged to do-like all interstate conventions preceding it.

8. The procedures for conducting an amendments convention are similar to Congress' long-established rule-making powers. Constitutional text, language and custom make clear that Congress calls the convention, setting a time and location; state appoint delegates by way of resolutions and commissions (or general law); delegates initially vote as states at the convention; and majority votes decide what amendments are proposed for ratification. An amendments convention is simply an interstate task force.

9. The limited scope of an amendments convention is similar to that of state ratification conventions that are also authorized in Article V, but no one worries about a ratification convention "running away" even though such a convention does make law.

10. An amendments convention, because it only proposes amendments and does not make law, is not an effective vehicle for staging a government take-over.



The Goldwater Institute was established in 1988 as an independent, non-partisan public policy research organization. Through policy studies and community outreach, the Goldwater Institute broadens public policy discussions to allow consideration of the policies consistent with the Founding Principles-limited government, economic freedom, and individual responsibility.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:14am
Delete

GOLDWATER STUDY SERIES ON ARTICLE V

THESE ARE THE STUDY REFERENCES AND OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION FROM THE GOLDWATER ARTICLE V SERIES. THERE IS TREMENDOUS STUDY MATERIAL HERE. I FOUND IT VERY INFORMATIVE AND REALLY ASSISTED ME IN MY LEARNING AND UNDERSTANDING. I THANK AND GIVE CREDIT TO THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR THIS BODY OF WORK.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

by Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

Americans are increasingly questioning - and resisting - the endless growth of the federal government. Part of this resistance finds voice in efforts to enforce state sovereignty through litigation and legislation such as the Health Care Freedom Act and the Firearms Freedom Act. Measures such as these protect existing, fundamental rights from erosion at the federal level. But the growing discontent has also reignited interest in an even more direct route for the people and the states to regain control over the federal government - the Article V constitutional amendment process.

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the states have the power to  to Congress to hold a convention for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments. This power was meant to provide a fail-safe mechanism to control the federal government.

This report demonstrates that the historical record during the Founding era establishes a clear roadmap to guide the Article V amendment process. Among other seminal discoveries, this report reveals that the Framers rejected drafts of Article V that contemplated the very kind of wide-open convention that could “run away,” substituting instead a provision for a limited-scope convention, attended by state-chosen delegates, and addressed to specific subject matters.

Of course, abuses of the Article V constitutional amendment process are possible. But that possibility must be viewed against the clear and present danger to individual rights and freedom of doing nothing. This report recommends that states seriously consider initiating the Article V constitutional amendment process to restrain the federal government.

Posted on February 22, 2011 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Robert G. Natelson

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
by Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.
This is the third in a series of reports by Goldwater Institute senior fellow Robert G. Natelson on the power of state legislatures to initiate the process for amending the U.S. Constitution under Article V. The previous two reports explain that the purpose of the Article V amendments convention is to provide a parallel process whereby the states effect constitutional amendments.
This report provides crucial practical drafting guidance for exercising the states’ constitutional authority. In essence, it recommends that state legislators draft their Article V  and delegate commissions with an eye to targeting specific subject matters, while still giving state delegates a meaningful level of deliberative independence to ensure that the amendments convention can serve its consensus-building and problem-solving purpose. The key is to regard an amendments convention as a modern-day “task force”—a representative body that is limited to a specific agenda but expected to exercise judgment on accomplishing that agenda.
*****************

Read Part 1, Amending the Constitution by Convention: A  View of the Founders' Plan

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/amending-constitution-convent...
_______

Read Part 2, Learning From Experience How the States Used Article V Applications in America's First Century

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/learning-experience-how-state...
________

Read Part 3, Amending the Constitution by Convention: Practical Guidance for Citizens and Policymakers

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/amending-constitution-con...
________


Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:16am
Delete

Historical Introduction-Insist It Means..What It Says It Means

"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. The exact problem we the people have allowed to occur through modernization AND new word meanings has altered the Constitution without using Amendments. "

What a perfect lead to the discussion topic I wish to offer today, as well as the historical information we have prepared. We cannot  with our discussion and examination of the Constitution without beginning from a common . LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE.


When you examine any topic you need to understand and take into consideration all the criteria that lend influence to the outcome of the entire concept. I would like to suggest, for the sake of group approach 3 basic principals that I think we should :
1- The Historical Context
2-The Language
3-The Original Intent (you need to keep in mind, much great debate evolves from the idea that we are examining what persons-long dead- were thinking or believing at the time they penned the words...many get lost in that examination...it alone could stop us in our tracks and prevent us from evolving this project...we must agree that the most we can do is to try our best to decipher the intent and the meaning-we are not going to gain absolute answers that satisfy everyone. It is like faith..you begin from the fact that you DO BELIEVE-not from the proof/no proof of IF YOU BELIEVE."

"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."

It is in the INTENT concept that all legislation is allowed or rejected-after all original specific text. It is because of the ASSUMED OR IMPLIED INTENT that amendments to the Constitution (after the 10th-all language before that date is original to the Framers) have been allowed and accepted. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER-ONCE AN AMENDMENT OR LAW IS ADOPTED IT BECOMES "PRECEDENT" IN ITSELF.

When the historical information you will study states the premise that *the 14th Amendment-makes the 14th Amendment Constitutional * the premies establishes the premis-just as the 14th establishes the 14th.
IT IS FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT FORWARD THAT THE DIRECTION OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL FOCUS.
THE FRAMERS ORIGINAL APPROACH AND LANGUAGE IS THIS: THE PEOPLE-THE STATE-THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
AFTER THE 14 THE SHIFT BECOMES: THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT-THE STATE-THE PEOPLE.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is the entire basis of our argument. Without the 14th-allowing itself, we COULD NOT have had the 16th and then the 17th. The 14th has taken away the power of the states to be THE PRINCIPAL tax purveyor (the 16th) and the legislative originator (the 10th). The 14th has gained its sustenance from the (16th-the money) and the power to levi it: as well as the restaurant to dine in (the U.S. Senate-the 17th). If our State senators were working and housed in their residences in "the homeland"...do you honestly think they would support laws that oppress the People and the States? It is a fact that many Senators live permanently in Washington D.C., they maintain "token" properties in their respective states, and "visit" from time to time-but many are a "beltway animal".

*It is important to note that we establish no personal argument against any specific person serving as a representative of any state...there are many who serve well and honorably..it is the 'institutional politician and the central dynamic of the body of the senate that we study and find in error. Each state requires and has a right to the equal representation of two senators.

For the sake of this introduction, let us define each criteria.'

THE LANGUAGE' of any document is the story and the meaning-applied in the context of the current events of the time. Sentence structure is critical in the 'art of language'. Simply speaking, the noun-verb-noun sentence order establishes the intent through the placement of the order. In the original language of the Constitution (the Pre-amble and the first 10 Amendments -'The Bill of Rights) also the Declaration of Independence...the language statement-as well as the noun-ver-noun, is always The People-the State-The central government. Bottom up governmental power and direction. Amendments after the 14th, because of the 14th, shifts the language sequence and the meaning -from the Central government-back to the States-and then dictates down to the People, shifts the intention of governing and newly establishes the power of who will govern over who will be governed. While the language may sound desirous to the casual examination-the intended consequence and future consequence, it is where we establish our argument.

*It is also important to note that we focus our argument solely toward the Amendments that have fundamentally shifted the focus of government. We argue only those. There is much objectionable legislation that many do not support. To go after those in piecemeal, while each may be worthwhile, is a selfish expenditure of energy-effort-and precious time. Let us concentrate our best efforts in "1 fatal shot" and go after whatever offenses remain -in the subsequent period after ratification of the 28 Amendment.

'The Historical Context' is paramount to our discussion. 'HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE'. The events and the attitudes and circumstances that were happening at the time of introduction and ratification of the 14th-16th-17th Amendments.
The original language came from men who had fought for and won their freedom from an oppressive government; and who sought to draft a contract that would live forever beyond them -that would serve and maintain the freedom and the liberties for all the people of this Nation- that they had dearly paid for and won.

The historical context of the birth of the 14th is critically very different. The drafters and the sponsors of that language and legislation were men of a very different period and perspective. The Civil War has just ended. We have been a Nation of one citizen warring against another-a "house divided". We had been a society that accepted servitude and enslavement of another human being -who had yet to know or define a 'new citizen'. There were many persons who had earned their freedom through servitude in payment for passage to this new country, a society of new "freeman" established by the 13th Amendment and then compliance won by the Civil War, and a newly arrived and poorly provisioned and uneducated immigrant society, having newly arrived here from another country to seek a better life. "CITIZENSHIP" WAS NOT DEFINED AND COMPLIANCE RECOGNIZED ACCORDING TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, following the Civil War-and at this time of tremendous population expansion. IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE/OR EXCUSE OF THE CONGRESS OF THE DAY AND FAILURE TO HAVE DONE SO -DESIGNS THE POWER GRAB OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

These leaders sought many things. They included good things (uniting things-functioning laws and policies-judgements that will restore the 'union' and prevent further division), as well as concepts that may not be considered so noble (punishment - the 14th was passed when the Northern States wanted to PUNISH the South and they kicked out all Southern Politicians and replaced them with ones that agreed with the North and would agree to the items required to be returned to the Compact. Ratification of the 14th was a "compelled action" placed upon the Southern States and their citizens before re-admittance would be allowed. All ex-confederates were prohibited from participation in the process.) (power for party and personal political gain), (governmental superiority over the common man who has not the education, the intelligence, the cooperation of one another-let alone a'united states' psychology. They also assumed a large arrogance as part of the educated-elected and powerful-the champions over the defeated class of the society of the day). You need to understand it and see it all, in order to judge the whole.

In group development for this Article V project we quickly understood that historical context is vital to understanding the amendments themselves and to accepting and believing in the argument for our proposal for the 28th Amendment. None of us can be effective advocates for this project if we do not fully embrace "the whole picture". There are many others out there that seek an Article V solution for other solutions or agendas...they are not us, nor are their reasons our reasons. Please study all we are offering-gain the wisdom and the understanding of this project-it is in the entirety that you will find the worthiness.

Read the history. Study in the library. Join the discussions and offer your thoughts and ask your questions. We are all studying and learning together. Thank you for reading and welcome.

"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:17am
Delete

PROGRESSIVE RATE INCOME TAX - IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?


posted on January 2, 2013 by Gary DeMar Filed Under Constitution, First Amendment, Morality, Politics, Second Amendment, Taxes

Does Congress Have the Authority to Tax Americans At Different Rates?

0

The 16th Amendment gave the Federal Government the authority and power to tax every citizen. Here’s the wording of the Amendment:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect  on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Please note that there is no provision in this amendment that Congress is given the right to unequally  this power. In looking over all the Constitution’s amendments, I don’t see an unequal distribution of either a freedom or limitation.
Equality under the law requires that as each of us stands before the courts or the Constitution, no one should be treated in an unequal way. The law applies to every citizen equally, except, it seems, when it comes to apply the 16th Amendment.
Does the First Amendment parcel out its freedoms in percentages? Doesn’t every person have the same right to speak, write, and assemble? Rich people and poor people have the same percentage of these rights — 100 percent. The same is true of religion. In constitutional terms, all religions are to be treated equally.
The same is true of the Second Amendment. Everybody has a right to “keep and bear arms” at the same rate. Rich people and poor people have a right to purchase as many guns as they want. Because the rich can afford more guns does not mean that they have to pay more for those guns.
The quartering of troops is similarly equal in the distribution that “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” No one could argue that because rich people have larger houses that they should be required to open their house to soldiers.
The same is true about the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. Read them over and try to apply the percentage differences to them like Congress and the President do with the 16th Amendment.
The 8th Amendment might apply in the case of increased percentages in taxation because the practice could be considered to be “cruel and unusual punishment.” Liberals regard taxation at ever higher rates as punitive. High taxes are designed to punish the rich. Sen. Rand Paul notes the law of diminishing returns on raising taxes. Taxation is not about increased revenue:
“You may not get any more revenue. You may not get any more economic growth. But you can say, ‘I stuck it to the rich people.’”
A progressive income tax is “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The 14th Amendment could also apply. No State “shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Equal protection.” Our government is not permitted to treat people in an unequal manner. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Justice John Marshall Harlan argued the following in his “Great Dissent”:
“[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates  among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”
The rich are considered a “class” in American politics. We speak of “class warfare” on a regular basis. Why are the rich classes treated unequally when it comes to legislative law? The taxation of income at unequal levels deprives people of liberty and property.
All we need now is some lawyer or group of lawyers to make this point in the courts. We need to have the same fortitude as those who have worked for decades to overturn capital punishment.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:20am
Delete

Re-post: Today's Patriots and Article V Will Save This Nation

Today's Patriots and Article V. Will Save This Nation
Posted by CG9 on December 4, 2012 at 7:24am in PoliticalView Discussions
Upon request I have been asked to re-post this discussion for a Friend, it is my honor to do so.


I believe that today’s Patriot movement, by whatever name they may be called/or by whichever organization a person joins, has been preparing itself to become the saving grace of this country. I have always felt, deep in my bones, that we would be called to do great work-because we have only one political loyalty and one agenda. Love-respect-protect this Country and Restore the “America” the first Patriots fought and died for and the Liberty and Principles of their  that we are to stand upon.

We come here to share/ talk/ post/ learn/, be in the companionship of, and fellowship with, many other patriotic and concerned American citizens. We are all here: scholars-historians-reporters-soldiers-contributors-seekers/ and we bring with us our ideas, and our opinions, and our hopes for our Nation and Her Liberties. We know each other from a black and white/color page, with pseudonyms and initials to name ourselves-yet we speak from our hearts of precious things, and many of the people living around us do not know us as well.

There is not one of us that can single-handedly save this country. But, I believe there are many brilliant and dedicated minds and souls here who can work together and do so. Consider the framework of all we have built? We have each found our place here-where we can work and contribute according to our strengths and our knowledge. Our ideals are the same-our ideas are independent-challenging-valued-and absolutely committed to restoring the founding principles that our fore-fathers set for us long ago. Those ideals are timeless-they are as true for today as they were when they were first penned. It is our duty and our privilege to do this work and advance the cause of restoring freedom among ourselves and share it with others….Lady Liberty is asking for/and needs the help of so many…may we all find what we need to do so here.

Times they are a-changing my Friends…and everyday we seek to decipher and offer a meaning…to the events that are happening and to search for a direction that is hopeful? It is my true conviction that as more and more disheartened and disappointed people look to find a place of ideas; where solutions can be advanced to save our Nation they will come here. We may never convert the masses who only seek to have “another” give them hope (an easy, free, personally- diminishing benefactor)…but inside the walls of this movement is a place where the HOPEFUL can still come…and offer a strong back and a shared fire in their hearts to rebuild our Country.

History is being recorded and made everyday-new history. We grow more troubled and concerned with the current direction of events. True news and the sources to find and search for it are here.
How we have developed our policies, the memories and the documents, the heroes and the Founders, the epic of how and why we are the greatest nation that has ever existed- is our old history. Old history has the lessons-and is the  where new history should anchor itself. These are spoken of reverently and respected here.
True history-the telling and recording of it, the values of the lessons, is in danger. I fear the “old” will not be long remembered and the “new” is in service to the destruction of all the common struggles, sacrifice, and dreams of our ancestors built. Here is where you can seek the truth.

Long ago, people the same as you and I saw the history of their day being written in ways and a direction they could no longer accept.  people from all walks of life stepped forward to become something more. They were the first true patriots. My Friends…..I believe we are the Patriots of today. The same failings of government and the hope of freedom and a better life are ours. Destiny is calling for us in this time just the same as it echoed so long ago for them. What is the HISTORY we will record?

I believe that if we join and work together we can accomplish the education and advancement of ideas and the necessary work that will save our nation. May we set out the welcome mat to all who wish to join us in this cause… Continue to offer hope and lay the building-blocks that give us hope for the future…. Show our youth how to respect, understand and teach our history/and assume the responsibility that is theirs….Always cherish and be committed to the future history we wish to make for America. We have the legacy of America to protect…the legacy of Her Future to guarantee.

This is a "call to arms!" ladies and gentlemen. I believe today’s Patriots have the heart to do what must be done. We have the wisdom and the knowledge to know how it must be done. We have the clear vision to see and the ear to hear the plea of Lady Liberty. We have the humility and conviction to join hands one-to-one and stand as many to accomplish a great work. I believe we are the Patriots that will save this Nation once again. Article V. and Restoration of State Powers is the axe that will bring the beanstalk down. May the giant fall. I respectfully ask that you join our AV Group and help us do this important work.

I care not that history will remember me, but I pray that it will remember what I do-and that it made the difference. Thank you.


Read more: http://www.912communique.com/forum/topics/today-s-patriots-and-arti...
Follow us: @912Communique on Twitter | TheConstitutionalConservatives on Facebook


Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:22am
Delete

Jettison the Constitution?

This is echoed by a Major University Con Law Professor that wants the Constitution suspended for real - not just in principle as we now see from DC.

Jettison the Constitution?

By Staff Report
11
Let's Give Up on the Constitution ... As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions ... Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. – New York Times
Dominant Social Theme: We need a new approach and strong leaders.
Free-Market Analysis: Our trends for 2013 featured the advance of German-style National Socialism in the US, and this probably qualifies along those lines. The Times article unapologetically makes the argument for doing away with the US Constitution but what is to be substituted and how it is to work is not made clear.
The argument itself is an obvious one, especially as hardly a  of the so-called Constitution remains, in any case. The Supreme Court routinely defies it, Congress ignores it and the executive branch simply steps around it as necessary.
One can even make the argument that the Constitution was a big  backward from Articles of Confederation that somehow were seen as not "strong enough" for a growing nation. Nonetheless, the Constitution – an entirely illegitimate document within the context of its creation – was launched out of a legislative conference that gathered under strict orders NOT to draft a new document.
As usual, Alexander Hamilton – a man who believed in a strong federal state – was one of the biggest backers of the document, which was purposefully written in a vague way apparently and was in many ways authoritarian in scope simply because it left so much not clarified. The final document created such an uproar that a "Bill of Rights" was finally attached to strengthen it.
The author of this OpEd in the Times has a meaningful point when considered from this vantage point. Louis Michael Seidman is a professor of constitutional law and he has studied the US's dysfunctional Constitution and simply advises that we scrap the document. Here's some more from the article:
Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation's fate?
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful  a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.
This is what we meant when we wrote above that the Constitution was created via an illegitimate process. What is usually even less discussed than the illegitimacy of the Constitution is WHY those who created this document acted the way they did. Some would submit that the Constitution was simply a way for European banking powers to begin the process of re-establishing control over "these States."
Thomas Jefferson was most suspicious of the Constitution and basically wanted nothing to do with it. He didn't participate in the initial drafting and when he was president, admitted he went beyond its bounds with the Louisiana Purchase.
But where the author goes wrong, in our humble view, is providing us with the rationale for ignoring the Constitution. His point is that the Constitution is making it difficult to govern effectively.
Our point would be that this is an entirely disingenuous argument.
The author might be a constitutional scholar but so is the US statist president, Barack Obama. We would venture a guess that the author's politics are of the leveling kind. The article accepts the basic premise of the modern political and economic machinery and simply seeks to rationalize its effectiveness.
In other words, the author wants to make what is operational now more effective. There is nothing in the article that we can find that voices any great concern over the US military-industrial complex, Federal Reserve fiat money printing or the gradual disintegration of states' rights and rise of the penal-industrial complex and accompanying domestic Intel/fascism.
This suggestion to do away with the Constitution, then, is just one more attack of many that seeks to further liberateLeviathan. At least when authoritarian measures are put into play currently there is the prospect that some constitutional right or obligation can diminish the worst of what is being implemented. Without a recognized constitution even that small possibility would be lost.
One can also make the argument that the US Constitution – as bad as it has been in practice – has been the target of what we call the power elite since its inception. Having provided an impetus for its creation, in our view, the power elite that wants to run the world set about destroying it soon thereafter.
The main problem with the US Constitution and its surrounding language is that it is a statement recognizing the rights of the individual. It provides the powerful statement that those rights are derived from the almighty and are therefore inviolable.
This is a truly intolerable perspective from the standpoint of the powers-that-be that operate via mercantilism and need an entirely unchecked government to be most effective. The modern idea is that everyone's life is subject to the permission of Leviathan and that we all operate under its direction and care.
This is the heart of what is left of a sometimes noble but often ambiguous and even destructive document. It is the part that the elites could not initially excise. It has taken them two centuries to get to a place where a university sophist can suggest doing away with the US Constitution using an entirely utilitarian argument.
The main strength of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is that a Creator grants rights to individuals. This is made clear in the literature, a point that Seidman neglects to make. Actually, he probably does not so much neglect it as avoid it.
Find out more about the evolution of freedom and free markets in this Daily Bell Special Report: "Further Your Education: A Unique Free-Market Book Club Really Worth...."
These people, these soulless sophists who are determined to support the creation of a global order, will do anything to deny the idea of individual rights. Seidman comes right and says it, as a matter of fact. He states that what makes the US great is the perception among its people that it is "one nation."
In fact, what made the US great was the inherent individualism of its settlers and the idea that an individual citizen could do great things on his or her own. This is always the case when there is an efflorescence of freedom and prosperity. The proximate cause is individual "human action."
Conclusion: You will find none of these considerations in Seidman's suggestions. He has excised the core of what made the US great and wishes to substitute for it the dead letters of "habit" and nationalism.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:24am
Delete

EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS WITH THE 14TH, 16TH AND THE 17TH - LENDING USURPED POWERS

This discussion should contain examples of problems caused by the usurping of powers by the three branches of the Federal Government.
Many will be  like Roe V. Wade
The  cases
The Michigan University cases
Immigration and Alien cases
Taxation without Article I section 8 powers
Federal unfunded mandates passed to States to fund
EPA, IRS, Species acts plus others exceeding the Congressional original Statute.
Tags: States, injury, law, limits, usurp


Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:25am
Delete
". .  There is no danger I apprehend so much as the  of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court."
Jefferson was right-on about the dangers of the Court.  He saw the dangers in the Supreme Court unlawfully taking on the power to overturn laws passed by Congress in Marbury v. Madison.  I'm sure he remembered that the drafters of the Constitution, and the people who ratified it had specifically denied that power to the Court.
They had considered allowing the judiciary to overturn laws of Congress, and some delegates liked that idea; but there was such strong opposition from many others who believed the Constitution could not be ratified if it allowed that much power to the judiciary. 
Un named author . . 
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 12:02pm
Delete
Here's another thread that appropriately belongs under the 17A umbrella.


Not only is the corrupt federal Senate not killing constitutionally indefensible legislation that establishes illegal federal taxes, but the Senate is also helping to pass constitutionally indefensible legislation which donates state revenues stolen by Congress to foreign nations.  Constitutionally unauthorized spending for foreign nations is evidenced by the following excerpt from Justice Joseph Story's writings which concerns the limits of the General Welfare Clause.

If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles (emphases added). Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.

What a mess! :^(

Again, 17A has to go.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 12:03pm
Delete
unnamed author . . . 
Thank you for your quote from Joseph Story: for the benefit of the illiterai who may not know who Joseph Story is, he's the lawyer who argued Fletcher v. Peck, a case involving bribary and corruption among Georgia state politicians, and the first ime the Supreme Court overturned a state law.  Story went on to become a U. S. Supreme Court Justice and the author of Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.  HisCommentaries became the stadard treatise on the Constitution--and still is today--among those who believe the Constitution should be honored as it was written and subsequently amended. 
The modern Court uses its own "Living Constitution" to subvert the original intent of the Constitution and write their own law.  They override Congress, without any authority in the Constitution, and they amend the Constitution--without authority--any time they have five votes for what they want to do.  Story is the only jurist who was there at the beginning and helped shape the policy and direction of the Supreme Court both as lawyer and Justice.  All writers about the Constitution who came after Story used, as one writer put it, "Lamp and Library."  Story is an original source.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 12:05pm
Delete
unnamed author . . .
I appreciate the purpose of this post. Those new to the TPM having never heard of the issue at the very least are provided the awareness there is a legitimate issue. 

While I don’t claim some superior or even significant understanding of history I have been reading about what appears to be a decade’s long progressive effort to achieve the passage of the 17th (similar to the current and ongoing effort for direct election of presidents). 

To those of you who are more familiar with the founder’s political logic for the 17th’s existence I pose the question. How do we restore this portion of the founders system of check and balance? Its original purpose is not taught objectively (if at all) in school anymore and there are generations of us who have no conception of America as a Republic. 

How do we persuade the mass of our countrymen that the one man one vote, winner take all, violent majority rule Democracy that the progressives chant and the founders warned would destroy us, needs to be carefully reconsidered. 

Here  we gather information, compare notes effectively leveraging each other’s research (which I counld not do without). However once one or some of us feel sufficiently educated how do we disseminate that knowledge? I guess I’m suggesting that each of us think about where do we go from here? I haven’t come up with a good answer myself though my instincts tell me nothing less than a massive long term education effort is required. If so what role can a working class mug like me play beyond educating my own children?


Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:25am
Delete
unnamed author's idea of how to proceed . . 
My idea is, if 50,000 people could be pursuaded to contact their state representatives and ask for them to request that Congress call an Article V Convention, we would be able to repeal the 17th AND look at some other needed reforms.  That works out to 1,000 people per state.  In my small state, West Virginia, we could probably get by with fewer than 550 people (that is an average of 10 people in each of our 55 counties).  Other states, California, Texas, New York, etc would probably require more).
Just how close are we?  I think we are already there if we could get some of the established groups talking to each other.  The goals of the Tea Party--Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, and Free Markets can best be accomplished IMO by amending the Constitution.  The heads of the Tea Parties don't want to talk about that, they seem afraid it would dilute their message or be a controversial issue.
The United States Supreme Court laid down a marker--the only way the several States can do anything to change the federal government is through amendments pursuant to Article V.  (See: U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton).  I don't see an Article V Convention as diluting the stated goals of the Tea Party--I think it is the only way we can ever achieve those goals.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:27am
Delete

Here is a Law School reason that the 14th is bad, it is quoted here as a way to create new rights not enumerated.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/26/whats-the-point-of-con-law-anyw...
Permalink Reply by Robyn Talor on November 29, 2012 at 1:25pm
Delete
Oh man this sounds just like the 2nd course on the constitution from Hillsdale. This is great.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 3:19pm
Delete
Read fast I have a lot more . . . : > )
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 1:52pm
Delete
here is the 14th amendment most of it restating what is already protected but it opens many usurped power areas to the Congress and the Courts. How would it give the States the control over what you questioned?

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:29am
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 1:52pm
Delete
Based upon conversations with my fellow Tea Partiers, most of us are concerned with the judicial misuse of the 14th Amendment recently to validate gay marriage and provide citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants - neither of which was the intent of the framers of this amendment.

We do not want to repeal this amendment as much as we would like to refine it - in order to prevent further abuses.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 1:53pm
Delete
I do not believe you will find any limitation of freedoms by race in the Original Constitution, so the issue of the State law you quote would violate many sections of the Constitution as would the trial by a jury of peers. None of the 5 sections of the 14th provide additional protections for the people not stated in other areas. It does however give the federal government loopholes to do what every it can claim under the general statements of the 14th. There is considerable written debate on how and why this was created.

Freedoms can only be kept when we can chain down the government to limited powers over the people. If you permit the political class a way to increase their power and get re-elected they will usurp the limits when they can.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 1:53pm
Delete
Most of the 14th area of concern would be covered in these amendments.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We must keep in mind that the States do limit many things differently such as felons voting rights and many other areas of the law. However, making a new amendment that restates other amendments does not increase the possibility that the Unconstitutional State laws would be more likely to be declared void.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)