Goldwater page 166

Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:31am

Delete

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 1:57pm

Delete

The 14th amendment is not an anchor baby problem - it is a States right power and the powers usurped by the Court Roe vs Wade where they used the 14th to "CREATE" a new "RIGHT" where there was none before, it is used for many problems with States using their Constitutional powers not granted to the federal government. the 16th is obvious take away the money and we get the power back to the people and the States.

the 17th is rally flawed because it creates a POLITICAL class of Senators that operate in open conflict with what is in the best interest of their home State. This is why the Founders and the Framers made the Senators beholding to the State legislatures for their tine in office. Just consider how when the State legislatures change from D to R or R to D the Senators would change no more 60 year terms - a major improvement in State powers to combat a overreaching Federal Government. Do you think the States would have to fund all these federal requirements sent without money? Do you think the EPA and the hundreds of alphabet agencies would exist with the Senate under the States Legislatures. See it really is a BIG DEAL.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 1:59pm

Delete

Proof that we can not count on elections to fix our Republic and the ills of usurpation.

unnamed author . .

I agree it is a big deal, but saving this floundering nation is more pressing. The Senate was not set right in this month's election. But in 2012 that can be changed. Having enough popularly elected new conservative Senators to replace RINOs and Liberal Dems would keep us going in the medium term. Once that is in place, repairing the method of choosing Senators can move forward.

However, I am still very apprehensive about America's short term survival; between now and 2012. We fell far short of the 2/3 majority needed to over-ride the Obama Administration's vetoes and its destructive plans. The Dem/Libs are in disarray for now, but that will not last. They will re-group by February 2011; or April at latest.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 2:00pm

Delete

Good points made - we can hear the doors to certain minds slamming shut for they do not want the truth and real ways forward in our common goal of RESTORING THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION - they are just to invested with what they believe to even consider new ways of viewing concepts and freedoms.

Yes, some of us are slamming our minds shut to a way forward if it is not our way forward.

"Facilis descensus Averno. Sed retro!" [translation - The road to hell is easy - reconsider.]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:32am

Delete

Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 29, 2012 at 2:02pm

Delete

The  back to freedom and limited government is what you have created - will enough follow the road or will they just turn off on a personal sight seeing adventure?

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 30, 2012 at 8:04am

Delete

There is a link for the entire article from Hillsdale College . . .

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2012&...

The Constitution states that “We the people . . . do ordain and establish . . . this Constitution,” not that the Constitution creates the people. The people were created by the Declaration of Independence, which mentions the people both in their political capacity—“one people”—and in their moral capacity—a “good people.” Once the people are established, Madison says, a second contract is necessary, this time between the people in its political capacity and the government. By this second contract, the people consent to be governed under the forms of the Constitution and those who occupy the constitutional offices of government pledge to use their powers exclusively to “promote the general welfare” and “secure the blessings of liberty” to the people. However, should the government act in a settled way to disfranchise the people of their rights, the people always reserve the right to alter or abolish the government in order to secure new forms that are better calculated to promote their “safety and happiness.” This is what has come to be known as the right of revolution, a necessary attribute of the people’s sovereignty which serves as the ultimate guarantee of every other right. The right to alter or abolish government is the only obligation mentioned in the Declaration because it is the ultimate expression of the people’s sovereignty.

The Constitution was intended by the Framers to put the principles of the Declaration into practice. But as in all things political, it is never possible to translate theory directly into practice. Insofar as the Constitution allowed the continued existence of slavery, it was only an incomplete expression of the Declaration’s principles. Madison argued that the compromises with slavery were necessary to secure the adoption of the Constitution—otherwise the slave-holding states would have bolted the Constitutional Convention. And as the most thoughtful of the Federalists understood, without a strong national government the prospects of ever ending slavery—of ever bringing the Constitution into complete harmony with the Declaration—were remote. Thus the prudential compromises regarding slavery in the Constitution were actually in the service of eventual emancipation. Adoption of the Declaration made the abolition of slavery a moral imperative.

Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case in 1857, denied that the Declaration carried any such imperative, infamously denying that blacks of African descent were included in the phrase “all men are created equal.” His proof was that the Founders did not abolish slavery at once. Taney, of course, misses the important ingredient of democratic statesmanship that guided the Framers.

In his response to Dred Scott, Lincoln insisted that the authors of the Declaration

intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects.... They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respect they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.... They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them.

Nor, Lincoln continued, did the Framers have the power to equalize everyone all at once. The statement that “all men are created equal” was placed in the Declaration to set up a “standard maxim,” a moral and political guide for the future—an attempt “to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.” This “standard maxim” would be

familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.

The principle of constitutional statesmanship advocated here by Lincoln—one that he learned from the Founders—was this: eliminate as much evil as possible, while possible, without destroying the basis for the elimination of further evil. This was a statesmanship that was utterly alien to Chief Justice Taney—and it was Taney’s singular lack of understanding that was the proximate cause of the Civil War.

The American Founding was not completed until the Civil War had been won and the Reconstruction Amendments had been adopted–the Thirteenth, which abolished slavery; the Fourteenth, which established the citizenship of the newly freed slaves and extended to them the panoply of civil rights that are the necessary incidents of federal citizenship; and the Fifteenth, which secured the right to vote. The framers of these amendments frequently referred to the Declaration as the organic law of the nation, and their constant theme was the necessity of completing the regime of the Founding.

Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, one of its principal architects noted that “this abolishes all class legislation . . . and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another…. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man.... Without this principle of equal justice to all men and equal protection under the shield of the law, there is no republican government and none that is really worth maintaining.” Similar sentiments were expressed frequently in the debates over the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which protected the rights of “citizens of every race and color” to make contracts, to own and convey real and personal property, and generally “to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property,” and which eventually became the basis for the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no doubt that in the minds of its framers, the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment was an expression of the principles of the Declaration of Independence—which in constitutional terms meant the equal protection of equal rights.

Let us then return to the affirmative action case of Fisher v. Texas. An amicus brief filed by several prominent law professors supporting the University’s race-conscious admissions program argues that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplated the use of race-conscious laws in pursuit of equal protection of the laws. Specifically, they point to the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill passed in 1865 and re-passed in 1866. Since these bills were debated and passed in near proximity to the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, the law professors make a simple equation: since the Freedmen’s Bill embraces race-conscious action, this must be true of the Fourteenth Amendment as well.

The Freedmen’s Bill was indeed directed at protecting the newly emancipated slaves from continued violence and preventing their reinslavement under a system of indenture or peonage. But a quick glance at the legislative history of the Freedmen’s Bill demonstrates conclusively that the law professors misrepresent it. The full title of the Freedmen’s Bill is “An Act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees.” Its principal sponsor explained that the bill “would provide for refugees and freedmen, refugees of all colors as well as freedmen, in order that all shall have . . . temporary relief . . . .” The relief, he explained, “extends alike to blacks and whites and to all colors.”

The Freedmen’s Bill was a war powers measure designed to protect all refugees—freedmen as well as white loyalists. The law professors’ claim that it is evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment allows race-conscious laws is ideological scholarship at its worst—a scholarship that frantically and dishonestly strives to place racial consciousness at the center of equal protection analysis. Had these professors been bolder, they might have claimed that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, was an affirmative action program!

In 1997, the Texas legislature passed a law ordering the University of Texas to admit the top ten percent of all high school graduates. This admissions policy was admittedly designed to increase the number of underrepresented minorities at the University, but it attempted to do so in a racially neutral manner. And while the policy did achieve a measure of success in increasing the number of minorities enrolled at the University, administrators were concerned that minorities chose a limited range of majors, so that racial and ethnic diversity was not manifest in every major and every classroom. The University reported that 90 percent of the “participatory size classes”—those enrolling 5-24 students—contained less than a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students. It was these classes that provided what University administrators said was “the best opportunity for robust classroom discussion [and] the rich soil for diverse interactions.” Furthermore, it was in these classes that “minority students reported feeling isolated” and that “a majority of all students felt there was insufficient minority representation in classrooms for the full benefits of diversity to occur.” The University thus concluded that a race-conscious policy was necessary to ensure diversity in all classrooms and not just in those that minorities were apt to choose for themselves.

The fact that Texas has achieved significant diversity through non-racial means may compel the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, the case that upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School. Another development that may favor reconsideration is the fact that Justice O’Connor, the author of the majority opinion in Grutter, has since been replaced by Justice Alito, who does not seem to have the same squeamishness about upholding equal protection rights.

In Grutter, Justice O’Connor argued that the University had unique First Amendment rights that gave the University great freedom to determine for itself the best methods of providing effective education. The Law School’s diversity policy, the decision held, “promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes,” and provokes “livelier, more spirited and …more enlightening and more interesting classroom discussion.” And, it concluded, if it was the considered opinion of the University faculty and administrators that racial and ethnic diversity served these essential educational purposes, then the Court would defer to their judgment. This was odd, given that when the Court is faced with racial classifications it rarely if ever defers to the good faith representation of the state actors who find them necessary. Rather, the Court automatically applies what it calls “strict scrutiny,” which presumes that racial classifications are unconstitutional unless the state can show they serve a compelling government interest and are narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In other words, the Court always presumes that racial classifications are in the service of invidious purposes.

Another surprising element of Justice O’Connor’s opinion was her uncritical acceptance of the distinction between a racial quota and a “critical mass.” The Court seems to have agreed over the years that policies meant to fulfill racial or ethnic quotas are patently unconstitutional, clearly violating the principle that equal protection rights belong to individuals and not groups. In Grutter, the Law School insisted that its admissions policy did not mandate quotas but sought to assemble a “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities—not a specific number or percentage, but a “meaningful number,” a “meaningful representation,” or “a number that encourages underrepresented minority students to participate in the classroom and not feel isolated.” The Law School administrators did indicate, however, that they kept a daily tally of the number of underrepresented minorities that were admitted to ensure that “critical mass” goals were being met. As Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out in his dissent, a “critical mass” sounded suspiciously like a “quota,” especially since the numbers that satisfied the requirements of a “critical mass” were virtually the same as those that would constitute a racial or ethnic quota.

Justice Thomas wrote a powerful dissent in Grutter in which he concluded that whatever “marginal improvements” might be produced by the Law School’s “racial tinkering” cannot “justify racial discrimination” and certainly cannot survive strict scrutiny analysis. Furthermore, he argued, the Court’s reliance on social science evidence that “racial experimentation leads to educational benefits” might “have serious collateral consequences.” Thomas cited a growing body of social science evidence that purports to show that “racial (and other sorts) of heterogeneity actually impairs learning among black students,” including studies indicating that African-American students at Historically Black Colleges experience “superior cognitive development” and “higher achievement than those attending predominantly white colleges.” He then asks whether the Court would defer to the expertise of the administrators of an Historically Black College, if—using this social science evidence—they wanted to establish a race-conscious admissions program to promote racial homogeneity.

Justice Thomas’s solution is as simple as it is elegant. The principles of the Constitution should not be subject to the faddish trends of social science. “The Constitution,” he rightly contends, “abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all....” “For the immediate future,” Thomas concluded, “the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause.”

Curiously enough, the Court’s failure to deal with the issue of racial classifications can be traced to the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, not for its result—segregated schools did violate the Equal Protection Clause—but for its failure to declare that the Constitution was colorblind. In 1896, the Supreme Court had rendered its infamous “separate but equal” decision in Plessy v. Ferguson: As long as races were treated equally, the Plessy majority had said, segregation did not offend the Equal Protection Clause, because a mere separation of the races did not imply “a badge of inferiority.” Justice Harlan, in a lone dissent, wrote, “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Justice Harlan would have disallowed racial segregation as a matter of constitutional law. In theBrown case, however, Chief Justice Warren was disinclined to rely on the Constitution, writing that “we cannot turn the clock back to 1868” when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Its “most avid proponents,” Warren stated, “undoubtedly intended . . . to remove all legal distinctions” among citizens, but its opponents “were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit [of the Amendment] . . . and wished . . . the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind,” he continued, “cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.” Why the opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment enter the calculus here is a mystery. After all, they lost! But in Warren’s irrefragable logic, the fact that the opponents had another vision seems to cast doubt on any attempt to rely on the Constitution.

Rather, Warren decided that a more reliable basis for a decision was modern social science. Whereas Plessy had concluded that separate is not inherently unequal, by 1954 experimental psychology indicated that, at least in the context of grammar school education, a separation of the races creates a “feeling of inferiority . . . that may affect [the] hearts and minds [of school children] in a way unlikely to be undone.” “Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy,” Warren concluded, “this finding is amply supported by modern authority.” So the difference between the holdings in Plessy and in Brown was not a difference in constitutional construction, but a matter of developments in the science of psychology. Under the tutelage of Chief Justice Warren, modern psychology had replaced the Constitution for purposes of equal protection analysis. As a result, only those racial classifications that create “feelings of inferiority” are proscribed by the Constitution. This left open the question of whether racial classifications that are designed to benefit, rather than harm, a racial class violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court only needs to take one short step to do the job that Brown v. Board of Education failed to do. It should declare that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands a colorblind Constitution which neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Fisher v. Texas should be the case where the Court completes the job. Some years ago, Justice Kennedy—who may provide a key vote in Fisher—wrote that “the moral imperative of racial neutrality is the driving force of the Equal Protection Clause.” I might add that it is the moral imperative of the Equal Protection Clause because it is the moral imperative of the Declaration of Independence.

Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:34am

Delete

Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 30, 2012 at 11:18am

Delete

Unnamed author . . .

It is hard to fault what you say; however, I have read history, I have written about history, and I am impatient to get on with the solution.  My recent experience with interviewing scholarship applicants makes me believe we will never convince the masses.  They are too ignorant to even understand the argument (I don't mean "stupid" I mean ignorant--without knowledge).

The several States have an interest in curtailing the expansion of the federal government.  They can get rid of unfunded mandates, they can ignore the Supreme Court telling them they must build "humane" [read: "luxury"] prisons.  I don't have anything against humane prisons but I don't think our convicted criminals should be "entitled" to better living conditions than the GIs who voluntarily serve this country and keep us safe.

And if the feds weren't sucking all the oxygen (i.e. tax money) out of the room, the States could better afford to give their citizens what local conditions demand, rather than one-size-fits-all mandates from a central government in Washington.  Central planning never works, as European history is beginning to show.

I don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to unilaterally amend the Constitution whenever five justices want to change it.  But they do it.  I have researched and written about this in my book. 

I believe we could profoundly change the federal government if we could rally 50,000 people (average of one thousand people in each of the fifty states) to begin calling their State Legislators and educating them to the problem and what the legislators can do to fix it. 

Keep in mind, however, elected officials on the whole score lower (44%) on a test of civic literacy than the general public (about 50%).  The test asks questions about the structure of the federal government-- "What are the three branches of government?"---and no, Senator Schumer from New York, they are not "the house, the senate, and the president."  It also asks about taxes, economic issues, and American History--what we used to call high school "Civics."

We can educate a few thousand legislators easier than we can educate 200,000,000 ignorant Americans.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 30, 2012 at 11:20am

Delete

Unnamed author . . .

I wholeheartedly agree with you about moving forward, I am merely saying we should not dismiss anything that could give the argument for repeal more teeth, I am not proposing we use that information for the base of the discourse, but it could prove to be another "nail in the coffin" so to speak.  Other than that I agree with everything you say.  And don't even get me started on Schumer, that guy is my senator and I think he is a plague on the people of New York.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 30, 2012 at 11:21am

Delete

Unnamed author . . .

You and I have always been pretty much in tune on this project.  Again, I don't purport to tell other people what they "should" do.   I am merely sharing with you all what I plan to do.  I want to concentrate on getting state legislators to call for an Article V Convention where we can propose the repeal of the 17th, a balanced budget amendment, require the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution according to Contract Law (i.e. by considering only what is within the four corners of the written document). 

I invite as many of you that want to join in my crusade but I am not your guru--I will share my thoughts and if you find merit in them, you are encouraged to act on your own thoughts and feelings.  My writing is, I believe, factual but it is only one of many opinions you should be reading before you form your own action plan. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:36am

Delete

Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 30, 2012 at 11:22am

Delete

Unnamed author . . .

Again Glenn, I am not disagreeing with you.  I myself am not the "Guru" either, I am just one grain of sand on a huge beach, my purpose in starting this discussion is education because I have found that discussing this issue requires people to dig deep into the understandings of our government and how it is supposed to work.  I am whole heartedly with you on moving forward to the repeal process and Article V, and you should give yourself more credit, your voice coupled with your knowledge have led many here to learn more and more, lighting the minds fire as you say.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on November 30, 2012 at 11:23am

Delete

Unnamed author . . . 

How would you feel about starting a parallel string, something like:

"To Have, or Not to Have . . . an Article V Convention?" [With apologies to Wm. Shakespeare]

It would not replace or compete with this string, which I should like to see continue.  I have posted a number of blogs but I never get the kind of response you have on your two 17th amendment strings.

The stated goals of the Tea Party are: (1) Constitutionally Limited Government; (2) Fiscal Responsibility; and (3) Free Markets.  IMO an Article V Convention would be compatible with those goals.  I see Article V as a tool to help the TPachieve the stated goals.

We will know within two weeks whether the new crop of Republican Freshmen in the House will have the cojones to refuse to raise the debt ceiling.  If they cave, I believe there could be, as Glenn Beck says, "a Reichstag moment" between now and Obama's reelection failure in 2012.  I personally believe that Obama (who is supporting the Union thugs in Wisconsin) could keep that going, or stir up new "crises" to give him an excuse for declaring Martial Law.

Rasmussen Reports--I believe the most dependable political polling organization--said a couple of days ago that his survey revealed a gap between the voters and their rulers in Washington that has not been seen since King George III lost the colonies.  I think it's serious, and I think doing something about it is urgent.

How would you feel about starting a parallel string, something like:

"To Have, or Not to Have . . . an Article V Convention?" [With apologies to Wm. Shakespeare].

It would not replace or compete with this string, which I sould like to see continue.  I have posted a nuber of blogs but I never get the kind of response you have on your two 17th amendment strings.

The stated goals of the Tea Party are: (1) Constitutionally Limited Government; (2) Fiscal Responsibility; and (3) Free Markets.  IMO an Article V Convention would not be incompatible with those goals.  I see Article V as a tool to help the TP achieve the stated goals.

 We will know within two weeks whether the new crop of Republican Freshmen in the House will have the cojones to refuse to raise the debt ceiling.  If they cave, I believe Obama might get the confidence to stage, as Glenn Beck says, "a Reichstag moment."  I personally believe that Obama (who is supporting the Union thugs in Wisconsin) could keep that going, or stir up new "crises" to give him an excuse for declaring Martial Law.

Rasmussen Reports--I believe the most dependable political polling organization--said a couple of days ago that his survey revealed a gap between the voters and their rulers in Washington that has not been sseen since King George III lost the colonies.  I think tis is serious, and I think doing something about it is urgent.  If we can't peacefully change the course of America by getting back to the Founders' vision, I believe someone, soon, will try to do it violently--particularly if Obama tries to stage a coup.  (Won't be me--I am too old and "stove-up" to lead a military coup).

NOTE: WHAT DUPLICATE POST IS THE ORIGINAL DRAFT OF WHAT I POSTED ABOVE.  I SPELL-CHECKED IT AND MADE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONS AND DID NOT INTEND TO POST BOTH.  NOW I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET RID OF IT WITHOUT ERASING THE ENTIRE POST.  JUST DISREGARD WHAT FOLLOWS THE CORRECTED POST.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:37am

Delete

Reply by Mangus Colorado on December 15, 2012 at 11:46amDelete

This is why the 16th must go and the 17th also repealed . . the 14th is mainly a States rights and powers issue. .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:38am

Delete

Reply by Mangus Colorado on December 15, 2012 at 12:30pm

Delete

More on the 17th and the misuse of the 14th and 16th . . 

Here is an answer to the vote for the best candidate even if they are a D.

 and vote as you please because that is your right under the Constitution. Now let us have a serious discussion about Morality and the best moral character rather a D or a R. I have no problem with that except for the caucus SHOW ME ANY MORAL "D" in the current congress. You will find none because they all 100% voted for the unconstitutional laws they passed. Be it abortion, taxation without limits, the violation of the 5th amendment by "taking" property from one and re-distributing without fair compensation to the owner, they stand up to questions of Constitutionality of their laws by saying like Pete Stark of California when he said oh we can do what ever we want we do not need to address the Constitution. Pelosi when asked about the Constitutional test being applied to the heath care bill responded with are you serious, are you serious are you serious.

So in closing, I submit that there is no such thing as a conservative moral Democrat in Congress because they all put party first and citizens second. The caucus will not allow breaking away from the party line on the other hand Republicans have what all call RINOS that vote their what they believe is the desires of their states citizens and they are not expelled. Show me that Senator that did not vote the party line on each and every time they needed 60 Senate votes. They simply do not exist.

So, fellow citizen, think, really think about how Congress works in a real sense not some ideal utopia that we all desire but will never have. Vote like your vote can keep the devil at your door from entering your home and attacking your family because that is what this is all about.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado on Wednesday

Delete

More 14 th amendment School cases read of them and then you will back this amendment process . . 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/01/02/4d9a7cca-544d-11e...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:41am

Delete

This is a very good educational lesson on our Constitution by a Conservative lady Attorney

• Posted by Mangus Colorado on January 1, 2013 at 4:38pm in ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED
• Back to ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED Discussions

KrisAnneHall.Com Dear Lock,      As we embark on this New Year, we are continuing the struggle to regain control of our governments, and escape the fate predicted by our founders. Maintaining the limited form of government our Constitution demands is vital to the preservation of this nation. If we fail, the unfortunate reality will be that we will have failed to maintain the gift of the Republic that was bought for us by the sacrifice of ease, estate, pleasure, and blood of our forefathers.     The first  to correcting a problem is understanding that you have one. We The People seem to be very aware that there is a problem. Our government, on the other hand, seems completely clueless. The President of the United States is issuing executive orders for government pay raises. Congress is engaging in every mode of spending that can be conceived. Both "sides" arguing over how much to tax and no one discusses the profligate spending. Our founders and even their immediate successors warned that this perspective in government would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.       It will take character and resolve to make the painful and difficult decisions to preserve the Republic, so that future generations will have an opportunity to enjoy the Liberty that has been purchased for us. As usual, the oracles of history have some lessons if we would simply listen. Federal Government Out of Control   Apparently, things began to go awry for the federal government rather early on. An expansion of Congressional power through the forced construction of the General Welfare clause is one of the chief culprits. A great example of this can be found in the Congressional arguments surrounding the Cod Fishery Bill of 1792, a bill to subsidize the Cod Fishing industry. In this, James Madison defines the proper nature of government to a House wanting to unconstitutionally expand its power and reach. James Madison   "I, sir, have always conceived -- I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived -- it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived -- that this is not an indefinite government..."  General Welfare Does Not Mean Generally Everything Yes, we are supposed to have a limited and defined federal government. Madison was very simply explaining that the clause "common defense and general welfare" was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries. In other words, this clause does not name a power; it simply describes the purpose for the powers named. Then with amazing foresight, Madison explains the consequence of allowing the federal government to turn these "clauses" into defined powers:    James Madison   "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner  throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short,everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the  of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." Limitless Spending Changes the Very Nature of the Republic Madison, in describing the consequences of this forced construction of the Constitution, prophesies for our day. "...I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."    Government Charity Dangerous Precedent James K. Polk    Yet, America did not listen. In 1831, Congress once again attempts to reconstruct its powers through the artifice of "charity." This time, the argument is about supplying wood for the Poor of Georgetown. The Mayor of Georgetown sent a letter to the House of Representatives asking for relief of the poor of that city and soliciting the House to grant a donation of some wood in the vaults of the capitol for their use. This sparked a forgotten, yet a very relevant debate for this day. The first to speak up was Congressman James Polk (D-TN), the future 11th President of the United States. In showing a moral character and commitment to the Constitution that is rarely seen today, Polk said he knew it would be viewed as being ungracious to oppose a resolution in behalf of the suffering poor of this District, or any other. However, he went on to oppose the resolution of the House to offer this support as "the precedent of appropriating the public funds for such a purpose was a bad one. He reasoned that if they allowed this seemingly small act of charity, then "every winter, when the snow fell, or the Potomac was frozen, applications would be made to Congress, and members would be engaged in the dignified object of buying and stowing wood, to give to the poor District of Columbia." Polk opposed this spending on principle, as the House "had not the power to make the donation requested." And what began with Georgetown would blossom into dependency throughout the nation. It was not the amount he objected to, but that the "representatives came to legislate on great concerns of the nation, not to give away the public property." He made a final plea to the House, with their vote, to "put a check" on legislative power.    Congress Cannot Give Public Property For Charity The next to argue was James Blair, Congressman from South Carolina. Blair gets right to the point; that it is not in the power of Congress to give out donations from the public treasury for the purposes of charity. He correctly reasons: "If so, it would have power also to vote millions of the public money to feed and clothe the suffering poor. The House had no right to give away the public money for any such purpose; and if gentlemen were disposed to be liberal, let them be liberal out of their own money." Polk then moved the floor for the following substitute, by way of amendment: "That the Sergeant-at-arms be required to deduct from the compensation of the members of this House on day's pay, and deliver said sum to the Mayor of Georgetown, to be applied to purchase fuel for the paupers of that town: Provided, nevertheless, that such deduction shall be made from the compensation of such members only as vote in favor of the resolution." I believe our representatives could learn several lessons from this: The money collected from the people is NOT revenue but PUBLIC PROPERTY. In spending public property Congress is limited by the proper confines of the Constitution, not ones established through forced construction. Personal moral integrity could inhibit Congress from violating points 1 and 2. Let ours be the generation that listens from the framers and their experience. Let ours be the generation that avoids what others called the inevitable demise of a Republican government. Let ours be the generation that can claim the victory of Liberty for our future generations. (Want to see the full article or share on Facebook or twitter?  Here is the link: http://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/blog/160-brother-can-you-spar...) In Liberty to the Bitter End,  KrisAnne Hall KrisAnnehall.com

Tags: Law, allowed, clauses, is, limits, what

Read more: http://www.912communique.com/group/article-v-arguments-and-reasons-... 
Follow us: @912Communique on Twitter | TheConstitutionalConservatives on Facebook

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:43am

Delete

The ‘Taxing Clause’, Five Lawless Judges, and ObamaCare

• Posted by Mangus Colorado on January 1, 2013 at 11:00am in ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED
• Back to ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED Discussions

The ‘Taxing Clause’, Five Lawless Judges, and ObamaCare

Posted on July 3, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Publius Huldah

Article 1 Section 8 from Page 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Our federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only.  This means that WE THE PEOPLE, who ordained and established the Constitution, listed therein every power We delegated to the federal government. If We didn’t list a power, the federal government doesn’t have it.1

Furthermore, we delegated only a very few powers to the federal government.

Accordingly, Congress has strictly limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These powers are listed primarily at Art. I, §8, clauses 3-16, and are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, , mail delivery & roads. Several Amendments delegate to Congress some power over civil rights.

These enumerated powers are the only areas where the federal government haslawful authority over The States and The People in The States.  In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, §10] the States and The People retain supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. Go here for a complete list of all of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

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.

Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really Means.

Those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court looked at Art. I, §8, cl.1, and found power in Congress and the Executive Branch to take over our medical care – even to decide whether we will receive medical treatment or be denied medical treatment.2

And how did The Lawless Five do this?  I’ll show you. But first, let’s see what the Constitution really says.  Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 read:

Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [boldface added]

Clause 2: “To  on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:

• Clause 3: To regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
• Clause 4: To establish uniform laws on Naturalization and on ;
• Clause 5: To coin money & regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights & measures;
• Clause 6: To punish counterfeiting;
• Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights;
• Clause 9: To set up federal courts “inferior” to the supreme Court [one may well ask how any court can be “inferior” to the supreme Court];
• Clause 10: To punish Piracies & Felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
• Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque & Reprisal, and make rules for Captures;
• Clause 12: To raise and support Armies;
• Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
• Clause 14: To make Rules for the land and naval Forces;
• Clause 15: To call forth the Militia; and
• Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the Militia.

Add to this short list of enumerated powers; the “housekeeping powers” itemized in the paper linked here; the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; together with the Amendments addressing civil rights; and you have the sole purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money for the Country at Large.

And this is precisely what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, says inFederalist Paper No. 41 (last 4 paras).  Madison addresses the objection that:

“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” (4^th para from end).

Madison says one would be grasping at straws to stoop to such a silly “misconstruction”:

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare’.” (3^rd para from end)

“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? … Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” (2^nd para from end)

In the final paragraph, Madison says Art. I, §1, cl. 1 does not vest in Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever: Clause 1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which immediately follow it.

To put Madison in modern English: Clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2.

THAT is the Constitution We ratified.

What the Lawless Five Assert it Means:

See where it says in Clause 1, “To lay and collect Taxes”?  The Lawless Five assert that this phrase authorizes Congress to lay & collect taxes for any purposes whatsoever.

They IGNORED the “specification of the objects [Clauses 3-16] alluded to by these general terms” [Clauses 1 & 2] – the “enumeration of particulars” which “explain and qualify” “the general phrase”.  

In effect, they repealed Clauses 3-16.  In a nutshell, the Lawless Five asserted that Congress and the President may do whatever they want to us.  Just call it a “tax”.

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 ideologyantithetical 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 (8^th para) of:

“… the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in … [the House] … and of determining … them in the … [Senate] … give[s] to … [Congress] … upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations…” 4

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.

http://constitutionsentinel.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/the-taxing-cla.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:46am

Delete

CONGRESS’ ENUMERATED POWERS

• Posted by Mangus Colorado on January 1, 2013 at 10:47am in ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED
• Back to ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED Discussions

A Primer in Constitutional Law

By Publius Huldah

1.  With the U.S. Constitution, We The People created the federal government. It is our “creature”, and has no powers other than those We granted to it in The Constitution.

Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), says re “constitution”:

…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.

If  you, dear Reader, will study this paper and read the Constitution, you will know more about it than most State & federal judges, most law professors & lawyers, most who spout off on TV & radio, and just about anybody in Congress.  And you will certainly know more than anyone currently occupying any office in the executive branch of the federal government.

2. The federal government *  has three branches: Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch (Congress) & lists its powers; Article II creates the executive branch & lists its powers; and Article III creates the judicial branch & lists its powers.

In this paper, we will consider only the enumerated powers of Congress. But the powers of the other two branches are likewise strictly limited and enumerated.

3. Congress is NOT authorized to pass any law on any subject just because a majority in Congress think the law is a good idea!  Instead, the areas in which Congress is authorized to act are strictly limited and defined (“enumerated”).  Article I, § 8,  to Congress the powers:

(1) To lay certain taxes;

(2) To pay the debts of the United States;

(3) To declare war and make rules of warfare, to raise and support armies and a navy and to make rules governing the military forces; to call forth the militia for certain purposes, and to make rules governing the militia;

(4) To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the States, and with the Indian Tribes;

(5) To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization;

(6) To establish uniform Laws on ;

(7) To coin money and regulate the value thereof;

(8) To fix the standard of ;

(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting;

(10) To establish post offices and post roads;

(11) To issue patents and copyrights;

(12) To create courts inferior to the supreme court; and

(13) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Laws of Nations.

Other provisions of the Constitution grant Congress powers to make laws regarding:

(14) An enumeration of the population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes (Art. I, § 2, cl. 3);

(15) Elections of Senators & Representatives (Art. I, §4, cl. 1) and their pay (Art. I, § 6);

(16) After 1808, to prohibit importation of slaves (Art. I, § 9, cl. 1);  **

(17) A restricted power to suspend Writs of Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2);

(18) To revise and control imposts or duties on imports or exports which may be laid by States (Art. I, § 10, cl. 2 &3)

(19) A restricted power to declare the punishment of Treason (Art. III, §3, cl. 2);

(20) Implementation of the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, §1); and,

(21) Procedures for amendments to The Constitution (Art. V).

The 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 23rd,  24th, & 26th Amendments grant additional powers to Congress respecting civil rights & voting rights, the public debt [lawfully incurred], income tax, successions to vacated offices, dates of assembly, and appointment of representatives from the D.C.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to exercise throughout the States these and only these powers!

4. Two provisions of the Constitution grant to Congress broad legislative powers over specifically defined geographical areas:

a)  Article I, §8, next to last clause, grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation” over the following geographically tiny areas:  the seat of the government of the United States (not to exceed 10 square miles), forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and the like. As James Madison said in Federalist No. 43 at 2., it is necessary for the government of the United States to have “complete authority” at the seat of government, and over forts, magazines, etc. established by the federal government.

b)  Article IV, §3, cl. 2 grants to Congress power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States (as opposed to property belonging to individual states).  As these territories became States, Congress’ powers under this Article were terminated.

5. Thus, Congress has NO AUTHORITY to bail out financial institutions, businesses, and homeowners who don’t pay their mortgages; NO AUTHORITY to take control of our health care; NO AUTHORITY to pass laws denying secret ballots to employees who are solicited for membership by labor unions; NO AUTHORITY to take away your IRA’s and other retirement accounts, NO AUTHORITY to pass laws respecting energy consumption or “emissions”, education, housing, etc., etc., etc.

Therefore, the laws which Congress has passed on such topics are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by The Constitution. We the People did not give such powers to Congress when we ordained & established the Constitution, created the Congress, and listed its 21 enumerated powers. And these powers are not granted to Congress in any of the Amendments.

6.  If you look at The List of powers We granted to Congress, you will see that Congress’ legislative powers fall into three categories:

a) International commerce and war;

b) Domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy law, a [limited] power over interstate commerce, and mail delivery.  Congress also has the power to establish lower federal courts and make rules for naturalization.

c) Protection of civil and voting rights.

That’s about it!  All other powers are retained by the States or the People!

7. You ask, “How can Congress make all these laws if they are unconstitutional? How can what you say be true?”

Congress gets away with it because We are ignorant of what our Constitution says; and We have been indoctrinated into believing that Congress can do whatever they want!

But consider Prohibition:  During 1919 everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages! So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

8. But during the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), all three branches of the federal government abandoned the Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” programs; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court ruled (generally 5 to 4) that these programs were unconstitutional as outside the legislative powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving FDR’s programs (5 to 4).

9. Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution! Instead, they teach decisions of the FDR-dominated Supreme Court which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that three clauses, the “general welfare” clause, the “interstate commerce” clause and the “necessary & proper” clause, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

10. “Well”, you ask, “what about ‘the general welfare clause’?  Doesn’t that give Congress power to pass any law on any subject as long as it is for the ‘general Welfare of the United States’ “?  NO, IT DOES NOT!

First, you must learn what “welfare” meant when the Constitution was ratified:  “Welfare” as used in the Preamble & in Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, meant

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government (Webster’s, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), added a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare.  Dependent on public relief”.  Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when new meanings are substituted for original meanings?

Second, James Madison addresses this precise issue in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras):  Madison points out that the first paragraph of Art. I, §8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms.   So, yes!  The powers of Congress really are restricted to those listed hereinabove.

OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace & prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society & civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited & restricted in what it was given power to do!

11. “OK”, you say, “but what about ‘the commerce clause‘ (Art. I, §8, cl. 3)?  Doesn’t that give Congress power to pass laws on any subject which ‘affects’ ‘interstate commerce’ “?  NO, IT DOES NOT! In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) andFederalist No. 42 (11th &12th paras), Alexander Hamilton & James Madison explain the purpose of the “interstate commerce” clause:  It is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. That’s what it does, Folks; and until the mid-1930’s and FDR’s “New Deal”, this was widely understood.  ***

12.”Well, then”, you say, “doesn’t the ‘necessary & proper’ clause’  ["elastic clause"  or "sweeping clause" ] (Art. I, §8, last clause) allow Congress to make any laws which the people in Congress think are ‘necessary & proper’?” NO, IT DOES NOT! Alexander Hamilton says the clause merely gives to Congress a power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 4th para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy. (Federalist No. 33, 4th para).  James Madison agrees with Hamilton’s explanation. (Federalist No. 44, 10th-17th paras). In other words, the clause simply permits the execution of powers already declared and granted. Hamilton & Madison are clear that no additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

13. The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So!  If a power is not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government; and if the States are not prohibited (as by Art. I, § 10) from exercising that power; then that power is retained by the States or by The People.  And WE are“The People”!

14. Our Framers insisted repeatedly that Congress is restricted to its enumerated powers.  James Madison says in Federalist No. 45 (9^th para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce;with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 39 (14th para):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects.

and in Federalist No. 14 (8th para):

…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…

15. In all its recent legislation, Congress ratchets up its concerted pattern of lawless usurpations.  The executive branch and the federal courts approve it.  Such is the essence of tyranny.  They are “ruling” without our consent, and hence the federal government is now illegitimate. PH

_______________________

* “Federal” refers to the form of government:  An alliance of States with close cultural & economic ties associated in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas.

** Some object that our Constitution endorsed slavery. During the 18th century, slavery was universal.  Article I, § 9, clause 1, is our Proclamation to the World that WE would abolish the slave trade!  Of course, James Madison wanted the “barbarism” & “unnatural traffic” of the slave trade abolished immediately (Federalist Paper No. 42, 6^th para).

*** See Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez (1995).  Justice Thomas’ opinion shows why those disposed to usurp attack him so virulently.

Revised July 1, 2009; Sep 8, 2009;  Oct. 17, 2010.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-p...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:49am

Delete

WE MUST BUILD A WINNING COALITION

• Posted by CG9 on December 28, 2012 at 5:54pm in ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED
• Back to ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED Discussions

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. 
Winston Churchill 
 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu129864.html#xC... 

We continue to work on development of this site and as we search for information that is both educational and foundational, we also find information that has strategic purpose.  That is how we came upon and interesting concept, the: 

Selectorate Theory:

The selectorate theory is detailed in The Logic of Political Survival, authored by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita of New York University (NYU), Alastair Smith of NYU, Randolph M. Siverson of UC Davis, James D. Morrow of the University of Michigan.

In selectorate theory, three groups of people affect leaders. These groups are the nominal selectorate, the real selectorate, and the winning coalition. The nominal selectorate, also referred to as the interchangeables, includes every person who has some say in choosing the leader (for example, in an American presidential election, all registered voters). The real selectorate, also referred to as the influentials, are those who really choose the leaders (for example, in an American presidential election, those people who cast a vote). The winning coalition, also referred to as the essentials, are those whose support translates into victory (for example, in an American presidential election, those voters that give a candidate 270 electoral votes).[4]

The fundamental premise in selectorate theory is that the primary goal of a leader is to  in power. To remain in power, leaders must maintain their winning coalition. When the winning coalition is small, as in autocracies, the leader will tend to use private goods to maintain the coalition. When the winning coalition is large, as in democracies, the leader will tend to use public goods to satisfy the coalition.

Distribution of goods

A public good is one that everyone enjoys non-exclusively such as national defense or clean water. A private good is a good that is enjoyed exclusively by a select few, usually within the Winning Coalition, and cannot be shared. An example of such a good would be anything exclusionary, such as cash or legal impunity.

It can be said, then, that everyone in the Selectorate, including the Winning Coalition, reap the benefits of public goods while only those within the Winning Coalition enjoy private goods.

Government types, leaders, and challenger threats

According to the selectorate theory, a leader has the greatest chance of political survival when the Selectorate is large and the Winning Coalition is small, which occurs in an autocracy. This is because those who are in a winning coalition can easily be replaced by other members of the selectorate who are not in the Winning Coalition. Thus, the costs of defection for those members of the Winning Coalition can be potentially large, namely the loss of all private goods. Similarly, the chances of a challenger in replacing the leader are similarly smallest in such an autocratic system since those in the winning coalition would be hard pressed to defect. Private goods are highest in such a system vis-à-vis public goods.

A monarchy, where the Selectorate is small and the Winning Coalition is even smaller, provides the challenger with a greater  to overthrow the current leader. This is because the proportion of Selectorate members who are also in the Winning Coalition is relatively large. That is to say if a new leader comes to power, chances are a given member of the Winning Coalition will remain within the coalition. The incentive for defection in order to attain a greater amount of goods offered by a challenger is not, in this case, outweighed by the risk of not being included in the new Winning Coalition. Here, the proportion of private goods in relation to public goods is seen declining.

A scenario in which both the Winning Coalition is large and the Selectorate is even larger provides the least amount of stability to a leader’s occupancy of power, such a system is a Democracy. Here, the proportion of public goods outweigh private goods simply because of the sheer size of the Winning Coalition; it would be far too costly to provide private goods to every individual member of the Winning Coalition when the benefits of public goods would be enjoyed by all. Because of this fact — that the leader cannot convince Winning Coalition members to remain loyal through private good incentives, which are in turn cost-restrictive, the challenger poses the greatest threat to the incumbent. Furthermore, this  of loyalty to the incumbent leader, whatever the government structure may be, is called the Loyalty Norm.

A scenario where the Winning Coalition is large and the Selectorate is small is logically impossible since the Winning Coalition is a subset of the Selectorate.

Now, as with all complex things, they are much easier studied and understood-if you break them down to simplicity.

THE SELECTORATE IS THE CITIZENRY DEFINED BY PARTICIPATION

“Select”   “electorate”     = Selectorate

Those persons having the qualifications to participate in the process = nominals or interchangeables

Those persons who do participate/vote-= the real selectorate or influential’s

Those persons whose vote did produce the outcome of victory= the essentials or the winning coalition

SELECTORATE THEORY HAS TWO CONSTANT DENOMINATORS:

THE LEADER AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS-

AND ONE GOAL-TO GAIN AND MAINTAIN POWER.

How the elected leader and his/her party legislate, govern, design agenda to distribute government “goods” back to the citizenry effects the loyalty and growth of these classification groups.

We of course, are not a government led by “monarchy”.  Leaders are kings, queens, princes and princesses…etc. Present day middle eastern countries have monarchies and the countries of old Europe were such in the past.  England has a monarchy in name and stature only…they have parliamentary/representative government.

“Autocracy” (dictatorial) government systems for today’s historical context are Libya  (Gadhafi), Egypt  (Mubarak), Iran (Kohemmeni), Syria (Bashar al-Assad) Russia (Putin), China (Hu Jintao),and North Korea (Kim Jong Un) leaders who have a political system and/or a governmental body that does their will.  These bodies give a semblance of other governmental influences, but serve the power and the dictates of the leader.

We are a “democracy”.  A majority ruled-representative government.  Examine the results of the past presidential election and apply the “selectorate theory”:

• the scenario in which both the Winning Coalition is large and the Selectorate is even larger
• the proportion of public goods outweigh private goods simply because of the sheer size of the Winning Coalition; it would be far too costly to provide private goods to every individual member of the Winning Coalition when the benefits of public goods would be enjoyed by all. (unsustainable debt- programs that continually require more revenue)
• Loyalty through private good incentives, are cost-restrictive
• The degree of loyalty to the incumbent leader, whatever the government structure may be, called the Loyalty Norm, will continue to be challenged by the reality of public debt, insolvent social programs, unemployment and stagnant economic realities, government deadlock and inefficiency, political party conflict, and  a threatened national security future by a government that spends more than is affordable or supported by those being taxed-to support those who do not/cannot contribute. (selectorate)

If we take our consideration of this theory to one more level, it can be informative as well as applicable to our Article V Project.

“A Republic” the representative system of government-founded upon a contract or document in which all laws, offices, authority and legislative actions are based.

A Republic is what we were founded as-a democracy is what we have become.  The goal of our 28^th amendment proposal is to re-establish our Republic by restoring the Constitutional Rights of the People and the States.

 Our Article V approach is very different from many others.  We are well studied and intentioned, with arguments based on Constitutional truth, seeking peaceful and positive political change, from persons of all political persuasions who join in this common cause.  We seek cooperation from the citizens of every state and from their legislative representatives that believe in/and seek to follow the system of government-established by the Founder’s of this Nation. A government of the People, by the People and for the People.

Let us place ourselves in the shoes of an elected professional with the lifetime goal of being an elected political person. If they can see that The People have found out “how the heavy chains of the Constitution have been placed around their necks”, as Jefferson stated - then We the People will have the “right” to request that they do “Our” work and not that of the special interests.

There is a sad reality in politics today.  For many- and as some do play it - it has become a dirty game. What has come to be accepted as “good politics” is not necessarily “good government” We must seek to join with those legislatures who respect and revere their responsibility to represent us all- well and justly. For those who serve by a different standard, they may fear the rejection more than total lose of power. As we continue to contact them with regularity – we hope to see them start to assist our efforts. Believe that they know- the Courts and the Congress-and the Executive Branch of government- are violating the Constitution.  Our movement- growing and spreading positive and constructive dialogue – can be the catalyst that will prompt them to start limiting some of the stolen powers, cut spending, and lower taxes.

Article V and the 28^th Amendment –proposed, ratified, and implemented- will destroy the reality of political discord and dysfunction that threatens us today – it will change the political landscape of the United States of America from this point forward.   

WE must work to build the “WINNING COALITION” here in our Article V Group.

A scenario where the Winning Coalition is large and the Selectorate is small is logically impossible……since the Winning Coalition is a subset of the Selectorate.

SUCCESS* ACHEIVES* THAT *THEY *ARE* ONE* IN *THE *SAME.

Thank you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:51am

Delete

Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government

• Posted by Mangus Colorado on December 26, 2012 at 9:26am in ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED
• Back to ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED Discussions

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

Everyone needs to read this article as it is spot on here is just one small sample -

But I heard the debt is being paid down?

What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must  to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let's have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the  has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress.

In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 "election", but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords 'fessed up to his real political agenda.

Current Congressionally created debt:

01/23/2012 12/31/2011 06/30/2011 12/31/2010 06/30/2010 12/31/2009 08/30/2009 04/16/2009 10/30/2008 11/01/2007 09/29/2006 09/30/2005 09/30/2004 09/30/2003 09/30/2002 09/28/2001 08/08/2001 04/30/2001 02/28/2001 01/31/2001 12/29/2000 09/29/2000 09/30/1999 09/30/1998 09/30/1997 09/30/1996 09/29/1995 09/30/1994 09/30/1993 09/30/1992 09/30/1991 09/28/1990 09/29/1989 09/30/1988 09/30/1987

$15,236,245,309,869.69 (D) $15,222,940,045,451.09 (D) $14,343,087,640,008.40 (D) $14,025,215,218,708.52 (D) $13,203,473,753,968.10 (D) $12,311,349,677,512.03 (D) $11,909,829,003,511.75 (D) $11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)  $10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)  $9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)  $8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)  $7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)  $7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)  $6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)  $6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)  $5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)  $5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)  $5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)  $5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)  $5,716,070,587,057.36 (R) $5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)  $5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)  $5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)  $5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)  $5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)  $5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)  $4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)  $4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)  $4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)  $4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)  $3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)  $3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)  $2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)  $2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)  $2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)

The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt's web site: 
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

This is a site you will want to bookmark.

look at this link - quality research and writing here - hope she will join our efforts - 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on January 7, 2013 at 9:55am

Delete

ARTICLE V WILL STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM VIOLATING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKING CLAUSE WITH "PROGRESSIVE" INCOME TAX RATES.

• Posted by Mangus Colorado on December 21, 2012 at 8:46am in ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED
• Back to ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED Discussions

Pay attention to Madison's words used when describing PROPERTY 

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

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...; nor shall be compelled in anycriminal 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.

It would seem certain that money is property and income is money so therefore - using a variable rate "progressive" system is a clear violation of the "TAKING CLAUSE"

The act of government taking for redistribution would require them paying "JUST COMPENSATION." This would clearly end income tax as we know it. Another reason for repealing the 16th amendment.

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact. – “Property” in The National Gazette (29 March 1792) James Madison

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James Madison

Property

James Madison
March 29, 1792
[Madison wrote this newspaper article to explain the relationship
between property rights and other . — TGW]
This term in its particular  means "that dominion which one
man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in
exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a
man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every
one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called
his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free
communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the
profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his
person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice
of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be
equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly
respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or
his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an
opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that
which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term

Browse our archive of
original historical
documents on the
themes of this book: 
- Founding Principles
- Slavery
- Property Rights
- Women and the Right
to Vote
- Women and the Family
- Was the Founding
Undemocratic? The
Property Requirement for
Voting
- Poverty and Welfare
- Immigration and the
Moral Conditions of
Citizenship
- Afterword: Liberals and
Conservatives Abandon
the Principles of the
Founding
.......................................
Home > Document Library > Property Rights > Propertyparticularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is
a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is
his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just
securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government
which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals,
does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their
opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a
more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a
man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or
taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property;
other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that,
being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his
castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact
faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more
sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for
which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original
conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal
liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the
service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang,
would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under
appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its
citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their
occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general
sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so
called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of
linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order
to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the
manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the
oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the
manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under
which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward
another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries
of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the
keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to
labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another
spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing
man to  his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him,
in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his
necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the
inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly
even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet
directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions,
their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which
indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor
that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of
time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the
influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such agovernment is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to
wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of
property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that
most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in
violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other
governments.
[From Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, ed., The Founders’
Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 1:598-99.] 
U