- As our law currently stands (short of criminal addition, deletion, equivocation or dissemblance) it is the explicit duty of a grand jury to indict on probable cause and a petite jury's to determine if a judge or justice has knowingly and willingly defrauded persons of the people of the rule of their Constitution and their duly authorized laws.
To my observation of our Constitutions and duly authorized statutes, that the required procedure for determining the bounds of judicial good behavior and its official capacity already exists and is our true law. The insertion of impeachment or judicial discipline into this process is optional and secondary in all circumstances where a governor's pardon has not already intervened.
If you wish to contradict these statements please evidence your assertion with citation of Constitutions and statutes linked back to proper authority. I doubt you will be able to.
I have raised the particular points of our Constitutions and Laws supporting my assertion so many times before that it does not serve for me to repeat them again. Please PM if your newness gives you need for those discussion links.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock, I know I should be more Socratic and gentle in my questions but we Tea Party Patriots are short on time to get on with "Constitutional Reset" so this discussion needs to progress at a faster rate.
A) How is the question relevant to the stated purposes of this discussion? (Default answer = 'it is not')
B) By what authority do you make a vain demand for evidence that we both appear to have no knowledge of? (Default answer = none)
I ask that you would answer those 2 questions (A&B) which you may avoid by answering the following five questions (having default answer also).
Please answer:
1) Does past felony unjudged create a right? (Default answer = NO)
2) Is your request for event evidence (of events that have not yet occurred to my knowledge) again offered as a thinly veiled argument that
A) right is wrong, and
B) wrong is right
? (Default answer = YES)
3) Where 2) is taken by you as evidence that a con-con is required to take our country back from the felonious cavalier conceits of those we have vested with our authority to govern? (Default answer = YES)
4) When a birth-right is traded for a proverbial bowl-of-porridge is
he that receives the proverbial bowl-of-porridge in exchange
just as guilty of perpetrating fraud as is
he who gives the the proverbial bowl-of-porridge in exchange? (Default answer = YES)
The fraud by both parties being the equivocation that an inalienable right may be alienated.
The fact that a party has been wronged in this exchange does not permit a remedy that alienates the inalienable as every color of such is fraud and is ultimately vain.
5) Can a reasonable person accept the necessity of a Con-Con so long as the only arguments offered in support for the con-con have fraud as their presumption? (Default answer = NO)
6) Given that 5) is answered 'NO' and that
no other compelling arguments for a Con-Con have been presented,
can a reasonable person think that a Con-Con's likely end in other than dispossession by a chain of frauds given the initial fraudulent presumption? (Default answer = NO)
We may in fact need a Con-Con. BUT we will never need a Con-Con Con disguised as a Con-Con.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Russell,
...this discussion needs to progress at a faster rate. ...
I am a little slow and I am not buying a used car. Slow clear and well researched responses are what is needed.
Thanks,
Pody
Permalink Reply by on - Mae Culpa.
Sometimes I have too much skin in this issue (raw skin at that) to accept that human's will always be human short of God's likeness becoming reality as us. I know that is wrong - yet I still come back to that lack of faith in inalienable right when I see the bottom of my proverbial bowl-of-porridge. It shows that I am human too.
Thanks again.
- Permalink Reply by on
- LOL Russ
Your intellect leaves us all short, I love your Patriotism but I am too slow to understand your point. Some of as have evolved to the likeness of GOD, the rest of us are still swinging in the trees could you explain what you just said for those of us that are still in those trees.
Jim
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ouch! Jim. β~}
I thought that both replies were statements that would successfully 'compile' without warning.
Sorry.
That legend-in-his-own-mind delusion sometimes strikes me when I am overly short on sleep and overly long on ambition.
It looks like I should call it a day and try to do better tomorrow. β~}
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thanks James I was looking for this :)
Regarding the link above:
"Resolution of Congress to Convene a Convention..."
First take this Preamble:
"Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”; and Whereas the congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” as the Tenth Amendment affirms and the rights “retained by the people” to which the Ninth Amendment refers; and Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation; To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people, the legislature of the State of ________ hereby resolves;"
Then take these two:
First and Second". . . each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States. . ."
". . . that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect . . ."
There is no need for a resolution to call a Constitutional Convention if the First and Second are true. This will be rejected in legitimacy or accepted as a statement of our incompetence for, the need for the resolution is to comply with Article V!
If Article V is not being applied then don't apply it, and instead I'd suggest the following solution:
"We The People the owners and exclusive to use of Sovereign Power, do hereby Amend the Constitution on equal footing to Our Founders and the Founding Generation's ratification of the germane Constitution, as our representatives on the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof They have thereunto subscribed their Names."
This goes directly to us being the Posterity for which the Constitution was intended by it's own terms, and does not make claims regarding Article V, which will lead again to endless battles in courts as the Progressives find what they can use in this to destroy the Constitution, in fact it would be an Unconstitutional resolution for one house to declare an Article of the Constitution repealed or amended. It is a destruction of a limit on Congress to repeal Article V created by Our Founders as a sole limit on Congress to amend the Constitution--The people in forming the several States rejected Constitutions over and over because they were drawn and ratified solely by the legislature and they held to a firm belief that Constitutions, to assure a republic, according to Our Founders, must be according to, and a direct engaged act of, the Will of The People. The Federalist Papers are a rather absolute statement of the importance of this to Our Founders.
And on to the actual Amendments proposed, for their net effect will be based more on what they say and how they are argued in court than anything else.
I'll be copying and pasting from my other reply as warranted.
Re: 1) Number 1 would have killed us after the 2008 election. I prefer 3/4 over 3/5 any day.
I am also not a proponent of a Fair Tax, as to me, going from an income tax to another tax, is a form of admission to the government that they have a right to tax us, a right to expect that revenue, and, honestly, they don't.
I completely agree the current system is archaic and profoundly painful to work in, but the bureaucracies that work against us are also there in government's response to the idea of providing "due process" to where we can question what we are being taxed for.
Though the IRS operates under the idea of an assumed tax liability, there remains an aspect of "voluntary compliance." By a replacement tax to make sure the government has a similar income this becomes, instead, in government's eyes, "a dictated mandate the people agree government deserves in revenue." With a Constitutional assumed setting forth a specific tax liability the fair tax is rendered in the same category as any impost, duty or excise tax as are in the germane Constitution. That is a federal government expansion of power I cannot agree with.
Thus idea of the individual being able to question government by questioning the agency at the collection level regarding what we are being taxed on just disappears. I know the hearings are fruitless for the purposes we set out to use them for, the IRS agent only wants to discuss "how much," while you're explaining every jott and tittle of how the tax doesn't apply to you that they ignore and will not even acknowledge in any manner, and this can go on for hours. The fun part however is when you ask them "Excuse me, before I waive any reasonable expectation to privacy by disclosing personal information to you, what is your GS rating?" Gerald Ford made an Executive Order mandating that all Federal Employees must be a GS9 or above to be able to ask you to disclose personal information. Most agents, particularly in the hearings, are gs3 at best. Luckily we hadn't been fighting them for years on this one, otherwise they usually have someone who can show they are a GS9 available, so be prepared and do not get caught flat-footed.
Re: 2) 2 isn't necessary, and instead, I submit, let's just hold to the Constitution, per Justice Thomas argument that is the most sober statement of what went wrong even before FDR regarding the commerce clause, http://www.psctvonline.com/fp510.php
Hamilton made this losing argument to why we don't need a Bill of Rights, that "where they have no power there is no need to have such a statement." He lost to those who claimed "the federal government is to reign supreme" and Jefferson happened to be on the side that won as well.
If we remember the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, a permit and revocable grant to institute government that is made by We The People, we can then realize that anything placed in this document that can be in any way even slightly construed a form of grant or acknowledgement of federal authority beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8 (note there is no statement to indicate exclusivity to any of the powers granted), is going to be so construed by government. The Commerce Clause itself is not the problem. The arguments to apply or not apply the commerce clause, arguments government makes for using it as another powers Clause as though the enumerated powers do not delineate the specificity of government authority, are what has brought the idea of powers under the Commerce Clause into distortion.
Re: 3) "Disallow public debt in excess of means not to exceed 3% of GDP." seems more accurate, and creates a nexus to the economy, so that government is just as well regulated by its revenues as you and I, and can't just expect and expand irrespective of reality. George Soros bases his entire "reflexivity" on the difference between the perceived and the real, that's how he made his billions, and why he must be amoral to do it.
And I take issue with use of the term "political subdivision" in an Amendment. Find it in the Original Constitution,http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html. It's not there. This is because it's a legal contrivance that the Federal Government has used to encroach upon State's Rights, a "federal layer" that some call "The Federal Zone," "ZIP" code is "Zone Improvement Plan" where you go to a Post Office which ushers in the "political subdivision in the federal zone," at least that's how the argument goes. I haven't been able to disprove it but I cannot say I have proven it has any meaning, force, or effect as proven either, thus I am neutral about this. But the term "political subdivision" doesn't belong in a Constitutional Amendment unless further empowering the federal government, through controversy and litigations that eventually expand the power into areas it currently cannot go according to the Constitution as it stands.
And lastly, read this and ask yourself if this government would say anything in it's books does this:
"Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens."--3rd Article/proposed Amendment
Our government would not admit this at any time, they'd go about business as usual and not give a damn. There is nothing in their books at all to ever admit such a thing and they are not about to suddenly become honest about it after at least 100 years of dishonesty? Anyone really believe that they'll just suddenly not pass certain laws because of a Constitutional Amendment? I mean, aren't we still handing them discretion to determine the meaning of restricting the liberties of "its" citizens? I mean they should say whose citizens it is at least but still, who is the one to determine what is or is not such a restricting of the liberties of citizens? The courts right? Good luck with that.
Re: 4) Hopefully this is what is suggested, and to put an end to czars, see the lower striked words, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senate and HouseSenators presentconcur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.:but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." and all vestment of Appointment are repealed upon ratification of this Amendment"--Emphasis mine. Article 2, Paragraph 2,http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Re: 5) Ever read a contract or warranty and notice this phrase, "includes, but not limited too"? See in normal parlance "includes" is viewed as meaning, "in addition to," but in law, and particularly as used in legislation and Amendments:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in, keep within.) To confine within, hold as an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and may have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within the general words theretofore used. 'Including' within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240, Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228"--Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition.
I know Websters and common meanings are to be the rule but, we all know the lawyers argue other facts and information, and if you think the Government won't argue and shoot holes in, even abuse this for their own good, better than I ever could, you're mistaken. Never use "includes" and Jefferson knew this little catch 23,564 also:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."--Emphasis mine. Unanimous Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776.
This is to say that what is enumerated, and this goes to further points in all of this, as individual unalienable rigthts is within the confines of a person and their God, and not subject to anyone else's intrusion.
Free speech as "guaranteed by the Constitution" is what this plays into. It isn't guaranteed as a form of grant and that we must amend the Constitution to assure our liberties are enlarged. This is recognizing our rights derive from the Constitution or Government we institute by it, and not from our Creator. If something must be done then it appears it is merely necessary for the legal meaning of "speech" to include campaign contributions and all forms of communication.
For sake of consideration, there is nothing in the Constitution not including the internet, not including campaign contributions. Thus, it would appear, this is just another of the backdoor ways to grant government a power it doesn't have, by government's interpretation of the results.
Re: 6) Can you say Ambiguous?
"Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded."
Now I see lawsuit central, and a nation torn apart by litigations and frustrations as we hand them the power by our lack of specificity, and when this whole idea is entirely unnecessary. Please note Article V:
"The Congress, [1] whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, [2]on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."--Emphasis mine.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Anyone notice this is directive language to the Congress? These hurdles are the ones the Congress must go through to Amend the Constitution, not the people. Notice that Congress isn't given power to determine "valid in all Intents and Purposes," but the act of ratification by the States makes that determination, and Congress has a rather weak, "as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress." A Constitutional Amendment takes place the moment of ratification by the States, particularly where the Amendment specifically states, "We The People the owners and exclusive to use of Sovereign Power, do hereby Amend the Constitution on equal footing to Our Founders and the Founding Generation's ratification of the germane Constitution, as our representatives on the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof They have thereunto subscribed their Names.
James Wilson, one of the 6 people who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, states this in his lectures on law:
"Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem expedient."--Emphasis mine. James Wilson, Founding Father, Lectures on Law: Volume 1 Chapter 1 page 17, http://deila.dickinson.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/ownwords&;...
This is something we haven't even begun to get our heads around yet.
Re: 7) I'll never agree to term limits for one reason: 2010 election and Tea Party movement.
Term limits are another convenience, to bring government to operate on auto pilot.
Consider how short a term Barack Obama served in the Senate, and that in the 1st year he was 2nd to Chris Dodd for campaign contributions to sway his vote regarding Fannie and Freddie. His term limit would have had to have been 6 months.
The powers that are corrupting our government are only able to do so because We The People as the exclusive special interest of the legislator is being forgotten in their seeking "leadership"--Our servants think they are our leaders!
It is through the lack of term limits that we became engaged, that we are taking on our Sovereign responsibility and exercised our Sovereign Power on November 2nd, now we just need to understand how broad that power is, that Unalienable Rights from Our Creator, are an incalculable sum. Take California, where they have term limits for Governor, why Gray Davis had to step down. Note that 2 term Jerry Brown is serving his 3rd term....Oh it's not consecutive....what other grey area will there be once the corrupt system has its way with this too? I mean courts are assuming authority to overturn propositions passed by the people of a State, that the Will Of The People, the Sovereign, is beneath the will of the government operating by their permit? Really?
But the memory of this last year and the activism of people to learn Our Founding Documents and act according to the terms upon which our great nation was founded we owe to the lack of term limits, the lack of certain auto-pilot conveniences that engage us in our government, as Our Founders intended, and thereby, as it should be.
Re: 8) Yea the republicans mentioned at the healthcare summit they wanted to give President Obama line item veto power....Think very carefully about this, and consider why it's not in the original Constitution. Could it be that laws that originate in the House, the most republican part of our government due to population ratios to number of representatives, being very likely the Will Of The People (when government is running according to the Constitution) and thereby a line item veto, event he structure for a budgetary one, taken advantage of by how legislation is packaged, to where the President's veto is a dictatorship? Nah that would never happen,http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/profiles/blogs/consent-of-the-gove...
And please consider the second section, notice the military being certain to be afforded at least to some degree, isn't included:
"Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States."
Interesting how the Congress and Judiciary are okay to get money for their operations, as though they'll pick up the guns to assure our nation against those who come here to kill us.
Re: 9) Oh my, this one....no, absolutely not. Who pray tell can determine what is and is not an Unalienable Right from God, which is what is retained, better than the person who is exercising their liberty? The jealous government? The jealous neighbor? The jealous jury? There is no government in existence to be able to determine if I am exercising an unenumerated right. This turns the entire idea of our rights on its head, as something that must be proven to government by any form of institution to make such determination. We might as well declare ourselves a crown colony this goes through.
Re: 10)"The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations."
We are about to be laughed at for this one. This has got to be a joke, see my notes on the House Resolution and first 2 paragraphs of it. I can't believe someone went to all this trouble to make a joke like this. I mean they claim Article V is repealed, yet include it in the 10th article of their proposed Amendments?
And in regard to the Article V allowance for changing the meaning of words, the static, certain, absolute, well defined, what "originalist"means IS subject to change, "Progressively" according to his proposal
- Permalink Reply by on
- Conclusion So Far
To be honest, if this isn't a joke, this seems more a list of Amendments of a former Soviet, whose looking to the government to solve itself and asking for permission. Which in America today, is to say, this is a list of reactionary hopes, and not reasoned considerations to Amend Our Written Constitution, in the Spirit, Tenor, Intent, and Purposes meant by Our Founders.
Note also that once implemented and 50 years have rolled by, because a Progressive Law Professor took advantage of the clamor for limited government, the rationale for the amendments will have little meaning, and be little used but by the most expensive lawyers to argue a very rudimentary argument to get their client off. That's how it works today and I see little chance of that changing.
It's time we stopped letting the Progressive Law Professors have any influence, particularly in becoming President Of The United States...Ahem!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Toddy,
by reading your above statements, your argument against the second section below the preamble is that this section nullifies and repeals Article V of the constitution?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I'll leave the below but I think I know what happened, the memorial he speaks of is amending and replacing his previous memorial, as something he gave to the legislature, but the language seemed to implicate Article V on both counts so that's what stands out. Frederick you make the call haha. I still do not trust this.
Well I think I posted the language he used, now if it's in error, please enlighten me. I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong, but also just as happy to point out other factors as I can see em, I mean, we all learn from each other if we give it a chance.
But consider this under the resolution portion:
"First, that Congress shall call a convention, consisting of delegates from the several States selected by procedures established by their respective legislatures, for the purpose of proposing the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; and
"Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect; and"
Now look at the 10th article:
"The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations."
1st it seems confusing to be claiming something is amended by ratification, basically muddying the waters when compared to what James Wilson, and others, have made abundantly clear, in light of this being ratified by our own act and deemed our own instrument, Our Written Constitution, to use on government to hold it to it's limits and accountable.
2nd, do you believe the meanings of words should be so flexible, as to be able to establish a "1984 style newspeak dictionary," that essentially becomes, a dictionary of PC according to Amendments to the Constitution?
Right now Progressives like to think "Democracy" and "Majority Rule" mean "Sovereign Authority" just as the British Omnipotent Democracy model does. They do not understand what the Sovereignty is that is vested in the people but as a political operative to justify their power grabbing. They misrepresent Jefferson, Madison, and others in making these claims too. I am so sick of it.
The 3/5 rule of the 1st article of this proposal, for instance, is 60 votes in the Senate. Could you imagine if they had had and used that power when the Progressives had super majorities in both Houses not too long ago? We'd have a 75% fair tax right now, and no way to change it back due to needing 3/5ths to do it. This is why I see this whole thing as a joke or a Progressive Professor exploiting the situation, maybe a friend of Rahm Emanuel's, "not letting a crisis go to waste."
On one hand we're saying it's valid and the other it's invalid when you look at Article 10 of the actual amendment?
- Permalink Reply by on
- In correction with addendum in support of the notion, regarding note 9 above, which I was wrong about and misread, and was kindly pointed out by Frederick L Neff, I submit the following:
I haven't studied Alinksky, you clearly have, and, I know that George Bush and the Congress changed the burden of proof standard in Tax cases, so the burden is on the Government, and nothing has changed.
I was wrong in how I read it and appreciate you pointing it out. However, you remain the one calling people progressives, by innuendo or otherwise, and you are using a Progressive mind to view these things, as it is clear to me this is an expansion of government power.
The burden of proof in tax cases, remains with the person claiming it doesn't apply to them. Even though this is supposed to have been changed, and the reason is this: The mechanics of the situation, their actual operation.
When you make a claim on the government, you have to assert something in that claim, and, the government grants a hearing or not, denial of that claim or denial of even granting a hearing, is what grants permission to sue, as you've exhausted your administrative remedies. This is how the government looks at it, and will look at this Amendment as well.
The burden of proof is on the one filing the claim, the Plaintiff always has to prove their case except in admiralty proceedings, and using a libel of review. We were one of the first to use that with the IRS and in another case and won, and no we're not lawyers.
In any event, know that to challenge a law and ask the government to prove it is not a violation of rights is merely by them holding a few hearings and massaging the words, to comply with what would be considered a lawful use of process. Nothing changes by the Amendment, and the burden of proof will remain on the claimant the moment the proceeding heads to civil court, where the standard throughout history is the preponderance of the evidence standard.
This Amendment doesn't amend the judiciary act to change that.
I remain wrong to the Amendment as it is written, and again thank you for helping me with that, it is greatly appreciated, so much goes through my head of all I've done to fight this government long before the Tea Part existed, and the many things we found in that regard.
However, having done things I was told were impossible to help others in every way I could with some proceeding here or there, I speak from that perspective of what I see as a 100% likelihood, due to the Civil Court system that the Plaintiff will have the burden of poof if they wish to establish the law violates their individual liberties, and, further, this is because they are the only one that knows what their individual liberties are.
In fact, while writing this, do you know what it means to carry out an unconscionable act?
I mean, could you tell me what my unalienable rights are, other than what's listed in the Declaration of Independence? Of course you couldn't, as I could not for you. So then how is a government to know, particularly one that has lied over and over again? It is a compelled impossibility and would render this Amendment impossible to ratify because of it. And it does turn the entire judicial system on its head, basically making all courts admiralty, which is an old battle too. The Admiralty courts always wanted jurisdiction over the land.
Otherwise the government will be happy to assume the power, and expand their jurisdiction, to know what rights you have are and are not being violated and to be the one to prove in their courts, by their system, that your rights are not beig violated even when they ask you to get on your knees and lick their boots clean.
I'd be careful to throw around Alinsky's name as though you're an expert too.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I wasn't trying to be rude and apoligize if I was, I have read much of Fretjok's post on other discussions and at times found his positions to be very "progressive socialist" in nature, that is why I made the statement. I understand the argument about the courts "massaging" things around to their liking, but if you take into consideration the proposed amendment 10, it severly limits their ability to do so. I will also say that nothing is perfect, and as I do see potential problems, as the progressive is a crafty creature, the damage that has occured over the last 60+ years cant be allowed to continue.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Who said it can be allowed to continue?
If not for the dent their thick skulls would make in my wooden baseball bat I'd see recourse there.
The fact is that sometimes it's better to do nothing than do something, meaning, to allow the answer to reveal itself instead of jump on the bandwagon of a Law Professor, someone of the same ilk, and likely mindset, as our President.
I hope you went to the link of my proposed Amendment too,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.73.
Not that these are competing as I'd never qualify to be able to submit anything, I'm one of those that Hillary used to call "Those Right Wing Whackos" deemed a threat to the United States Government when Progressives are in power.
I see a greater value in repealing the mechanisms of destroying State Sovereignty than in inventing new wheels for Progressives to grind or ignore at will. This is our country, we are the only ones with Sovereign Power, and that doesn't mean a majority vote, it means a whole different understanding of property, that correlates with Our Founders, and the Liberty-Responsibility that correlates therewith,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.96
This might help better understand what this Constitutional Conservative is after in limiting the breath and scope of the National Progressive Behemoth that's meant to be an administrative body according to Our Written Constitution, as they breath fire from Washington D.C.--the Dragon Plight of the Middle Ages the Progressive chicken come home to roost apparently.
The end of this is when we realize what "endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator" means, in relation to "just powers," "consent of the governed" and thus the entire basis of the Constitution to realize these things for each and ever individual in ability to set aside the rule of a majority that is unreasonable as a matter of our prerogative. We've lost that sense of ourselves as Americans.
And no offense taken at all, I've been where you are, been as you are, and understand the loathsome detestation for Progressives and their point of view. Maybe an aluminum bat? Aged say 30 years so it's harder than many steels? hehe
- Permalink Reply by on
- Agreed :)
But you know that cause I believe you read this and liked it,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.73
- Permalink Reply by on
- I found it, you mean 7:
"7- All bureaucracies created by any of the above acts shall be disbanded and their bureaucrats stripped of all accreditation and any emoluments whatever along with any retirement funds to be returned to the United States Treasury."
First, the moneys they received are working for an agency that was usurping our Constitution. They took an Oath to uphold that Constitution as part of that job, they knew or should have known they were violating our Constitution.
Second, that a state or government agrees to provide a pension fund, to contribute to it, etc., doesn't change the character of a pension fund from being an investment, and every investment comes with risk. The risk for a government pension is that the government shall no longer be able to afford it and ceases from contributing, as well as possibly taking such fund to assure the solvency of such government.
I'd rather they take from the workers that usurped our Constitution than from the American People by taxing us to keep an investment from enjoying the risks that come with such investment, skewing the rule of law for sake of special interests, who used that same money to support the election of Obama, healthcare, and whatever the Progressive agenda wants.
Lastly, as I point out later in the proposed amendment article, it's not a finished product, but I'd leave the Amendment alone, and instead, have an implementing statute that allows those employees to choose a new area of government to work in for 6 months, in order to retain their retirement plan, and with full knowledge that it is now viewed as an investment subject to risk, urging them to take their money and that no penalties will be incurred for doing so, but, if they fail to do so within that 6 month period of time, the Amendment takes place as stated. That is one way to weed out the wheat from the chaff. haha
- Permalink Reply by on
- Agreed Lock, but my point is this, lack of clarification of some things is how we arrived at where we are today, to continue to ignore that lack of clarity I think would be irresponsible
- Permalink Reply by on
- Agreed, but these 10 articles only cloud the waters further.
Glenn Beck does these things with lines and how we branched out.
Well imagine one of those traveling straight across, and then it starts turning downward around Abraham Lincoln, then it keeps going downward; from the Federal Reserve Act and it encroachment on State's Rights; followed by the 16th Amendment income tax destroying the ability of the states to tap into the people for a warchest to fight the national government, as they used to do; to then have their entire capacity to appoint legislators who represent the rights of the States in the Senate via the 17th Amendment--as the Senate was never intended to have Senators arguing for the rights of the people, that's for the House--and you get a picture of what's wrong. Our complex republic is hopping on one leg that has elephantiasis and regularly, happens to kick up and bruise the other leg, that is almost entirely a stump.
We the People keep wiggling that stumped leg, hoping to bring it back to life, but its dependency on the other leg for whatever blood flow (currency) it gets, has made it so dependent its stifled and even accepts the bruising as long as it can at least move with the rest of the body to wherever its going.
That's what we have here, and it will take Amendments to address the cause as solution, not making changes to a periphery that renders the status quo stagnant and permanent as it is.
I'd say around 50 years ago this Federalist proposal, save a few of the reservations I've mentioned such as the "political subdivision" mention, would have been a great opportunity. But now, it almost causes the existing system to become a permanent fixture, from the fabricated class struggles to the Progressive source of racism, nothing changes by it. And all of that is due to a lack of our ability to call on our states to be the Bulwark of our Liberties as envisioned by Jefferson, due to this erosion of State's rights. We need our compound republic together as one, as it once was, with occasional limping, but not a pure hobbling of one side to where it even recedes into it's socket.
Here's another article that you might find worthy of consideration,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.106
- Permalink Reply by on
- Perhaps I should have clarified Toddy, as I said the 10 have merits but not without some corrections, like the 14th, 16th, and 17th. However I don't beleive we can just repeal all this stuff without considering the implications.
For example social security, I dont have a problem with people who have worked for 40, 50, 60, years wanting to retire and having that little bit of money that has been taken out of their check each week accrued for retirement. I will agree that SS has been warped twisted and borrowed from, rediculously over the years, and that there are definate problems with it. But if it is just flat line repealed, thats the end of it, I want my money back, I have paid into social security and medicare for over 20 years, I want my money back.
Do you see where my sense of caution comes from? We need to be very careful about our course of action and do away with the crap and address the problems that caused it at the same time.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glad for the clarification, and note that I do understand what you mean, as that is my position as well.
I'd like a 5 year moratorium on income taxes, and let the government learn to make its money from what it makes money on already but we seem to get no benefit from, oil royalties, mineral rights leases, patents, copyrights, etc., as examples. They always claim to be broke when they need to spend money yet, I haven't seen my royalty check from the 37.5 million dollars a day that the government gets minimum from the 4.9 million barrels we pump per day, if we got 12.5% (the low average royalty) at 60 bucks a barrel.
Then we also have the agreements such as when we lent, I believe 50 billion bucks to the U.K. during World War II, I believe it was part of FDR's lend lease, yet, that money wasn't paid back until around 5 years ago! How many of those we have outstanding and due but we're being nice about it because the American People won't stop the government's sense of a guaranteed income by taxation?
Caution in adopting a fair tax in the same vein as what you're saying.
I do not want to repeal social security necessarily, but the way it is now there to is another unaccounted for income stream to government.
You said you paid for 20 years, probably married, let's say you retire and die, your spouse gets a portion of that as a survivor benefit right?
Okay now, she dies, whoops what happened to your money? Oh, your death retires the IOU in social security I guess....Shouldn't it become part of your estate and transferred to your bank? Think about how long that's been going on.
Social security checks are supposed to be based on the profit, and not the principle, from the way Social Security is managed--again we gave the government a chance to make a profit, and they did, but then it became IOUs for whatever the government wants to fund, and a way to do so for the party in power to not say "we have to raise taxes."
Thus the reason the program needs to be repealed is not due to the people it was meant to help, but the mismanagement and misappropriation, using "proper legislative language" in other "emergency situations" like the one the President is using to justify socialist legislation, is the reason alone.
And this places in question if it was truly meant to help in the first place? Was Johnson's Great Society meant to help in the first place? What about the Community Reinvestment Act? In light of how they're all being distorted to achieve Cloward and Piven, as well as Bill Ayers ends, it would seem we've been duped for quite a while.
This brings me to "Sunset Clauses" and how taxation and funding legislation should both always have those as a way to get rid of bad legislation per a vote and schedule that takes into account how the economy and government management can change. Instead of something getting forgotten, and seeming to be the equivalent of a constitutional amendment, there is a regular renewal time period where a whole new debate can take place after the actual affect of the legislation is known. We seem not to even be considering any of that.
Phasing out of anything that would hurt our people or economy is certainly in order, however phasing out anything that's to the government's benefit and that we've seen abused, that our people have been abused by, that is abusing our States, no, those must go ASAP. Government needs to know it's place in American Government is below the people, never above them.
And note, that any debts claimed by the fed as due from the states, that resulted from all this usurpation, is void. The fruits of fraud--which is what usurpation of Our Written Constitution is, since they ran for office, ran a campaign claiming knowledge of what they were doing before they got there--are not to be had by the thieves whose legitimacy is in their being in government to abuse that letitimacy.
- Permalink Reply by on
- One thing that you should be aware of is that all federal employees of today fall under Social Security and own their 401k retirement plans, if they were terminated today those plans would go with them to their next job wither it would be with the government or a civilian position. For the most part "bureaucrats" working for the government are folks just like everyone else who happened to find a job with the government. I would say that the only "bureaucrats" would be political appointees and those are very few and far between.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you James for letting me know that, I feel better then with the provision as I have it, thought what you're telling me is it may not resolve anything, on the other hand it might for some, and that's better than none. Then again, were you gubmnt union employee? Never know the answer till one asks, if not then that would make sense, if so, then it would seem that's fine, unless there is a matching government amount, that should be stripped for government employees who are working in an agency that is usurping our Constitution, even the half of SS that's put in should be taken back. Might not seem like much but it's the Franklin Principle, "A penny saved is a penny earned." hahaah
- Permalink Reply by on
- Not so. Congress does have a say. Congress gets to decide what constitutes a valid convention call, and the 34 calls must be for the same proposed amendment(s). If 11 states call for a balanced budget, 11 other states call for repealing the 17th, and 12 call for repealing the 16th, even thought that's 34, it doesn't qualify. You best read the attached legal opinion from the DOJ, and the attached senate bill (never became law).
- Attachments:
Art V legal opinion.pdf, 512 KB
Federal Convention Act 1973.mht, 41 KB
- Permalink Reply by on
- First, that legal opinion was written or authorized by Benjamin R. Civiletti, a democrat,http://www.nndb.com/people/720/000167219/, who was apointed in July of 1979 to be the U.S. Attorney General, though I question that opinion you posted due to a mispelling of the second word "Conventiou." That's not something they'd publish generally, lawyers catching that long before it got put out on the web, this may be a draft, or pure forgery.
In any event, assuming it's real, Mer Civiletti's reputation per wikipedia, goes like this:
"Benjamin Richard Civiletti (born July 17, 1935, in Peekskill, New York) served as the United States Attorney General during the last year and a half of the Carter administration, from 1979 to 1981. He is now a senior partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Venable LLP, specializing in commercial litigation and internal investigations, and in 2005 became the first U.S. lawyer to charge $1000 an hour. He is also currently one of the three members of the Independent Review board. The IRB is the board that the Teamsters Union must answer to when allegations of corruption and mafia infiltration surface."--Emphasis mine,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Civiletti
I'd tend to say that legal opinon has a Progressive, or at least corrupted, intention from the onset.
The second is of no force and effect unless also passed in the House, and even then, is of less weight legally than the body of the Constitution itself. An Amendment is the only force that is of an equal footing to the Constitution unless it is done to usurp powers, versus gain a "just power" for government. A perfect example would be the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Thus this act doesn't change the words of the Constitution that haven't been amended, and thereby, have antecedent power as well. There remains a certainty that what is passed by 3/4 of the State legislatures is, for all Intents and Purposes, amended to the Constitution.
And that James Wilson, one of 6 people to sign both the Declaration and Constitution was right in claiming the inherent authority of the people to Amend the Constitution at any time and in any manner they deem expedient:
"Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending theirconstitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem expedient."--Emphasis mine. James Wilson, Founding Father, Lectures on Law: Volume 1 Chapter 1 page 17,http://deila.dickinson.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/ownwords&;
I'll take the word of one of the Founders on 2 counts over the word of a Progressive democrat under Jimmy Carter, and an attempt by a post 17th Amendment Senate to claim a process that hasn't even passed the House, let alone been signed by a President of the United States.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Brad B
A point that I pickup in reading your post is that a Constitutional Convention does not need to be called. A proposal for amending the Constitution is all that is needed so the fear of a runaway convention is unfounded. If ¾ of both the House and Senate propose and approve an amendment to the Constitution and it is approved by the States the Constitution is amended, with out a Constitutional Convention.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, the Progressive democrats, who controlled the Senate in 1973,http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/party..., and the Progressive AG who wrote that legal opinion, want you to believe what you just said, and set aside the Constitution as written over a variety of their own facts and conclusions that they claim guide how one is to interpret the Constitution, irrespective of being at odds with the Founders own words, such as James Wilson, and the Federalist Papers.
I am not saying, implying, or suggesting, in any way anything about Brad, but instead that the information sources he is relying on are the same ones who've been distorting Our Constitution for 100 years, to the point we believed we get rights from it. We cannot allow them "their day in court" in our heads, it's minutia.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Fretjock,
Re: judicial advocacy
I would highly recommend looking up 'midnight judges', John Marshall and the Judiciary Act of 1789 [especially how the Act pertains to the Presidential election of 1800]
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thanks Fretjock, I wasn't, and you hit the nail on the head in knowing what I was getting at. I've seen it all too many times, and believe you have too, probably most of us have, the process as a means of thought, as part of what builds the roads of how one thinks and analyzes, sometimes have a link that hasn't been discarded yet. That's the best way I can describe it.
And your end analysis of how the court will be the final arbiter is certain to be true, that's their job, and that there's a means of amending the meaning of words--Newspeak dictionary anyone? hahaah I really don't like that one.
I will share that I did learn libertarianism did originate in liberalism, and essentially ended up an offshoot, so there are some tents of liberalism that cross into libertarianism and therefore could be seen to be Progressivism, as liberalism was the tool the Progressives used to take over the democrat party (the party that wants America to be on the order of a British Style Omnipotent Majority Rule Democracy). Thus the currently move in the direction the party was going to retain votes, but have an entirely different end game once achieved, Healthcare, cap and tax, stimulus upon stimulus, are all misnomers for their actual content and affect on individual liberty to which their political followers are none the wiser, some even assuming liberalism--which recognized a limited government--is now just renamed Progressivism. Now they are even assumed synonyms.
To be perfectly honest as well, anarchy has also had its definition twisted. "Anarchy is chaos" is a common statement, that appears to not recognize that author after author was one with feudal or authoritarian rule over the people. Today many Progressives seem to have adopted this term themselves and made sure it represents chaos not just at G20 meetings but even in their desire to infiltrate the Tea Parties. Their view is, of course, to never let the meaning of this term come forward and be what it was intended at the time, and even that to me is not good enough--To me words have a meaning at their inception, and though some new meanings may be added, there is no loss of the old meaning, for that is how the term was discovered, "invented" if you will.
Anarchy was the far right extreme of what Our Founders wanted and their far left extreme the tyranny of a Monarch. Anarchy is self-governance, where we have no law, and no rules, because the people have a simple understanding of the idea that calling for law and order on one, opens everyone up to the despot's rule. Taking on and knowing a moral code and living by its principle in yourself is how you keep from wronging another, and how they keep from wronging you.
To those who want power, despotic rule, and tyranny, Anarchy, the purest form of individual liberty is chaos.
Our Constitution is to keep us just short of that Anarchy as a form of individual liberty, so as to assure just enough government to protects us from foreign influence and invasion.
Thus why our unalienable rights come from our Creator, a word chosen to assure no bias, so as also to assure all could live by their own moral code (to which our reply to the Muslim Extremist today is weak) yet this is one more reason why the Constitution, by its own language is directive of the government we're instituting at the time, not us.
It is worth noting that everything good these Progressives and their ilk steal and redefine for purposes of confusing, of taking away, chipping away, at all semblance of a foundation. Attacking our Chief Cornerstone Jesus Christ and the notion of Faith at all, hoping the atheism takes hold and thus, we have no unalienable rights, we've succumbed to a lesser degree of personal liberty, the very reason the French Revolution failed.
Before Amending the document of these men we truly need to know so very much more than we do about things no one even told us existed. And I hope we take the time to do that, often emergencies are created to assure we devise in our minds a reason we do not have the time.
- Permalink Reply by on
- There is no question that interpretation will always be necessary, but in attemp to understand intent, the application of the definitions of the language of the times is necessary. The progressive liberal ideology is, when you cant change the wording, change the meaning of the word to suit the purpose. I will direct you to what I beleive is a appropriate explanation of how this has been wrongly used and applied.
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/the-lies-about-genera...
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Progressive liberal ideology is to change the meaning as they see fit.
Constitutional Conservatism is where the meaning is kept to its intention and purpose, to its design when the word, term, or phrase was coined, and thereafter used.
J.J. Rousseau's "The Social Contract" had been in existence for 30 years before the Declaration of Independence, and you'll note the term "unanimous" in the title, as that is necessary, a unanimous instrument to attain the level of nexus for the formation of a Government. The Constitution qualifies this with "unanimous consent of those present because Rhode Island would not sign on, until the Bill of Rights.
These terms, in there meanings as the Declaration and Constitution are instruments of liberty, are governed by the legal requirements they must obtain in the Feudal Society that ruled the world at the time.
There is a reason the Declaration was the 3rd of those we'd done, and why we had been at this for more than 100 years before the Declaration of Independence we all know and love. There is a reason the Constitution is called what it is at the time, and every word and nuance governed by the peculiarities to a polity consisting of Monarchs, their Nobles, and the Church, to which 80% of the Nobles tended to belong to.
Without taking on the Feudal knowledge to understand this necessity in order to buy the time we needed t form a defense, is to pretend the Monarchs were happy that all their conflicting claims to land here, and the warrants issued for John Hancock's head for piracy on the High Seas, were suddenly of no force, effect, or could not obtain, due to their own feudal error: Failing to place their foot on the land.
The banners they once flew, the red in them, the blood of the Monarch, as the sheet of their afterbirth waves over the land in claim of their blood upon it, and thereafter they visit the land as soon as possible, to set foot on it to affirm it as their own, unless a relative is available to do so for them, in exchange for some office, say Governor.
These are the principles before computers, and even a paper society, with moveable type, and a brand of customs that ruled the world since the Hammurabi Code.
It is against this background the Declaration and Constitution were written to assure no backlash from the same, at least until we had some capacity to defend ourselves, and to have enough friendship and goodwill to have allies.
These words have meanings that must be kept, and are not subject to change because this regime of Feudal Custom remains intact throughout the four corners of the World, save the United States of America. The people in England, still subjects, France, same, Ireland, same. Name a nation, and you'll not find a Declaration of Independence, where the People are the Sovereign, and you'll not find another nation where the equity, that once sat under the hind quarters of a Monarch, was distributed amongst the people as equal opportunity and right due to their unalienable rights from their Creator.
Only America has this feature, and it is this feature that makes us a target of Progressivism, and most capable to defeat it, primarily by holding to the meanings of the words, the terms and phrases, as defined originally.
Recommended reading, http://hlsl5.law.harvard.edu/bracton/
You may also want to look up the Mortmain Acts of England and "writ d'Ancestor d'Mortmain," to get a better feel for the mind, and thereby meaning, of the time.
Note I agree and appreciate what you bring up in your article.
However, I do submit that your article appears to speak contrary to your premise stated in the thread here, "The progressive liberal ideology is, when you cant change the wording, change the meaning of the word to suit the purpose." I believe you well evidence they had, even making up a clause that doesn't exist hahaa
- Permalink Reply by on
- Yes, "the damage that has occured over the last 60+ years cant be allowed to continue". Most of that damage has been inflicted by criminal fraud even if it began as a void bargain.
Seehttp://teapartypatriots.ning.com/xn/detail/2978134:Comment:692417for the details of that mechanism.
The remedy to that progressive ( & neocon) criminal fraud already exists and our state governor already have both the duty and the authority to put all officers of all courts on a short constitutional leash.
- Permalink Reply by on
- ? Troy ?
Va§ 1-248. Supremacy of federal and state law.
The Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth shall be supreme. Any ordinance, resolution, bylaw, rule, regulation, or order of any governing body or any corporation, board, or number of persons shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth.
Va§ 1-200. The common law.
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly
- Permalink Reply by on
- That head federal judge is definitely not behaving well. INDICTMENT is the answer, at least if Va. What state?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Lock, Do you default to admission onhttp://teapartypatriots.ning.com/xn/detail/2978134:Comment:692417 but raise the same presumption again here?
What is your problem with what has not been, yet is what our laws require? Are you giving up so soon on the rule-of-law and our governor's sworn duty as commander-in-chief to see that the law is executed even when the judiciary is in open rebellion?
So it has not been tried - you want to shut the discussions mouth?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock, to the best of my knowledge you are already familiar with that, and the required recourse to the governor's duty as commander-in-chief to "take care that the law is executed" upon a judiciary that openly perpetrates felony as though it were a right not insurrection and armed rebellion.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Toddy Littman! The bones in that are starting to smell like barbecue! Ahem! OK. I guess I don't really need a napkin. Just trying to say it was fun reading your post and worth every bit of the mess in the process. Thanks.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you, and you're welcome :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- The author makes no mention of monetary units, I hope you have look at the link above.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The 14th is also the one they used to apply the Bill Of Rights in the States, where it was never intended to apply anywhere but to the National Government.
Also look at section 4 of the 14th Amendment and Consider all the debt we have on the basis of emergency and war, and then look at the precedent this sets, to be the first time an Amendment was telling the people what they can and cannot do by it's directive language. That alone is usurpation of the Constitution, particularly also in light of the legislatures who ratified it, people who were not even elected by the people of the states of the South. It's just terrible. Sure it technically met the process but was due to wartime activity to cause its passage. I would loathe Lincoln for it if not for Britain having forced our hand by outlawing the slave trade in 1831 and creating a turmoil based on our nation's claims to freedom at the international level.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is all well and good but if the Congress and the courts don't follow the Constitution as it stands now, what makes you think they would follow any amendments to it, regardless of how well written or intended?
You can lead a horse to water but ya can't drown 'em.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Well Jefferson thought the States should amass their armies to repel the National Government if it acts against their citizens to directly govern them or the states themselves. We saw how that didn't work out at the Civil War, but, that may be an end result, though I hope not and do not advocate that direction. Just to say, use of force is at our disposal according to Jefferson who I believe was further reinforced by Madison on this point. Do not have the citations in front of me, sorry.
- Permalink Reply by on
- But we can barbecue them.
It's feet to the fire by vote when we cannot feet to the fire by a governor's explicit duty to RECALL by INDICTMENT first.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Bill of Federalism: 10 Amendments to be Proposed to the States for Ratification
Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University sets forth a bold new proposal:
The Bill of Federalism: 10 Amendments to be Proposed to the States for Ratification.
You can read this draft document in full when it is posted within the next 24 hours at the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition website.
The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition is providing support and assistance to Professor Barnett as he reads and reviews public comments on The Bill of Federalism.
We anticipate a final version of The Bill of Federalism will be completed within 60 days.
We encourage all citizens who are interested in the future of our republic, and who which to stop our slide into socialism, to comment on this document, and to enlist their friends and neighbors in this effort.
Upon completion of the final version of The Bill of Federalism, we will encourage selected state legislators to introduce a bill to petition Congress to Convene a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of passing The Bill of Federalism, thereafter sending it to the states for ratification.
If 2/3 of the states petition Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention, Congress must convene one. Alternatively, Congress may pass The Bill of Federalism on its own, and submit it to the states for ratification.
Upon ratification of The Bill of Federalism by 3/4 of the states, after passage by either the Congress or a Constitutional Convention, it will become part of the United States Constitution.
Professor Barnett will discuss his draft of The Bill of Federalism with all 26 members of the National Leadership Team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition LIVE on Pajamas TV at 6pm EDT, 3pm PDT, this Monday, April 27.
We must take this action seriously and propose what changes we see necessary soon because this appears to be moving quickly.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Case for a Federalism Amendment
How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.
By RANDY E. BARNETT
In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of "tea party" rallies around the country, and various states are considering "sovereignty resolutions" invoking the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For example, Michigan's proposal urges "the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States."
Corbis
Suffragettes celebrate the 19th Amendment, 1920.
While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Article V provides that, "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states," Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.
Here's how: State legislatures can petition Congress for a convention to propose a specific amendment. Congress can then avert a convention by proposing this amendment to the states, before the number of petitions reaches two-thirds. It was the looming threat of state petitions calling for a convention to provide for the direct election of U.S. senators that induced a reluctant Congress to propose the 17th Amendment, which did just that.
What sort of language would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people?
One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. There is precedent for repealing an amendment. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that had empowered Congress to prohibit the sale of alcohol.
Alternatively, to restore balance between federal and state power and better protect individual liberty, the repeal of the income tax amendment could be folded into a new "Federalism Amendment" like this:
Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.
Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.
Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.
Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.
Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.
Except for its expansion of Congressional power in Section 1, this proposed amendment is entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.
Section 1 of the Federalism Amendment expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not "commerce . . . among the several states," but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or unenumerated liberty of the people must be justified.
Section 2 then allows state policy experimentation by prohibiting Congress from regulating any activity that takes place wholly within a state. States, of course, retain their police power to regulate or prohibit such activity subject to the constraints imposed on them, for example, by Article I or the 14th Amendment. And a state is free to enter into compacts with other states to coordinate regulation and enforcement, subject to approval by Congress as required by Article I.
Section 3 adopts James Madison's reading of the taxing and borrowing powers of Article I to limit federal spending to that which is incident to an enumerated power. It explicitly allows Congress to honor its outstanding financial commitments to living persons, such its promise to make Social Security payments. Section 4 eliminates the federal income tax, after five years, in favor of a national sales or excise tax.
Finally, Section 5 authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress's enumerated powers.
Could such a Federalism Amendment actually be adopted? Stranger things have happened -- including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people. And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2005).
- Permalink Reply by on
- with respect to
"the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power"( and the state court variation of that trespass)
the remedy upon judges and justices for knowingly and willingly defying of their 5USC3331oath of office:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
(or state's oath of office)
upon which consideration ALL Judges, Justices and all other officers of the court
(including ALL members of a state's bar association)
were lawfully vested with their office of profit and competence to faithfully administer the meaning of our Constitutions
as that meaning was ratified by those with the only authority to empower those words with the force of law
(the exact meaning ratified may vary by state for all adjudication on cases originating in a particular state)
. . . (with all force or threat of force outside of that being criminal insurrection)
. . . (with all vesting or appearance of vested authority outside of that oath and ratified meaning being criminal fraud)
Nuts, Time has run out and so must I. I will be back to complete the statement of 'remedy'. later today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Gross, egregious, trespasses against the bound of our Constitutions and its duly authorized law needs no further bound clarification for officers of our courts.
Many materially significant trespasses are not gross or egregious, even for officers of the court. That needs to be incrementally changed and will be as officers of the court become more bound in the duty under "Misprision of Felony" and "Misprision of Treason" to prevent by warning those felonies when they are being ignorantly considered by the lawyers' associates.
Then upon actual trespass or intended trespass lawyers are bound by statute to give proper "hue & cry" to the proper authorities, else the lawyer perpetrates felony by failing that official duty.
When you measure knowingly and willingly perpetrated
criminal trespasses against the bounds of our Constitutions and their duly authorized laws
the gray band on that bound needs to be minimized.
In that gray area it is literally impossible to establish probable cause of "knowingly and willingly perpetrated with the criminal intent" necessary for indictment
(where indictment is not merely prosecution abuse, oppression and good cause for prosecutor disbarment)
Fortunately Va Law establishes a method for removing that gray area. Va law also establishes both due process and duty to execute that due process.
The gray or in-determinant portion of the bounds of our Constitutions and its duly authorized law needs further bound clarification for officers of our courts.
In that all officers of the court (lawyers) put themselves at reasonable risk of indictment whenever they or their associates step into the gray portion of our Constitutions' bounds any such officer has a statutory interest sufficient to obtain their states equivalent of aVa8.01-184 & Va8.01-191 Declaratory Judgment to remove the lawyer's risk of perpetrating felony through the appearance of sloth and incompetence.
If any person or party has interest in the courts ruling on that contested bound of the Constitutions and their duly authorized laws they may obligate the Judge to take notice of evidence of the law's true boundary by VaFOIA record request. Should the judge then embrace a false bound of the law in ruling the judge will be evidenced as knowingly and willingly perpetrated Va18.2-481(5) statutory treason and Va18.2-111 statutory embezzlement and MUST BE INDICTED and tried by specially oathed pro temporejudge and jury.
If the legislature finds the court's discovered bound unacceptable the legislature may declare the true bound and prohibit the court from reexamining that bound. I know that is true for Congress pertaining to the bounds of federal law. I am not certain that is true for the Virginia Legislature, but I believe it is.
Regarding the evidence of a bounds certainty there are statutory rules of construction regarding the words within the four corners of a writing. Those rules are only preliminary. For every writing to be a binding contract, compact, law or constitution its four corners must be empowered by a meeting of the minds of those putting their authority into the writing. The content of that meeting of the minds (and the bounds thereto) is evidenced by:
1) the context of the meeting,
2) the applicable human laws (Va1-248) and
3) the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God"
as any provision outside that bound
A) is not enforceable short of fraud, or
B) is impossible and is merely vain words
IMHO, In all examples I have found, the above post is robustly true.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We already have term limits, we call them elections.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ike Isabella
Yes you are right we have elections however when the offices of government were established we did not have the 17th amendment, that changed everything. Ether we set term limits, or we repeal the 17th personally I would repeal the 17th. The two year term of the house member makes it easy to get rid of an undesirable member, The 6 year term of the Senate creates a different beast.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Repeal the 17th! Your term limit is in your hands at every election, why yield it to the institution we already know will operate without its limits.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Quite to the contrary Toddy
We in the State of Washington are all too aware of the tens of millions of dollars that is used to elect and reelect our Senators, Who are not at the bidding of our state but are completely controlled by public unions and what few corporations left in our state. We the people and the State representatives are unable to bring the amount of money necessary to rid ourselves of the likes of Patty Murray. 80% of the area of Washington voted against her she took only a slight majority of 4 counties which gave her the few thousand votes to give he the election. Had our State Representatives been the sole vote she would have defeated.
I am surprised that you would quibble over the repeal of the 17 amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, that's an exclamation point after 17th above.
I want it repealed and was expressing support for the idea :)
I've shared this before, and if you read it, you'd know I want the 17th repealed,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.73
And thank you Lock for noting this to James, greatly appreciate it :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Some times your explanations in my mind seam to contradict conclusions previously made by you, it may very well be that my feeble mind is not understanding everything you are saying. Sorry
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sir you do not have a feeble mind, and no apology necessary, we're just discussing something we understand is important to your nation and getting it back, and stuff happens :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan, Brad B, Toddy Littman,
Outstanding.
Thank you,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- The provision of a line-item veto as proposed by the Memphis Tea-party
As shown below clearly needs some work as has been stated a line item veto of any form provides the president with too much partisan power. A better Article would be to make any unbalanced budget illegal and not suitable to be presented to the president for approval. The only exception to this rule would be times of declared war or extreme natural disaster.8.
Provide the President with a line-item veto to balance the budget on any year in which it is unbalanced.
Article [of Amendment 8] — [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]8
Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.
Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.
Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.
Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.
- Permalink Reply by on
- They're trying, the only exception, as we evidenced during FDR and Lincoln, was emergency, and that's the term of the day from this President, the excuse of socialism well used by Hitler, "emergency."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock
I do not understand your point.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Okay Congress has delegated numerous powers to the President.
I mean listen to any Congressman and they say, "The President sets the agenda" because these delegations of power were done under a declared emergency, and, that the President controls in those situations, as FDR did after the banking emergency March 6, 1933, that still hasn't been declared over, and as Lincoln had emergency power granted to him, which were taken back, but was the Prededent FDR used to get his.
And during a state of Emergency, War the most common, Presidents ask for additional powers to address the emergency, and Congress grants them.
"War on Drugs," "War on Poverty," etc., are a means for a President to expand his powers, in short, to bypass checks and balances according to the Constitution, that would be imposed by Congress.
Executive Orders, for instance, were not around in Washington's time, even Lincoln only had proclamations, but with this emergency powers notion came Executive orders as well.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Before ya'll go any farther, you should know that Randy Barnett also works for the Cato Institute. He's one of the good guys. But, of the ten amendments listed, only one, No. 6, has gotten any real traction. The others have been pretty much discarded. No. 6 is called "The Repeal Amendment," and there is an organization promoting it. Their website iswww.therepealamendment.org, and the executive director is a young lawyer out of Miami named Marianne Moran. She is also one of the good guys. I have talked to her, and she is very active and committed to the idea. Go to their website, and register up if you wish to promote the repeal amendment. So far they have about 30,000 members.
There was an article posted on The Daily Caller a few weeks back about the amendment, and it alledgedly has the support of the Virginia Speaker of the House. I personally prefer repealing the 17th as the method of restoring state power, but I did register with the repeal organization, since it has the same goal. I am for whatever will work. I believe that the states have always had, and still have, the power to nullify federal legislation, and that the repeal amendment is unnecessary. All the states have to do is assert their authority
Many states are ready to do this. Check out the attached Georgia resolution SR 632, which mostly reaffirms Jefferson's nullification doctrine. But, at the end, states that Georgia, with any sister states that care to join her, is ready to withdraw support for the present national government, and form a new national government under the existing constitution. Makes good reading. - Attachments:
- GEORGIA SR 632.pdf, 52 KB
- Permalink Reply by on
- The "Repeal Amendment"
In The Wall Street Journal, Randy E. Barnett and William J. Howell argue that a couple of constitutional amendments changed the character of federalism:
The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to impose an income tax, allowing it to tax and spend to a degree previously unimaginable. This amendment enabled Congress to evade the constitutional limits placed on its own power by effectively bribing states. Once states are "hooked" on receiving federal funds, they can be coerced to obey federal dictates or lose the revenue.
The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of U.S. senators by the voters of each state. Under the original Constitution they were selected by state legislatures and could be expected to restrain federal power. Whatever that amendment's democratic benefits, the loss of this check on the federal government has been costly.
Their remedy:
In its next session beginning in January, the legislature of Virginia will consider proposing a constitutional "Repeal Amendment." The Repeal Amendment would give two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation. Its text is simple:
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.
The Repeal Amendment should not be confused with the power to "nullify" unconstitutional laws possessed by federal courts. Unlike nullification, a repeal power allows two-thirds of the states to reject a federal law for policy reasons that are irrelevant to constitutional concerns. In this sense, a state repeal power is more like the president's veto power.
- Permalink Reply by on
- That was the one that caught my attention but I am not sure it's necessary either, thus I repeat what I said earlier about it:
Re: 6) Can you say Ambiguous?
"Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded."
Now I see lawsuit central, and a nation torn apart by litigations and frustrations as we hand them the power by our lack of specificity, and when this whole idea is entirely unnecessary. Please note Article V:
"The Congress, [1] whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, [2]on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."--Emphasis mine.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Anyone notice this is directive language to the Congress? These hurdles are the ones the Congress must go through to Amend the Constitution, not the people. Notice that Congress isn't given power to determine "valid in all Intents and Purposes," but the act of ratification by the States makes that determination, and Congress has a rather weak, "as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress." A Constitutional Amendment takes place the moment of ratification by the States, particularly where the Amendment specifically states, "We The People the owners and exclusive to use of Sovereign Power, do hereby Amend the Constitution on equal footing to Our Founders and the Founding Generation's ratification of the germane Constitution, as our representatives on the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof They have thereunto subscribed their Names.
James Wilson, one of the 6 people who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, states this in his lectures on law:
"Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem expedient."--Emphasis mine. James Wilson, Founding Father, Lectures on Law: Volume 1 Chapter 1 page 17,http://deila.dickinson.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/ownwords&;...
This is something we haven't even begun to get our heads around yet.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Truth!
Thanks, I will sleep better. SheepDog is on guard. It is no small thing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- How does a Con-Con assure that our Constitutional form of government will be restored? If those officers of the government who NOW trample and trespass upon our Constitution's bounds in ways that are prohibited by our penal codes AND YET THEY DO SO WITH IMPUNITY and not typically brought to INDICTMENT & CONVICTION do you think a Con-Con can change that? How?
I have heard your assurances but never more than a tangential argument. You may be right. If so, I want to know how. Wanting, demanding, to know how is not being a victim of Progressive propaganda - perhaps it is the opposite.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "You simply block the doors they have been running through."
How is it that those 'blocks' will be more respected that the ones we have now. Ultimately it is a rule-of-law issue - criminals (operating under the false color of office) must be arrested, indicted, tried and convicted.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you, But I win by default which was not my desire - I would rather 'We the People' win and that includes you.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock
I find Russ sometimes difficult to understand, but I know that he is a true Patriot and one of us. I wish that we could hold officers of the court and politicians to their oath of office. Perhaps we should take them to task when they don't. We need everyone in this fight and there is always room for Russ in my fox hole.
Jim
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
to your personal attack;
made largely contrary to evidence of this discussion;
(except when the question was so full of false presumption that it was a form of verbal aggression unworthy of the reply due either polite company or worthy enemy)
I choose silence as my reply as you rail over matters that your 'yes' or 'no' cannot change.
My replies to false presumption have performed my duty to my community.
I am not your judge so silence is my best answer NOW.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russ As I understand it
The states can propose an amendment to the Constitution without a convention if it is approved by 37 states the Constitution is amended just as it was done 27 times before.
- Permalink Reply by on
- OK. Here is "Article V with the text that does not particularly apply
marked throughto simplify the statement.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or,
on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,
which,in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes,
as part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states,
or by conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
The parts that make me nervous are in bold.
Cornell Law School annotations might be useful in clarifying my doubts.
Any delay in "Constitutional Reset" by properly invoking the governors' obligation makes me very nervous. To a significan degree I think a Con-Con is little more than a distraction from the real business at hand.
- Permalink Reply by on
- the bold portion "shall call a convention for proposing amendments" also gives me heartburn with its room for progress mischief.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Its also a chance for us to make sure of less mischief. 75% of the states is a hard line to pull.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James knows how to KISS!! LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- I do
Lol Jim
- Permalink Reply by on
- I think that your comments SheepDog is how many of us feel. That is why I started this debate there are folks with the best of intent that would like to change the Constitution this needs to be debated by all of us so we in turn can ether support of refuse a Com Con but with out debate now those that read our post have little to use to form their opinions on and to enter a Constitutional Convention with out the knowledge to prevent progressives from seizing control of the convention would be disastrous.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You know, Lock, it would be easier for us to actually learn more if you linked the web address to your articles. Given the label length truncations evidenced by the '...' of 'Fou...' it appears you are making a copy and paste from another ning site. notice that the underlaying link fails to paste into ning's reply editor. That takes going back to your source link, selecting it & right mouse clicking on it to get the context menu with 'copy link address', command that. Go back to the target of your link past, select the the label to the link you are creating, then click the chain link icon on the command bar of the editor of your paste target and then past the link (ctrl-V) into the ADD-HYPERLINK dialog box. lick OK. Now when you 'Add Reply' your reply will have the link you intended.
- Permalink Reply by on
- All Pro Con Con Con'rs,
No Con Con - It is not KISS
OK it is official. I have publicly come out as a propaganda spewing Progressive.
Here is some more Progressive propaganda. KISS is revoke the 14th, 16thand 17th amendments which will reduce the government in size and powers. Then revisit individual issues to address them.
People understand simple and easy to do. The Constitution is simple and easy to read. Make this difficult and you will not win the support of the people. Do not reinvent the wheel. The tool (the Constitution) is there to correct what is wrong. Use the tool for and as it was meant to be used and it will work fine to get the job done.
Sheepdog and Russell, short, clear and to the point message and goals. Nice job! Talk to long or over peoples heads and you loose them. (ps Russell - the rest helped, do it more often) LOL
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Pody, those are the exact Amendments I have Proposed to repeal here,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.73.
I have to include the Federal Reserve Act as well, because we must make sure the States are no longer denied their right to their own Treasury--though since writing that Proposed Amendment I've come to realize the Fed could become a clearing house for the currencies of the 50 States.
Also the debt the U.S. Government may claim is still owed by the States would be void, as the reason for the repeal is due to usurpation of the Constitution by the National Government diminishing States Rights through dependency. Thus we completely wipe out the debt of all the States in an instant.
And most importantly to bringing the Federal Reserve Act within the bounds of the Constitution, or repealing it, regarding "Money" is that only a bankupt, a peasant, a slave, has no means of their own and is dependent on those who have all the gold, which in this case is the States dependent on the National Government. A clear case of usurpation.
Tell me what you think should be removed from my proposed amendment to make it easier, and I'd be glad to modify it accordingly. Who knows, it might make it to being something we, The People, of this nation can agree to at some point in time or at least some portions of.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Toddy
I think that your proposals may be a Little far reaching to drop all at once on the people. Without a lot of PR prepping. We will need millions of dollars of advertising to educate and inform the people before they will understand that their lives will be better of at the end of process then it is now. Otherwise we will just be spinning our wheels and going no place.
Have you considered having the states collect the taxes then, pay the federal government proportionally based on population, without creating their own currencies which is what will happen if we switch to a national sales tax.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Toddy Littman,
I take great pleasure in reading your post. You, any many more, have brought clearer understanding for me to better understand States rights origin and its base of power. From my learnings and understanding here; States rights is conveyed even simpler as WE THE PEOPLE rights.
The 14th, 16th, and 17th reversed have been mentioned by quite a few here at TPP discussions and elsewhere by many more before TPP. This will bring back the control to rightful owners; WE THE PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE let a piece of our Republic slip from our grasp. That being said, WE THE PEOPLE still have access to it if we want it. The question is. How bad do WE THE PEOPLE want our Republic?
Reversing 14 - 16 - 17 resolves this issue. The Federal Reserve. In my understanding it is not required. The Fed Gov is authorized a Treasury for funds, to be drawn according to the Constitution for operational purposes. The States can not coin their own money. This is reserved to the Fed Gov to coin money.
Article 1
Section 6.
... and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. ...
Article 1
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To
...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
...
the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article 1
Section 9.
...
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Article 1
Section 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills
of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;...
My point being. No Can Can... aahh wait. That was a dance. This is a different dance... NO CON CON is necessary. The Constitution is the tool to correct what our problems are. That correction is accomplished in the following.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The wheel has already been built. Just grease it and put back on the wagon. KISS
How bad do WE THE PEOPLE want our Republic?
Sumtimes, ya gota buss a nuckel, an git alittle grease on ya!
Thanks,
Pody
PS There is no Sharia Law involved with this. LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- Okay, I had this discussion with someone else, and 'Money" has a specific meaning:
Article 1, Section 8,:
"Congress shall have the power....To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
Article 1, Section 10, highlighted to recognize the alignment of proper Nouns in relation to the Article 1 Section 8, Clause:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills
of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
1) Note that "Money" references the idea of a uniform currency "Mono" one uniform currency, as a form of script, even by coin, such as we have today, as an exclusive province of the Federal Government.
2) Note that the "gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" is not mentioned in relation to "Money" and the National Government's authority.
3) That this phrase taken as a particular states in total, "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." Coin being a proper noun to designate importance in difference to the verb "coin Money" and by use as its own noun is designated different to "Money."
Some examples of early currencies
http://rrcoins.net/paper-money/obsolete-currency.html/
You'll note that the mentioned the national government regulating banking in 1861, and that's when States and municipalities stopped having their own currencies:
http://rrcoins.net/paper-money/us-large-type.html/
This happened in 1862, one year after the government started regulating banks...:
http://rrcoins.net/paper-money/fractional-currency.html/
This to me is the best example of that quote people toss around about "the people not knowing about notes, credit and currency," as quoted by one of the Founders I believe. We became capable and aware of it by 1861--funny how the Civil War comes about this same time--and having currency turns into a government issue. No one was violating the Constitution having their own currency at that time, as merchants(people) had their own as well.
You'll note that the term "exclusive authority" or "exclusive right" or anything of such an idea, is not mentioned under Article I, Section 8, nor Article 10. The exclusion is of the States from printing Money, and the Federal Government being exclusive to causing a uniform currency to exist, while No "State shall "make....any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." Something completely different from "Money."
But I think we're getting clarity on this, if we can set aside our assumptions as opposed to the language and terms, along with their meaning, as used by Our Founders, to comprehend a proper Noun, over a verb hahaha
Just consider this pody, I know it is inconsistent with many many perspectives out there, but, as one who once held those same perspectives one, this was revealed and I haven't turned back, and it's been more instrumental than ever at being able to see "it's the government stupid" and not get distracted by the variety of detracting voices that want to use mob mentality and inundation over reason, as they remain in denial their government alone would be this, even though Our Founders warned us this would happen as well.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Toddy Littman,
First and foremost I am having a splendid ole time with this discussion.
Again, the response provided moves beyond KISS.
A5 allows for the reversing of Amend 14,16,17 in effect nullifying the Fed Res.
A1S8 provides for the Fed to produce money in the form of coin and banknote and restricts the States from doing so.
Financial transactions between the Fed and States and States and States will be in Fed coin or treasury note. Aaaahhh, remember the note; it said you could trade it in for precious metal.
What happens between individuals and private banks and what they produced is a whole different animal. I can write you an IOU or extend you a line of credit. That is between you and me. It has no value anywhere other than between you and me. Can you imagine how far a State of California banknote would get you in, I don’t know, pick a State. Heck I can hang that CA note on the wall next to, I don’t know, pick a country. Let’s say one where they use a wheel barrel or the trunk of their car to carry their money around instead of a wallet.
MONEY (drum roll........ and insert Pink Floyd soundtrack here) a current median exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; ...
We choose to trade in gold and silver because it is good around the world verses wooden nickels and seaweed leaves.
Nothing personal Toddy, I cannot give you the big KISS.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Pody
I am with you there is simply not enough gold or silver to back the American Gross Domestic Product and if you consider the dollar is currently the worlds currency for nearly all international trade, it would be a zoo if each state tried to provide its own money as anything other then a novelty like the states quarters. We need a broker to trade and control the dollar for as much as I distrust the Federal Reserve I think it has its place.
Do I get a KISS
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi James,
We have given away our G&S to pay debt to the world banking. Until we can reestablish. We tariff everything coming in and trade utilizing the barter system. I know that still works.
The Fed Res has to go and we reestablish the Fed Treasury backed by tangible means instead of green # asswipe paper.
Back to the topic at hand NO CON CON. Use the tool we have.
As long as you are not reserved, you are a treasure. LOL
KISS for you.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Pody I appreciate you taking the time to read through these and appreciate this discussion too.
The key to this whole thing is in how you account for value, and this is why the situation is so important.
States, at one time, could account for things in their own value, not some arbitrary amount dictated by the National government.
Today everything we all account for is with a "$" and is considered accounted for in the national monetary unit. China and other countries uses the same sign.
The exact limit you pointed to of the California banknote is the perfect statement of the limiting effect of national power that each State's Sovereignty, in relation to the National Government, would invoke.
I'll use Walmart, and I believe they are incorporated in Delaware. This would make their paper redeemable in commodity at a bank in Delaware. This would keep them out of Arizona, unless something else took place, to which they'd have to establish themselves in Arizona with an Arizona bank. If not Walmart couldn't open one store in Arizona, for the redeemability of their paper to investors in Arizona would be worthless.
It is this lack of limits that is based on local banks and their relationship to the State, that denies the State the functional treasury it needs, versus the Municipal bond market and being dependent on the "$" unit of measure, as though all States are the same. "Population" is the only criteria for difference among the states today.
Larger, more populated States get more "$." Another form of this is those with States with a higher "population" of precious metals and minerals get more "$."
Compare this to Federalist #7, the whole idea of a National Government was to not cause disparagy between and amongst the states. The measurement being all the same, and with only some form of population as its criteria, creates that disparagy instead.
And understand I am merely pointing out that a great fuel for the left has been the "evil corporations" argument, originating from the "evil bankers" argument. The whole trouble that caused all of that was this banking regulation in currency, which we didn't have in the slightest of prior to the 1861 act.
I'd like to put an end to that leftist argument on both fronts, at both sources, and affecting the Federal Reserve act is the means to do that.
You'll note in the link I posted for that pre 1861 currency, the mention of municipalities. Government wasn't bound by the Constitution as we all assume by these terms we've cited above either. States event today issue municipal bonds.
Note the Civil War started in 1861 as well. I find often the coincidence in years tends to better explain what the war was about than many a book, particularly by today's "historians."
And, for sake of the idea, if one is storing the value of their own devices in something, they would certainly prefer it was something rare, either by commodity rarity, or, accessibility through security. Gold and silver are the former, paper the latter.
In all cases the idea of something in representation of wealth, is to have something recognized for trade that is storage for value earned via your own devices.
At no time is value for ones labor a government issue, and, as government's wealth is derived entirely from the citizenry, there is no exclusive separation.
Without us governments cease to have funds to exist, except as a private personal government, Ceasar and Monarchies come to mind.
American government treasuries remain a massing of our form of value to our labor, no matter the medium, primarily by taxation, taking our form of value from us, yet they are to regard the funds in those treasuries as continuing to belong to us.
The only separation is in State or Federal use of their treasuries and why they are separated from each other. Both are to use those funds to meet their obligations to us in their respective spheres of Constitutional authority and nothing else.
Much of our problem today is government forgetting this. Here is a perfect example in California's codes,http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.107
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Toddy Littman,
Today there are many types of coins and notes in use that are not in US$. Go to any casino, Chucky Cheese pizza parlor, amusement park,punch cards, e-coupon books, etc, etc. All of them create their own coin or note. None of the created coins or notes has value out side of where it is authorized to be used. Before I leave that establishment. I have to cash out to US$ or keep the coin or note until my next return visit to use it.
The same applies when returning from overseas. My foreign money is no good on the streets of the US. I have to exchange it to US$.
The Fed Res has the power to regulate commerce between foreign countries and the States. This is done using the Fed Treasury notes and coin.
No Con Con. Repeal 14 - 16 - 17 fixes the problem.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Everyone
BTT I know that this thread has a mind of it's own but lets try to keep on topic the best we can.
LoL
- Permalink Reply by on
- I never said they didn't have that power, and in fact, am glad they do.
For all the coins and notes you mentioned--other than currency from another nation--in the end, their books are balanced by the old "$" sign via the financial report, to determine if these were effective marketing tools or provided the proper amount of retention they were seeking as a business, depending on the establishment and type of business.
This returning back to the "$" is due to the same mechanism that gave the tally stick life: The government only accepts payment and accounting for tax purposes when it features the "$" sign and is made in that specie of currency. And the tally stick had a very long life of use, you could say it was the fiat currency of its day, insulating the Monarch's gold and silver from leaving the country, while being able to assure the people had a means of trade amongst themselves that the government, the Monarch, could use to measure productivity.
And in the other nation their books are balanced on their uniform currency, their "Money."
But you shall not find the word "exclusive" in Article I, Section 8, and you will find a delineation between the term "Money" and "Coin" as a noun, that designates a difference between them in Article 10.
I merely want the fed to have competition, and at the same time wipe out the debt of states due to the fraud. Those could both be accomplished by directly addressing the Federal Reserve Act.
I also do not believe we need a con con to do this.
And James, the purpose of this discussion is to discuss aspects of the Amendment Proposal I made mention of, and that discussion spawned from this proposal you posted here. Pody and I are still discussing the Constitution and Amendment but are sharing information that can help each other see the value of the Federal Reserve, or lack thereof, and any role(s) it may play. Pody made a blanket statement that the repeal of the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments would nullify the fed, and I am hoping to understand the angle.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock here's what I have been saying as far as no con con, this was in regard to a question of how the 14th and 16th ended up ratified and amending the Constitution:
14th was state legislatures that were beholden for reparations and put in by the North. You'll find many African American office holders in the last 30 years in the South were "the first time in over 100 years an African American has been in the State Legislature" winners, because the North pulled in people off the street to be the legislature there.
In fact, you should read the Texas Constitution and ratification of the 14th Amendment, done at the time, basically saying they ratified under threat, duress, and coercion and admitting they are not duly elected representatives. There's countless statements, though they could be pure rhetoric, regarding the illegal passage of the amendment in the Congressional Record.
And Secretary Knox was the trouble with the 16th, "deeming" the 16th ratified even before all the States had even looked at the Amendment.
At least that's what I recall off the top of my head for the stuff we found looking this stuff up.
Point being that in both cases, and I will bet all, it's been when the Congress was trying to get an Amendment passed, and could not overcome the hurdles in Article V, so they "improvised."
Anyway, I don't believe a con con is necessary due to James Wilson's comments and the wording of Article V, the part that scares you, and that I understood as being in the province of the States, and a way to show that so long as the States ratify, it's done.
When I combine James Wilson's perspective, which I've stated elsewhere in this thread, maybe twice, with the wording of Article V as directive upon the Congress, and not the people, I come to the conclusion we just need 38 States to vote on an Amendment and its done, though we may want the Amendment to be on the ballot the next election, for the people to directly ratify and vote for it, before the legislature takes on its part of the task.
If the people in 38+ States ratify, the States will have the authority of the Will of The People to ratify, and thereby they can operate as though, and treat the national government according to, the new amendment. We do not need Congress to ratify, they need the States to, is how I read Article V, and in light of all the crap done to us by them in misinterpreting the Constitution, I find a straight line reasonable grammar reading that coincides with the Federalist Papers, and the words of James Wilson, who signed both Declaration and Constitution, enough to know I've parked my position in the Constitution and intentions of Our Founders, in the republic.
Sorry, can't edit, hands hurt from typing hahah
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Everyone
BTW I know that this thread has a mind of it's own but lets try to keep on topic " of
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/the-bill-of-federalism the best we can.
The money issue is worthy of its own discussion and has much ground yet to cover.
The Con-Con discussion has failed to make substantive persuasion so far in either this discussion or others that I have seen.
That does not mean it is resolved.
But the Con-Con issue has cluttered uphttp://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/the-bill-of-federalism
so much that perhaps this discussion should be closed and the the-bill-of-federalism started as discussion separate from the Con-Con discussion.
I think either Jim or Pody could make that call.
Russell
- Permalink Reply by on
- Poddy,
I tried to explain to him that Article I section 10 labeled "powers prohibited of the states", does not allow the states to have their own currency, but he went round and round and tried everything he could and refused to admit defeat, then tried to make his rationalization mine and call me a progressive. My suggestion is move on, he is to far right on this issue.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Frederick,
Stay on track, stay focused, work within the existing Constitution.
No Con Con
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russell
I just do not to get into a debate about the Federal Reserve at this time. This is not pointing at you at all. The Method of getting a amendment into or repealed in the Constitution is on topic to this discussion IMO.
Thank you for your input and a deep discussion about the pros and cons of the Fed would be interesting.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi James,
I apologize if I went of topic regarding my post to your discussion. It was my intent to address the Con Con that is called for by Randy Barnett.
Russell posted
... so much that perhaps this discussion should be closed and the the-bill-of-federalism started as discussion separate from the Con-Con discussion. ... I think either Jim or Pody could make that call.
It is not my discussion and I have no input regarding that. It is James's sole power and authority regarding leaving it up or closing it. I will support him and his decision.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Not according to the language of the constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you for the complement :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Fretjock,
Without the name, we are not sure who's post you are responding to. It appears this is in response to Sheepdog's post regarding NWO types. If so I agree.
PS If you are agreeing with me, again I agree. LOL
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Fretjock,
Sometimes these threads get long. What happens is you will respond directly to the post. Yet your response post will drop way down, sometimes several pages. It encompasses all post in between. Thus the reasoning behind addressing a specific post response. Its all good. Agreed. LOL
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- No need for fear, if the convention gets out of control and they come up with something unacceptable then it will not be approved by the states.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jim, if all is so certainly safe, how did we get:
the hosed wording of the 14th amendment,
the unnecessary 16th,
the fraudulently incorporated into our Constitution 17th
?
And no run away Con-Con possible? Check the wording of Article V athttp://teapartypatriots.ning.com/xn/detail/2978134:Comment:693868.
How do you read that?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russ Do you think that the states would ratify a progressive agenda if it was the result of a Con Con? You may be right I have been blogging on the Politico web site and it is frightening over there.
- Permalink Reply by on
- No clue. Definitely NO CONFIDENCE. People are too comfortable with being lied to. I think there is even a top 100 top song called "Lie to Me". That comfort or tolerance appears to be eroding at an increasing rate so my personal comfort is increased by choosing to believe that the people will grow up when they must so long as they are ripe enough to be able.My thoughts are that a Con-Con now or even soon would be the equivalent of statutory rape. A time for a Con-Con may come - but it is over my horizon - perhaps I am not standing on the shoulders of giants like I should.
I am immensely grateful for the work of the 912 groups.
- Permalink Reply by on
- 14th was state legislatures that were beholden for reparations and put in by the North. You'll find many African American office holders in the last 30 years in the South were "the first time in over 100 years an African American has been in the State Legislature" winners, because the North pulled in people off the street to be the legislature there.
In fact, you should read the Texas Constitution and ratification of the 14th Amendment, done at the time, basically saying they ratified under threat, duress, and coercion and admitting they are not duly elected representatives. There's countless statements, though they could be pure rhetoric, regarding the illegal passage of the amendment in the Congressional Record.
And Secretary Knox was the trouble with the 16th, "deeming" the 16th ratified even before all the States had even looked at the Amendment.
At least that's what I recall off the top of my head for the stuff we found looking this stuff up.
Point being that in both cases, and I will bet all, it's been when the Congress was trying to get an Amendment passed, and could not overcome the hurdles in Article V, so they "improvised."
Anyway, I don't believe a con con is necessary due to James Wilson's comments and the wording of Article V, the part that scares you, and that I understood as being in the province of the States, and a way to show that so long as the States ratify, it's done.
When I combine James Wilson's perspective, which I've stated elsewhere in this thread, maybe twice, with the wording of Article V as directive upon the Congress, and not the people, I come to the conclusion we just need 38 States to vote on an Amendment and its done, though we may want the Amendment to be on the ballot the next election, for the people to directly ratify and vote for it, before the legislature takes on its part of the task.
If the people in 38+ States ratify, the States will have the authority of the Will of The People to ratify, and thereby they can operate as though, and treat the national government according to, the new amendment. We do not need Congress to ratify, they need the States to, is how I read Article V, and in light of all the crap done to us by them in misinterpreting the Constitution, I find a straight line reasonable grammar reading that coincides with the Federalist Papers, and the words of James Wilson, who signed both Declaration and Constitution, enough to know I've parked my position in the Constitution and intentions of Our Founders, in the republic.
Sorry, can't edit, hands hurt from typing hahah
- Permalink Reply by on
- We're on the same page Lock.
I think the confusion is in the effort to help others see we can do this and, if the Constitution is not a statement of our rights, but statement of powers and limits, by permission of the People and States, then, Article V has no application to us or the States. So I apologize if that's confusing things.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I'd get an earlier dictionary, the 1st Oxford Cambridge dictionary after the invention of the printing press, has been invaluable to me. They had one at one of the 8 libraries at the Southern Methodist University, and I copied it hehe 1496 or 1596 is the year it was published, I forget anymore.
- Permalink Reply by on
- To repeal the 17 for example could be real simple stated just as it is, and could be done as Toddy suggested by referendum by the people no Con Con. It just need coordination that is where we come to the picture.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock, as I said, public vote on them in each state. Then they pass through the legislature. This makes sure the governments have absolute notice of what's coming. It can be done by the legislatures alone, and at some point you'll recognize Article V had nothing to do with us, it's a directive on Congress, and the Supreme Court has no say in this. We get it done and act accordingly, and as it's such a vast amount of our State governments and people, the game is won at that level.
Should the National Government want to ignore it, so be it, they shall, until after the next election where our gains are even greater. Then the Amendment will be adopted and recognized by Congress as the Will of The People.
This is merely a step in coordinating the Progressivelydownward pressure on the socialist agenda.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sure, but the idea we need anything from Congress to amend Our Written Constitution, is, ludicrous in light of what Our Founders told us, and how this instrument is viewed as belonging to us, we seem to be the only ones ready to alienate that affection caused by Our Founders.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If a Convention is what stand in the way of advancing our cause then.
Whenever a consensus develops for amending the Constitution, we can make all needed amendments by the traditional method of a proposal by Congress and ratification by the state legislatures. No convention is needed.
- Permalink Reply by on
- After 2012 if God wills it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If the state representatives in the Con Con vote by a 75% majority to approve its the law pure and simple is the way I read that. It can be sent to the states or voted on there easy enough.
Still dont think for a nano-second that those the South and Rocky Mtn states send will be progressives. That is a huge voting block in fact since Montana would have the same vote as New York odds are we would be in control.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I dont doubt it yet the wording is a bit murky and since there has never been a convention held in the light of day, the first being an entirely secret matter, we have little to go on except that one case. If the convention of state representatives ratifies it have not the states therefore already voted? I just dont know that the further ratification is called for in black and white.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I would offer this in response:
We must be willing to by now see the flaws written into our constitution that while innocent enough at the time have over the long years twisted to various extents to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. In short it gave over too much power to a central government just as the misnamed Anti-Federalists warned.
Let us go back instead to the Declaration of Independence and rewrite the entire work of government knowing what we do now. Once the doors of a constitution convention are open this will be a possibility and such changes you offer would require exactly that. The Declaration was the high water mark of our liberty. If we are to admit the document of the constitution is highly flawed, and it certainly is, then lets not be less bold than they who founded our land.
But first we have to relearn what liberty truly can be and what it means to each and every one of us and educate an entire nation on the matter. We are not qualified as a people to even attempt this until that day. i suggest a blog that has been around a long time and I assure you will kick start brain cells long in disuse or at least it did for me:
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P5019
.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Lock Piatt,
To the point, very easy to understand, very easy to read. A very good application of KISS in action.
We have the tool (The Constitution), lets fix the problem.
Thank you,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Perhaps the matter of difference between us is the way the Constitution came into being. It was not above board and honest by any means. What they were doing violated the Articles and great pains were taken to assure the legislature that they did not intend to scrap the Articles.
Afterward a LOT of rather shady politics were performed to get passage in the initial 7 states even to the point of co-opting the name Federalists by the Nationalists so to fool those that would normally oppose the entire issue.
No I am sorry but the history of the document does not reflect perfection and the aims of a great many involved show no great love of liberty for the common man.
I know it stuck in my throat also but history must be truth not what we wish it to be.
.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock
That is wisdom to a high standard that we can only hope will be shown by the new Congress. I could not agree more although I never heard of fist fights I did hear of near duals. Ah history, it never fails to amaze me.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Albert Jay Nock, who has been claimed one of the philosophical fathers of Libertarianism, went to great lengths in explaining all of what you're discussing, however, I've found after reading he and other authors, such as Hamilton Abert Long, that Mr. Nock, who toward the end of his book Our Enemy The State, claims he is an anarchist, in the true and not demented meaning of the term as it is used today, and thus his views are placed within the boundary of his perspective of individual liberty, to the point, there is no government.
As that was not what Our Founders were trying to do, I see why he and others who've realized these things, come to their conclusions, and make their arguments in writing for the rest of us to read, yet, too, how the power remained with us as it is still, meaning, the Founders' Generation defined the principle that our individual liberty is above government and is able to destroy any and all attempts at despotism as an absolute certainty.
Instead of worrying about what happened to arrive at a Constitution, since a part of that discussion is whether we were ready or not for the feudal recognized perfection of interest in these lands, according to feudal customs, I'd rather appreciate the principle kept in tact regarding our individual liberty, which means not to discard the Founders' Generation and their work to assure that principle survived.
It is worth noting the educations of Our Founders are equivalent to a 9 Ph.d. education today, each spoke at least 4 different languages. I am not saying we would need to be so educated, but I doubt there's 9 people with Phds posting to this thread, and today the "Piled Higher and Deeper" is watered down, the value is skewed all the way around.
It is, however, within our Progressive mis-education over the last 100 years by collective bargained "teachers" and "professors" to be able to comprehend meaning enough to vote as we just did, and therefore, to be able to Amend the Constitution, even in baby steps needed to do what we wish.
Now you might want to consider that those in office are so despicable and dishonorable that they treat the Constitution as you do, meaning, your in agreement with their point of view to set it aside The Written Constitution that Belongs to the People and create a new one, more along the line of FDR's second Bill of Rights:
Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:
“ It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. [1]
"As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.[2]
"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
"Among these are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
"The right of every family to a decent home;
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
"The right to a good education.
"All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
"Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
"For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html
1-Separating out our unalienable rights, as though Jefferson had it wrong in seeing them all as unalienble,
2-The determination of the creation of a dictatorship is in if a government determins to exploit the people's necessities into a special situation requiring government give them something, such as this second Bill of Rights.
Overall, note the difference between the language of each of these rights, when compared to 1936 Soviet Constitution, Chapter X,http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10
And in 1977, Chapters 6 and 7,http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html
Then compare to our Bill of Rights,http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript...
The Truth that stuck in your throat, is a truth that didn't stick in mine, for, the final outcome is the Principle of Individual Liberty, and it is intact and stronger through the Constitution than it ever could have been under the Articles of Confederation.
Consider that it was after the Constitution 11 of the States formed their Constitutions and that no such activity was being pushed forward, nor the principles of meaning behind the instrument forming a national government being so well outlined as they are in The Federalist, as was done with the Constitution. This brought an entire people to bring to life the Principle of Individual Liberty, and the international political existence of a compound republic for the first time in the history of the world; a republic where the People are sovereign by God's gift of rights, and are the ones who are the owners of it all instead of people subject servitude to a government by instrument entirely crafted and ratified by the same government's legislature alone in democratic omnipotent majority, or living and dying at pleasure of some monarch on a throne somewhere, whose governing power is his control of all equity under the auspices of blood rights.
You may wish to throw that history away over something that stuck in your throat, I do not. And neither does Jefferson,
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
You may see the "throwing off" as meaning to set aside the Constitution and Start over, but as the Constitution wasn't even a glimmer in the eye of any of Our Founders at this time, there is a lack of direct applicability to the Constitution by these statements, and this is let alone the fact that "throw off" can mean merely to amend the form of government in such a way as to assure thwarting the means of Despotism.
Thus, I submit that a government that has worked out very well for 134 of the 234 years is not a government you discard so easily by discarding the instrument of its design, particularly when we are of knowledge the last 100 years our government has been under siege, subject to a Progressive assault by an enemy attacking our government from within and without during those last 100 years.
This attack demonstrates both the greatest weakness and strength of America, that by freedom being paramount, the guilty will be set free to assure the innocent do not serve a day they should not under laws of such an oppressive nature that no one is safe. This assures enemies to America, those who want to exploit this weakness for their own purposes will likely have the opportunity to do so, like it or not, and as the world has become smaller by advances in travel and communications, it is certain those who wish harm and even to destroy this country shall meet, plan, and implement.
Therefore it is absolutely paramount that before we do anything that could merely be opening the floodgate of opportunity and influence of our very enemies, let us see how well destroying the mechanisms of our enemy restores our nation first, without a con con called by Congress as the Amendment sought is sought by us, the owners of it all as the Posterity. This is particularly true with our people of late waking up in droves.
A quick note on the meaning of property according to Madison may assist here as well:
" “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 particularly expresses. This being the end [purpose]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 security 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 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 inalienable 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 withold 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 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 neighbor who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!" -- James Madison on the meaning of Property, more detail here http://www.psctvonline.com/fp524.php
While it is easy to come to conclusions about the past based on what we have been told by our "education," it becomes much harder once we know what was known at the time, and particularly those things that were unrebutted such as this meaning of Property as expressed by James Madison.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thoughtful and yet...
I maintain it hasn't worked as well as is thought.
Let us not forget the holes that allowed things the founders never would have dreamed possible forced conscription into military service, forced use of only approved drugs and now even food, corporate welfare, heck all welfare, blackmail of the states, invasion of the states by military forces, and a thousand other outrages all held up as constitutional due to a couple of silly statements in our constitution.
We need to close the holes but that would fail if its to be ignored anyway so thus we must insist first on complete faithful abidance to this document before we can move on as Jefferson proclaimed we well should.
One other point, nothing conceived in as much deception as the constitution can be without taint from such. The Declaration was done in full light of day and all knew what was at risk. The results show it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Many on my link are some of the most educated men and women on the net from the very beginning. They know very well the meaning of republic vs democracy and if the term is used it is used as Americans always have to describe certain facets of our land.
It is my contention that the Constitution as the highest law of the land must be in force and obeyed by the Federal government it restricts. That has noting to do with my and others assertions of its Hamiltonian intents.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Actually, according to your own words from your first post on this thread, the Hamiltonian intents are an exceptional influence of your position:
" Reply by Rhodes 1 day ago
"I would offer this in response:
"We must be willing to by now see the flaws written into our constitution that while innocent enough at the time have over the long years twisted to various extents to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. In short it gave over too much power to a central government just as the misnamed Anti-Federalists warned.
"Let us go back instead to the Declaration of Independence and rewrite the entire work of government knowing what we do now. Once the doors of a constitution convention are open this will be a possibility and such changes you offer would require exactly that. The Declaration was the high water mark of our liberty. If we are to admit the document of the constitution is highly flawed, and it certainly is, then lets not be less bold than they who founded our land."--Currently on the previous page of this thread.
And you appear to have trouble with the "rich" exactly what is that anyway? The successful in capitalism? Or the big multi-state, and multi-national corporations whose investors include the "middle class?"
Last I knew, success and becoming "health, wealthy, and wise" are healthy American ambitions.
Our President and those who support healthcare and keeping the already existing Bush Tax Cuts for only 95% of Americans have trouble with the "rich" too.
Further, how do you know they're the most educated men and women from the net from the very beginning? And I could care less what they know, if they are advocating moving away from our written Constitution.
In fact, you know you do agree with President Obama too:
- Permalink Reply by on
- I hear Obama doesn't like pain either and nor does anyone else, does that make us all like Obama? Stop playing dense ...
There is a very simple idea that you are missing. Let me simplify further:
The Constitution is the best we have at this time and if followed we would be much better off. However...
It is not the perfect document it is held up to be and opened the door for many problems. It should be redone eventually.
Why does that seem contradictory?
Just in case that's too complex let me say that current border law is not perfect as we all know but if its was adhered to we would have a much smaller problem.
Still too complex?
Ok I have a ratty old ford that I must drive to work, it will get me there but keeps needing attention to continue. A new car would do the job better but I dont have means at present to do so and thus drive the ford instead of crawl on my hands and knees over broken glass to get to work. Until I can get another car I am a BIG ford fan...
Thats as simple as it gets.
As for the rich and powerful let us not forget their other contributions to our land like those by George Soros, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, and Hurst. All nefarious all extremely rich and powerful. This should be clear. Money should not be able to buy our government so I count them as nothing special.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It seems we may have different points of view from reading the Constitution but I hear the same message, lets get government back in check NOW! before it is really is to late. My back ground is process improvement and the first step is to develop the new process with input from the users i.e. the American people; next train in the new process or in this case communicate/build support and then implement the change. So! How do we get each States to call for a Constitutional Convention? Who represents the state at said Convention? How can we organize a team from TPP to write the new Amendments/Articles etc? Lastly how do we communcate it to the public and gain support to actually made a real change ASAP.
No comments:
Post a Comment