- The General Welfare clause was intended as a restriction on the government rather than a mandate. It made clear that Federal Government could only levy taxes to pay debt, for the national defense, and provide for the general welfare. So what exactly what is the general welfare?
One thing was clear the government could not provide anything to anyone or any group for any reason that it wanted, The general welfare was to be provide for the benefit of the country as a whole not one region over another or one person over another or one ethnic group over another.
A good example of this is the interstate highway system, flood control dams, surveying and printing of maps, National Weather Service or the Federal Aviation Administration. All for these agencies and expenditures are for the good of the nation.
Congress has gotten into the mode of adding “earmarks” to bills they pass so far as I can see none to very few of these “earmarks” are for the general welfare of the nation.
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
Thomas Jefferson, They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union
- Permalink Reply by on
- A I have stated before James, I feel the General Welfare clause is not a clause at all, merely a descriptive reasoning as to what the congress may use the power to tax for, a guideline if you will.
For example, the congress may tax to enact the enumerated powers, only when it is for the common defense and or general welfare of the nation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The thing to remember, the "general welfare" refers to the welfare of the Republic, not the transfer of wealth by giving welfare payments to individuals!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Exactly!
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree but how do we undue a 45 year of unlimited use of taxes.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is simple in concept; relatively more difficult (but not impossible) in execution.
1. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (automatically end unfunded mandates);
2. A balanced Budget Amendmnet;
3. End Gerrymandering (So real people not partisan firebrands) get elected;
4. An amendment to require the Supreme Court to follow contract law when interpreting the written Constitution (just what's in the "four corners" of the document); any SC precedent to the contrary shall be overruled as they appear in future cases. An automatic and widespread abolishment of precedent would create chaos so we need to phase it in gradually--like it happened in the first place. But the SC has no constitutional power to override Congress.
Under the common law, courts routinely made new law in the interstices , the narrow spaces where the King or Parliment had not made law. A common law court could "fill in the blanks" but had no authority to overrule the King or Parliament.
Do not expect Congress--or the Supreme Court--to cooperate in limiting their own power. It will require an Article V Convention for offering amendments. There is a lot of resistance to haveing an Article V convention for fear it will become an "open convention" where everything is on the table (i.e. rewrite the entire Constitution). I believe there are enough safeguards in place to prevent that.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glenn, could you please clarify your statement,
"But the SC has no constitutional power to override Congress."?
- Permalink Reply by on
- also Glenn - if you care to give a little more discussion on that 'contract law' interpretation as opposed to common law, i'd sure be interested in learning more.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This will require a fairly long discussion so we may have to break it up into several posts.
Contract "is an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. Its essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation." -Black's Law Dictionary.
Let's see if those conditions are met:
Q. Is there an agreement between the American People and their government?
A. Yes. The people agreed to join together "to form a more perfect union" and to delegate certain powers to the central government in exchange for certain protections by the government. They set out the terms of the agreement in a written document [contract] called the Constitution.
Q. Were there competent parties?
A. Yes. The people, recently freed from their obligation to the Crown, were free (and competent) to set up any form of government they chose to take the place of the English government. The entity (government) the people created through the instrumentality of the constitution was competent to accept and carry out the mandate of the people and to enact governing laws. "All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine
Q. Is there an identifiable subject matter--and is it legal?
A. Yes. The subject matter is how this nation will be governed. What powers will be ceded to the government and what will be retained by the people.
Q. Was there legal consideration?
A. Yes. The people formed a new central government and gave it certain powers if it would promise to do certain things. The people, in turn, promised to support the new government with their taxes and to obey its lawfully enacted laws, pursuant to the agreement [Constitution].
Q. Was there mutuality of agreement?
A. Yes. The government, created and empowered by the Constitution, agreed to provide for the defense of the country and the general welfare of the Republic; the people agreed that they would create and empower a government with certain limited powers to fulfill its obligation under the contract.
Q. Was there mutuality of obligation?
A. Yes The people agreed to give up certain parts of their sovereignty and to obey the lawfully enacted laws of that government and support it with their taxes. The government, under the authority of the Constitution, agreed to provide for the common defense and provide for the general welfare of the nation.
If you read the Constitution (and not a Supreme Court interpretationof it), the entire mandate of the federal government, I submit, is contained within the one opening sentence of Section 8 of Article I,
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
There were three mandates in my opinion, (1) lay and collect taxes;
(2) pay the nation's debts (whenever and however they occurred or may occur in the future);
(3) provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. NOTE: there is nothing in there about transferring wealth among and between individual citizens!
The following 17 specific instructions (powers) in Article 8 are about how to carry out the above three general mandates.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and takes precedent over all laws passed by Congress, all treaties negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, and all obligations whatsoever created under the authority of the Constitution. [If anyone wants to know the source of my information, I will provide cites to Supreme Court cases which support my claim]. Foreign laws or treaties cannever trump the Constitution
unless a foreign power defeats us in war and imposes its law for ours.
- Permalink Reply by on
- gotta ask - within a contract law interpretation, how would the fact that all the people who agreed to that contract then are now dead effect the legal grounds today?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Larry it could be that the "PEOPLE" and the "GOVERNMENT" are corporate entities that live forever. The People are still here just different individuals and the government is still here just a different government group of individuals.
- Permalink Reply by on
The Founding States made Article V to give later generations of citizens the power to amend the Constitution when deemed necessary to do so.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The contract is still in effect and the government is still the government. It was understood and agreed at the time that "the people" who formed the contract would continue to be a living entity even as individuals within the body of the people would die and be replaced. When the contract is of no further force and effect, we all will be under no further obligation to pay any taxes to the federal government. Don't expect that to happen.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glen,
Very well stated and in my opinion a very accurate description. The only element of a contract you did not flesh out is the idea of valuable consideration. I enjoyed reading you take on the British Common law. I to have had problems with that for many years - most Law schools no teach case law precedent theory and not Constitutional based law. In all my research I have found no statue or Congressional action adopting of the Common law? Some of the States have included language using the common law and in Louisiana they are based on French law. I would like to read language or debates on how we got to case law theory; it increases legal fees by orders of magnitude so that might be the answer.
We even hear the Justices of the Supreme Court agreeing to the principle of Stare decisis (settled Law). All of this is required in England for they do not have a Constitution and they get their rights from government and the crown; Americans have and retain their individual sovereign rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The problem is not with stare decisis--it would be pretty difficult to practice law or have anything of a legal nature settled without it--the real problem is the Supreme Court's "Living Constitution." Let me share an excerpt from my book:
“Imagine a conversation something like this.
“Detective: “I just busted this guy for assault, and when I went to search him for a weapon, for my own safety, I found a bag of green leafy vegetative matter that looked and smelled like marijuana.” (Yes, policemen do talk like that—you are not permitted to call the marijuana “marijuana” because you don’t have the lab report back yet and you can’t prove it’s marijuana). “His lawyer said he would have the drug evidence thrown out of court because I didn’t have a warrant. Can he do that?”
“Prosecuting Attorney: “Well, I’m not sure. The court probably wouldn’t throw out the evidence right now, but you know, this case might not come to trial for a year or so, and I’m not sure how a judge might rule then. That’s too far ahead to make predictions.”
“Ridiculous,” the average person would assert, “the law doesn’t change that way.”
“Then consider this: the retirement or death and the subsequent appointment of a single justice to the Court can tip the balance from a five-four decision to follow precedent to a five-four vote to dishonor the received wisdom of previous generations and create new law.”
The "Living Constitution," which has no basis in the real Constitution or in legal tradition (until the modern Court created it), allows the Supreme Court to change the law or even to amend the Constitution if they have five justices on the Court who agree with each other and vote to do that.
Think of Roe v. Wade: before the case was decided a woman did not have a constitutional right to have an abortion. After the Roe decision a woman DID have a constitutional right to have an abortion. Play whatever word games with that you want--that is a de facto constitutional amendment. I take no position on whether legalizing abortion was a good idea--which ever way I come down, I would immediately lose half my audience, the country is that closely divided on the issue.
My contention is, if legalizing abortion was a good idea, Congress should have done it. The Supreme Court has no warrant in the Constitution to make that kind of decidion.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glen,
The Case Law theory and Stare decisis builds the base of law that is a usurpation of the Constitution as in the cases you described. It appears to me that British common law was required because they did "not" have a Constitution from which law flowed.
It appears to me that this use of case law precedent has allowed the courts to seize powers they are not given in the Rule - by - Law system of America. Once they make one decision it becomes the justification to use the same findings to decide the second and so on until they have established an Unconstitutional act as the law of the land without any legislative action to support it.
The courts by this method have built a house of cards and put our entire legal system at risk. All laws enacted or enforced with usurped powers are as if they never existed and are void in total. Meaning that all acts from the first usurpation are void from the first to the last. All court decisions would then be set aside and we would be a crisis mode until the Constitution could be satisfied. If this line of thinking is correct then the nation needs to start taking the Judicial structure apart over time; replacing it with a Constitutional trial system of common man each case should stand or fall on it's own merit and the decision of the Jury.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "The only element of a contract you did not flesh out is the idea of valuable consideration."
Liberty and the right of self determination are valuable properties endowed by God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
In contract law a promise to do something is consideration sufficient to cement the contract. For example,
1st person: "I want you to paint my house."
2d person: "I'll paint your house for $300.00.
1st person: "O.K., I will pay you $300.00 when you finish the job."
The promise to pay $300.00 upon completion of the job is valuable consideration and will seal an enforceable contract.
In the case of the U.S. Constitution, we agreed to delegate certain powers to the U.S. Government (give up certain liberties) in exchange for the U.S. government providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare of the country; that alone [giving up certain valuable freedoms] I believe that would be valuable consideration and sufficient to form the contract; but we went a step farther. We promised to support that government in perpetuity with our tax money. The promise of financial support forever certainly, without question, was valuable consideration.
Remember, the offer to empower the government to govern, and the acceptance by the government to take on that responsibility, and the mutual promises exchanged, formed the contract. When the agreements were reduced to writing, the Constitution became evidence of the contract which came into existence when the promises were made and accepted.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "But the SC has no constitutional power to override Congress."?
The operative word in that declaration is "constitutional."
To answer your question we must first define "constitutional." I don't deny the Supreme Court has the de facto ¹ power to override Congress. But that doesn't end the inquiry.
What is the Constitution?
(1) is it the venerated document under glass in the National Archives?
(2) is it the transcription of that document athttp://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html?
(3) is it the 550 bound volumes and subsquent decisions of the United States Supreme Court? or,
(4) is it the "Living Constitution" that the Court changes anytime it has five justices in agreement about what the Constitution should say?
The answer to that question is critical to answering your question. The original Constitution does not contain any hint that the Supreme Court can override an Act of Congress. Quite the contrary.
At common law, courts could rule in the interstices, in the narrow spaces between laws which do not precisely cover the facts of the case sub judice. Any court-made law was binding unless, or until, the King or Parliament made a new law which was in conflict with it.
The legislative power always prevailed over judge-made law. James Madison expected the same rule to hold true in America,
"[I]t is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election² and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit." ³
The Constitutional Convention had before it as an example the New York Constitution which defined a role for the judiciary in the lawmaking process. The founders considered having the federal judiciary review the law for constitutionality before the law of Congress became final; however, they rejected that model because a sufficient number of states objected; the drafters believed the Constitution could not be ratified if it granted that much power to the unelected judiciary.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of the United States unilaterally and without authority seized the power of "judicial review" (Deciding whether an Act of Congress was "constitutional") in Marbury v. Madison. (1803) some 16 years after the ratification of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote the opinion in Marbury, came very close to being impeached because of that and other decisions that appeared to be politically motivated, ruling against the newly elected Jeffersonians. While under threat of impeachment, Marshall agreed judicial review was not necessary under our system of government; however, once the threat of impeachment passed, Marshall withdrew his offer to abandon judicial review.
A more troubling aspect of the case, Marshall had a blatant conflict of interest and should have recused himself from that case.
Marshall was John Adams' Secretary of State. It was he, on orders from Adams, who tried but failed to deliver Marbury's commission as a magistrate. Oh, I forgot to mention one little thing: while still Secretary of State, Marshall was also named as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. (He continued to carry out the duties of both roles for the remaining months of Adams' term).
Newly elected President Thomas Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison not to deliver the commission to Marbury. The latter sued.
When the case came before the Court, Marshall had to rule on his own actions, (and the withholding by others of the Marbury's commission) while he [John Marshall] was both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I can't imagine a more egregious conflict of interest than being in a position to decide your own case.
So, how legitimate is the Supreme Court's power to overturn an Act of Congress? The answer will depend almost entirely on whether your own political philosophy leans more toward the liberals or the conservatives.
And who said "law is dull"?
__________________
¹ De Facto is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. . . .Thus an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title.—Black’s Law Dictionary
² That's why we need to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
³ Federalist # 51
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glenn
All of limits imposed on congress is already part of the Constitution and congress has no respect for that now why would you think that adding amendments and repealing amendments would change anything? Before the 17th was passed states were already electing Senators. We have a law on the books now that was supposed to balance the budget by 1985 but it has been ignored by congress. If a constitutional convention is called, the overwhelming majority of the delegates from many, if not most, states would likely be big-government supporters. This should be abundantly apparent when one considers the core of the constitutional problem: The same people who elect members of Congress also elect the state legislators. These same people would also elect the delegates to an Article V constitutional convention. To the extent that these people have so little understanding about the need for a limited government under the Constitution as to elect a majority to Congress who refuse to stand by their oaths to uphold the Constitution, they would also tend to elect like-minded delegates to a constitutional convention. If and when we can get enough like minded representatives in place 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. But I would think it would be better to support the Constitution that we have, educate the people, and and use force of law, and the ballot box, to restrain congress..
- Permalink Reply by on
- All of limits imposed on congress is already part of the Constitution
You are correct but I believe it would be useful to let Congress know we expect them to follow the Constitution or we will escalate the sanctions. Certainly some of the other suggestions I made will have a direct effect on Congress--the Balanced Budge Amendment; defining more narrowly what the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause means. Right now they are nebulous with no definable limits.
"We have a law on the books now that was supposed to balance the budget by 1985 "
True, but it was a law passed by Congress. Congress can always find ways to circumvent their own laws. It takes realtively more effort to circumvent the Constitution--although if we don't pay attention (as has been the case for most of the Twentieth Century) they can circumvent the Constitution too. In the end, if the people don't pay attention, the federal government will do whatever it wants. But I really believe it doesn't have to be that way.
"If a constitutional convention is called, the overwhelming majority of the delegates from many, if not most, states would likely be big-government supporters"
You could be right but I personally disagree. One thing we can be sure of. If we (the Tea Party people) don't take action, it is unlikely anyone else will. And if we don't challenge the federal government it will keep doing what it is doing. I have several friends in the WV State Legislature, many of them democrats. I once was elected to the Jackson County Democrat Executive Committee, I have gotten a very favorable hearing whenever I talk about my crusade to rein in the federal government. The legislators are fed up with unfunded federal mandates and the state democrat parties are measurably different from the bunch in Washington. I think they would be willing to listen to our pitch, and with the recent midterms, I think democrats and republicans alike are starting to pay attention to the Tea Party, although not so much the "old bulls" in either party. I think it is worth giving a shot.
"The same people who elect members of Congress also elect the state legislators. These same people would also elect the delegates to an Article V constitutional convention."
Again, you are right on the mark. I don't disagree with anything you say but I do have a different "interpretation." (Comes from hanging around the Supreme Court too long :)
If you look at the number of people who are eligible to vote but who don't bother to register, then you look at all the people who register but don't bother to vote, I did the math once--Obama was elected by only 25% of the potential eligible voters. The cadre of leaders in a small rural country often is fewer than a dozen people who attend the "rubber-chicken dinners" and actively campaign for candidates--and meet with one another to determine who the candidates will be.
"But I would think it would be better to support the Constitution that we have, educate the people, and and use force of law, and the ballot box, to restrain congress."
Again, I acknowledge the merit in what you say; however, if you look at the rate of reelection for incumbents, I am not optimistic about that approach. I have written a book and I have been travelling around promoting it, talking to people, and trying to gauge the Zeitgeist of the country. I don't think the large mass of Americans are interested in being educated. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.
Samuel Adams said, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
I want to become an intellectual arsonist.
- Permalink Reply by on
- P.S. I do support the Constitution. I just wish the officials in the federal government did.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glenn
I know that you do, and it also is my wish, but wishing it so, will not get it done. I hope we can set those "brush fires" and not be distracted by those that would try to direct the focus away from our congress who is the villain no one and nothing else can compare to their treason.
Since the Founders provided for two means of amending the Constitution, one can infer that they were placed there for different purposes and eventualities. The traditional method of proposing one amendment at a time suggests that this option would be used more commonly, for incremental changes that may be needed to adapt to new circumstances that the Founders did not anticipate.
The constitutional convention, by contrast, is really a drastic remedy to start all over again, to re-boot the machine. It is reasonable to assume that this method was placed in the Constitution in the eventuality that everything had become so bad that nothing but a new group of founders ie Patriots could get things back on track.
I do not think that we are that far gone that the first method would not suffice to plug the holes that the progressives have drilled in the hull of our Constitution in hopes it would sink.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Again, I don't think our disagreement is about a desired outcome, we just disagree on how to get there. I believe the convention method was put in there by the founders as a by-pass mechanism if the Congress becomes corrupt and unresponsive to the voters. I submit we are there.
Look at Obamacare, amnesty, border security, accommodation to the muslim faith--and now gradually more and more acceptance of Sharia Law (which is fundamentally incompatible with the freedoms in the United States Constitution), political correctness, all to the detriment of the majority of Americans.
Congress is not listening to the American people--not even after the bloodbath of the mid-term elections. I got an email from the TPP who set up an orientation for incoming Congressional freshmen in Washington, DC; and the Claremont Institute and a bunch of lobbiest set up a competing orientation the same day at the same time. The Tea Party complained that "they" are trying to indoctrinate "our" freshmen--and of course that is exactly what they are trying to do.
It will take draconian action to beak the cycle.
I'm still working on becoming an intellectual arsonist.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mr. Frederick L Neff
Mr. James Daniel Russell
Mr. Glenn Neal
Gentleman. All I can say is WOW!
I do applaud your posts here. I am great full of your experience and knowledge and applied common sense. Amazing.
I regret not seeing this discussion posted back on August 14. Reading through all of the post puts words to my thoughts and my feelings of disappointment in our Fed Government and in us the People for letting it happen.
As far as chusing which way to amend the Constitution. I will support that process through the State Legislature convention. Reasoning for this is simple. I have a closer working rapport with my local representatives at my State Capitol. Than I could ever dream of having with my Federal representatives at the US Capitol. I only need to look at the track record of the States Reps vs Fed Reps to make my decision.
I do not imply disparagement to folks not mentioned by name. Great posts by everyone overall.
Thank you,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- James,
How we wish that the current or even the next Congress would give serious consideration to restoring the original Constituiton and it' fill limits on governess. Unfortunately, this is not even close to the facts on the ground. The Shedegg Enumerated Powers Act has been submitted in the House and Senate for at least four separate Congresses and has garnered some 35 co-sponsors in the House and maybe 15 or 20 in the Senate. That is along ways from 290 members in the house and 67 in the Senate - it is now clear that the politicians are just that politicians and not patriots so this way forward is blocked.
Congress has no apatite for limiting their current unlimited power over the States and the people without a Con Con by the States. Congress will not put forward any corrective amendments unless they are forced into the action. As we have discussed many times there is little or no danger of a run away convention because after the convention 38 separate legislatures must vote to ratify - Just starting this process might stampede enough members to do the right thing and use the article V congressional proposed method.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "P.S. I do support the Constitution. I just wish the officials in the federal government did."
which is the primary basis for my curiosity in the contract interpretation. I believe the scope can be shrank initially but is also reliant on the acceptance of the Constitution being a contract - and should be interpreted as a contract. I believe everything in the constitution is to be held binding, at minimum by the people's perception. Where I like Glenn's idea of having a method of reversing the incremental unconstitutional precedents built upon - I think the most feasible initial step to stop the momentum of those increasing precedents is to hold the oaths that are within the Constitution binding - enforced with undesirable consequences. Like the rest of the Constitution, the oaths were meant as an important ingredient in the recipe - to be honored.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your point is well taken, but my concern all along is how do we enforce it? My idea was to give enforcement power to the State Legislatures.
We should say unequivalently the Supreme Court has no power to override a law passed by Congress. Then we need an enforcement power that (1) would have an interest in containing unconstitutional action by the Congress, (2) who would have the power and prestige to hold the federal government to account, while themselves being accountable to the people.
I believe the only entity presently in existence is the State Legislatures acting in concert with each other. I suggest an amendment, like the one proposed in Congress each year by Congressman Shadegg, to require Congress to cite with specificity the part of the Constitution from which it gets its enumerated power to enact that particular law. Any law which contains a proper cite would be constitutional per se and the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to overrule.
As a fail safe mechanism, the State Legislarures could be empowered by a majority (or super majority) vote to nullify any law of Congress which does not meet the criteria of specifying the part of the Constituion where it gets its power. In other words, if Congress misidentifies or deliverately misstates the words of the Constitution, the States could say, "Not so fast!"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glenn, Larry,
I think there is another consideration that needs to be made. That consideration is the intellectual status of the nations people and the individuals who work in these contractual positions. What I mean by this is the thought process, even if Article V is enacted and amendments are made, or some other form of restraint is attempted, the thought process of most legislative people today is "how do we get around this or that". I know both of you have heard me say before, that anything that is done needs to be achieved with a sense of caution and responsibility. Do any of our elected representatives, local, state, or federal have that sense? I would say no. We send representatives to office with the idea that legislating means making new laws, how many times have we heard a incumbent run on a platform of "I proposed x# of new laws in my time in office". The sense of caution and responsibility I speak of is not "can this or that be done right" but rather a question of if x, y, and z, can be done, should it be done? Are there enough people in this country with that mindset, with that wisdom, to do what is right, not just what is possible. In viewing the last 100 years of political and legislative debauchery, as well as the lack of wisdom of the citizenry that has allowed it to happen, I dont think that sense of caution and responsibility exist yet.
Just another side of the multifaceted coin of how do we enforce the existing rules of the contract, let alone make new ones.
- Permalink Reply by on
- frederick
no doubt about your overall point. It's almost as if we need to have the equivalent of the monkey trial - are we exceptional in our Constitution representing static Natural Law absolutes, or not? Today, so few know the name John Locke is not just a tv character who got stuck on an island.. hmmm-maybe there's our tool to get some focus of attention?? --
anyway, you said;
the thought process of most legislative people today is "how do we get around this or that".
this brings up something I've noticed often. This discussion serves as evidence. We're talking about our Constitution being held binding but there are many important factors that are within the Declaration of Independence. I think your above point is one in that the purpose of government is defined as to protect the freedoms and liberties of the people.. effectively saying that the mindset of trying scheme those liberties away from the people is not allowable.
another of course being where our unalienable rights come from
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glen,
Is not the 10th amendment the power for the States to enforce the Constitution? If enough States start nullification actions the Federal government will be forced to relent or lose the support of the PEOPLE. We are getting a glimpse into this concept with the healthcare issue as it is up to 20 States now.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "but is also reliant on the acceptance of the Constitution being a contract - and should be interpreted as a contract."
I personally believe that the Constitution is self-evidently a contract. It has all the elements of a contract; it is binding on the parties, there are mutual duties and obligations, there were mutual promises made during the formation of the K. While most people may not think of the Constitution as a contract--or at least if they do they don't talk about--I don't see how anyone who actually thinks about it and examines what is involved could deny it is a contract.
But whether anyone agrees with my contract theory or not, we are behaving as if it is a contract: the government provides for the common defense and general welfare of the country; we fulfill our recripocal obligation by obeying the laws and paying taxes.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glen,
I like and respect your observation that the Constitution is a contract: I will paraphrase a Franklin statement when asked what kind of government did he give us? "His answer was we gave you a Republic if you can keep it?".
As for the oath part, I have proposed a simple solution but it would take a very brave Nationally licensed legal group like a conservative ACLU to sue each politician for breach of promise in the court sighting specifics of their violations. The next legal option would be a national discrimination suit against all members of congress that have voted to enact a "progressive income tax rate law" as it lets the majority "TAKE" from the protected minority which has mountains of precedent cases and clearly it is a action against a real minority the rich.
In discussing these options most Lawyers have told me that they would never get it into court and could be blocked by the standing issue? So, again the courts are working hand in hand with those that break the Laws of the land.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glenn what you are requesting does not need a constitutional amendment what is required is a law that automatically demands that ANY act of congress that is found unconstitutional requires that the signers of that act be immediately dismissed from their seat of office, and they will not be eligible to hold office or any other government job, or position, nor will they be allowed to lobby the government, for any purpose through the remainder of their life. To enforce this law any Attorney General from any state can call for a hearing where all the AG's from all the states will convene and determine the if the bill is Constitutional or not.
KISS
- Permalink Reply by on
- James,
And I thought my remedy was draconian! Actually I like your idea better but I don't know how you would ever get Congress to enact such a law; even were it possible to get such a law passed, how (and/or who) would enforce it. The States can't do it. The Supreme Court ruled in Term Limits v, Thornton, (1995) the qualifications and tenure of Congresspersons was a matter of federal law under the U.S. Constitution and the States cannot impose limits more strict than the U.S. Constitution and laws.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This would be an act of impeachment on those responsible for the unconstitutional act which for legal purposes would be an act of treason.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "This would be an act of impeachment . . ."
I don't think impeachment would be a viable solution. Remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton? The House passed a bill of impeachment [indictment]; the case was tried by the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acting as moderator.
You have politicians sitting in judgment of other politicians. You can be sure Congress is not going to remove or punish fellow members who have committed virtually the same acts each legislator may be guilty of; the behavior complained of most likely would be different only in degree, not in substance.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock Piatt said, "Is not the 10th amendment the power for the States to enforce the Constitution? If enough States start nullification actions . . . "
I think you have identified the problem with nullification, with your statement, "If enough States start nullification actions . . ." I am encouraged that the Attorneys General of more than 20 States have joned in a suit to overturn Obamacare.
South Carolina once tried to nullify a federal law pushed by Andrew Jackson, but since it was only a single state, President Jackson, who didn't pay much attention to the Constitution anyway, simply "nullified" the nullification. I'm not sure what the critical mass is; but it is clear from history that a single state--and probably even a small group of states--cannot now nullify a law of Congress.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James,
How will we get the members to pass such a law when they will not pass the Shedegg enumerated powers act calling for them to just site Constitutional authority allowing any action the Congress proposes? They will not just render up their unlimited power as they possess today with the permission of a corrupt SCOTUS - the Justices know they have usurped powers but are afraid to admit same as it would unravel 100 years of court decisions. Remember the laws passed using usurped power are as if they never existed and are null and void from the first date of the usurpation to the current day.
In essence it would destroy the entire case law precedent system and end the use of the British Common Law. WE can not even get Congress to do tort reform much less force the SCOTUS to act lawfully in accordance to the Constitution.
As for educating the public to the nuances of the Constitution and the works of the Founders and the philosophers like Locke, it is just not going to happen ever in our lives. So, educating the public is not away forward in my estimation. That being said: we can point out to the public that the Congress and the courts are not honoring the Constitutional limits and that is why we get treats to the second amendment arms rights, progressive income taxes without limits, taking of your home for some developer and city to make more money, and many other kitchen table topics. This will raise the anger level and cause the body politics to shake with fear of reprisal - the SCOTUS will feel the same anger when the people find out that the court has been permitting the Congress to do all these things to the people without finding the acts Unconstitutional. This is along and expensive national program that will need a political constant of super intellect to get her done.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock
This will raise the anger level and cause the body politics to shake with fear of reprisal - the SCOTUS will feel the same anger when the people find out that the court has been permitting the Congress to do all these things to the people without finding the acts Unconstitutional. This is along and expensive national program that will need a political constant of super intellect to get her done.
Precisely the hammer to use for the job. My only reservation is where to find the "super intellect" to get her done.
- Permalink Reply by on
- They are out there in the advertising world or the PR world but how do we select and fund that person is more challenging?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I used the word impeachment in the context of Impeachment of elected officers. Any elected officer or officer appointed to a vacancy in any elected office may be impeached for malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance or maladministration in office.
In this case it will be the AG that brings forth the charge out of their hearings.
As to who would vote for such a law? I would think that after a blitz of indictments (education) our representatives would be afraid not to vote for this law.
I must do some work now be back in a few hours
Jim
- Permalink Reply by on
- James,
I believe that a similar law is already on the books - any elected official guilty of those or any other felony level offense can be removed from office. However, I can only remember one case of a sitting Judge being impeached and that would be Alcee Hastings of Florida, he is now a member of Congress. Ha ha ha
- Permalink Reply by on
- No teeth in that law.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lots of teeth, just no jaw muscles to give them bite, or courage to even nibble on the edges of justice.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Group,
Something I learned early on and still practice to this day.
IMO do not go after USSC or Congress for usurps.
When something is wrong. Address it. Do not retro with reprisal for errors made. Correct it. Move forward as a TEAM with the changes to make corrections.
Address individual cases of non compliance from that day forward. Use a standard PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) - KISS
Forgiveness is what Lincoln directed when the War was done.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- I dont diagree Lock, and although you are correct about the amount of time necessary for proper education to be effectual, I dont beleive it is something we can afford not to do. Most people today havent even read the constitution, let alone understand it, even though it was written to be understood by the common man. If we are to point out to the public that the courts and congress are not honouring the Constitution, the public must understand why and how this is being done, that logicly is where the education must begin. Keep in mind that it has been 100+ years of progressive ideology permeating the minds of the people from a young age, that has led to the misunderstanding of the Constitution and the place of government in our society. Education is not the immediate solution for today's problems, but is essential for preventing the same probelms tomorrow.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick,
I would agree education is of utmost importance. Keep in mind that "THE FEDERALIST PAPERS" were written to "SELL" the constitution to the public at large. The public back then could not read and comprehend the document that many of us consider simple and straight forward - We have a very large task ahead and not very long to get it completed which is why I support the Con Con method as I believe it to be the shortest time to completion.
- Permalink Reply by on
- No question about the impotance of the task at hand, and although I do agree a Con Con may be our best choice to stall this path our country is on, I at the same time question the competance of and responsibility of those who may be involved. As I said above, we need people who ask not only if something can be done, but if something should be done.
- Permalink Reply by on
- " . . .although I do agree a Con Con may be our best choice . . ."
Frederick,
I fully support this and your other post (re: the 17th) but there is one small thing I wish you and others would do: let's lose the expression "con-con."
"Con-con" is an abbreviation for Constitutional Convention--which an Article V convention is not. People get spooked by the idea of a Constitutional Convention If you explain the convention for offering amendments has no more power to trash the Constitution than does the U.S. Congress, people may not be as fearful. In either case, any amendments proposed by Congress or by an Article V convention will still need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States. The demagogues who oppose any reforms we suggest can (and have) seize[d] on the expression "con-con" to scare the hell out of people who believe the convention would trash the Constitution and write a new one.
I realize "con-con" is a convenient shorthand but it has the potential to do great harm to any chance of getting a convention for proposing amendments called together.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hear, hear.
I ate egg and crow on another discussion because of the confusion.
Either the State Legislature is holding a convention to propose amendments or Congress is proposing amendments to ....
Anything but Con Con.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- I personally use "Article V Convention" but that is too long and not very "catchy;' I would welcome a shorter, more difinative "shorthand," but I haven't had the imagination to come up with one.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nothing fancy or catchy up front. Call it what it is.
WE THE PEOPLE & WE THE STATES
Amendment 28
A State Legislature Convention to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution to rescind Amendment 17
WE THE PEOPLE & WE THE STATES
Amendment 29
A State Legislature Convention to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget
IMO
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Is it not better to educate the citizens so we can use Federalist type Papers to sell the ideas to the public at large and to the required 38 State legislatures. A convention is the same in Article V as in any other convention mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The purpose of any convention of any type is to amend or "CHANGE" the Constitution.
My adverse response is that those that disagree will invent other new names to defeat the ideas of amendments.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glen,
here is the Article V which clearly shows that 2/3 of the states can call a "CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION". So I do not follow your:
"Con-con" is an abbreviation for Constitutional Convention--which an Article V convention is not. People get spooked by the idea of a Constitutional Convention If you explain the convention for offering amendments has no more power to trash the Constitution than does the U.S. Congress, people may not be as fearful. In either case, any amendments proposed by Congress or by an Article V convention will still need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States. The demagogues who oppose any reforms we suggest can (and have) seize[d] on the expression "con-con" to scare the hell out of people who believe the convention would trash the Constitution and write a new one."
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
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.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Locke,
"Con-con" is an abbreviation for Constitutional Convention--which an Article V convention is not. People get spooked by the idea of a Constitutional Convention
See if this helps. You are trying to sell copies of the movie Of Gods and Generals in a black neighbor hood. You chuse to waive the Rebel Battle Flag to get their attention. How many sells do you think you will make?
Con Con term is not a winner. I cannot count the times I have seen people post here and argue against it. It is perceived as a total rewrite of the Constitution by means other than what is established. Similar to the FF vs King - Southern States vs Northern States. Go that route and you are finished before you start.
IMO
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- If you look closely at the language you posted, ". . . 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, . . ."
It is a common misconception, and I suspect most people read it the way you do. That's why it is vital that we use the proper terminology. It is not a Constitutional Covention--Con-cons write constitutions. An Article V convention can only propose "Amendments which . . . shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution.
Amendments proposed by an Article V Convention would require ratification by 3/4ths of the States, the same as if the Amendments had been proposed by Congress. No different.
I think it's important we have a clear idea what we are striving for so we can plant the correct information in the head of the people we are trying to convince.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If there is a difference where is the So called Constitutional Convention permitted or defined? I will defer to the Goldwater Institute and their opinion below:
Goldwater Institute Daily
November 4, 2010
Debunking myth of the ‘runaway’ convention
by Nick Dranias
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives a supermajority of state legislatures the power to call a convention to restrain an overreaching federal government through targeted constitutional amendments. There is no reason to worry about a “runaway” convention because three-fourths of the states—38 states—would have to ratify whatever amendment might be proposed. Moreover, nothing in the nation’s history justifies fear of a “runaway” convention.
It is a myth that the U.S. Constitution was born of a “runaway” convention. The truth is the Convention of 1787 had an incredibly broad mandate from Congress—to establish “in these states a firm national government . . . [and] render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.” In proposing the Constitution to amend the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 convention stayed well within the congressional call, as well as within the commissions of most delegates.
Although the Articles required unanimous ratification for alterations to it, and the Constitution only required ratification by nine states, the Constitution was only binding on those states that ratified it. While not every state in the Confederation initially ratified the Constitution, all of them ultimately did. In the end, the Constitution displaced the Articles of Confederation on the very terms prescribed by the Articles.
Today, the Goldwater Institute will release a new study that shows the states and Congress understood for decades after ratification that Article V provided an orderly way to make additional changes to the Constitution that would enhance its basic protection of freedom. If states choose to exercise their ultimate authority over the federal government through the Article V amendment process, history shows a “runway” convention just won’t happen.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders’ Plan
Yale Law School: Report of Proceedings in Congress, February 21, 1787
Restoringfreedom.org: A powerful idea whose time has come
- Permalink Reply by on
- Pody,
You are faster on the draw than I am so your rebuttal got there first. I want to be clear, I was responding to Lock, not to you.
- Permalink Reply by on
- No Problem Neal, I am onboard with you.
Locke,
Reply by Lock Piatt 9 minutes ago
If there is a difference where is the So called Constitutional Convention permitted or defined? I will defer to the Goldwater Institute and their opinion below:...
In that whole presentation I did not see the term Con Con. The nearly last sentence states;
Goldwater Institute: Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders’ Plan
IMO The Goldwater Institute has it by stating - Amending the Constitution by Convention. They do not state a Constitutional Convention to Amendmend. Get onboard with the folks you are referencing. LOL
Thanks,Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- "If there is a difference where is the So called Constitutional Convention permitted or defined?"
Lock,
I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse.
I read through your post from the Goldwater Institute. I found:
(1) "a convention to restrain an overreaching . . ."
(2) In proposing the Constitution to amend the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 convention stayed well within the congressional call
(3) I found the words "'runaway' convention" four times.
What I did not find were the words, "Constitutional Convention,"
AND THAT IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE. It is not, and cannot be, a "Constitutional Convention!" There is no authority anywhere in the Constitution to call a Constitutional Convention.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick,
The revolution/take back/get control or whatever term is placed upon this action is happening as we speak. The TPP is the tip of the iceberg being followed and supported by the mass itself. The mass is continuing to grow everyday.
Take me for example. I did minor to moderate research on candidates and diligently voted at each election. I grumbled and moaned about how I continued to be dissatisfied. The last time I went to register my vehicle plates I became angry. That vehicle registration was my Boston Tea Party. I have risen up off of the proverbial couch and become far more active than ever.
The results of the 2010 elections show the process is starting to work. People are tired, pissed and they want better from themselves and from their representation.
James Daniel Russell wrote
... My only reservation is where to find the "super intellect" to get her done.
When the States call for a convention to propose amendments. The State legislature appoints or brings in to the convention the "super intellect" that is needed. They work hand in hand and with the State Legislature at the conventions. I would not necessarily leave it to the State Legislature membership themselves.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- agree Pody, while at the same time avoiding sending more academic elitists in.. super intellect without a 'Harvard' bias
- Permalink Reply by on
- Larry,
you know that super intellect and Harvard graduates are mutually exclusive.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Pody: your post, " . . .legislature appoints or brings in to the convention the 'super intellect' that is needed."
I'm not convinced we need super intellects. Certainly Jefferson was one, I think James Madison had a good mind, but many of the founders were generally well-educated but otherwise ordinary people--merchants, doctors, military men, lawyers, planters, small farmers, etc.
It takes only someone who is not stupid and who is willing to pay attention.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sorry about using the short hand Glenn, I will try to do better :), And I think I agree with you about the "super-intellect", it has been the super-intellect with no common sense that has created much of the mess we have today, ie 2,000+ pages of health care legislation. I live and work in a town with two "prestigious" universities and have seen the "super-intellect" up close and personal, and can tell you from experience they manufacture many of the dumbest smart people I have ever seen. I dont beleive a man who has never swung a hammer or used a shovel can make competent decisions in regards to protecting the fruits of ones labor and the freedoms that go along with it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick,
Very true. Earn a few blisters to understand to how you use the tool properly.
Russell, I did not mean to imply or interpret your super intellect as super educated only need apply. If this is from the ground up with the voice of the People behind it. That is who needs be at the table.
My initial inclination is to accept applications, perform Criminal Background Checks, personal references checked, etc. Other than CBI eliminations; there are a handful on this thread that would qualify IMO.
My first question is this. Has the States ever held a convention to propose amendments? If so who sat? What was the qualifiers then?
When the Congress proposed an amendment. Same questions as above.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- pody,
This Article V method has never been used all amendments were done with Congress presenting to the States for ratification to my knowledge.
As for the Super intellect, maybe we could find a most appropriate definition. How about honest civilians and patriots that have succeeded in the private sector and possess the skills and knowledge to address the real world in a fair and open manner. The Founders envisioned a Congress made up from older successful business leaders that would serve for a short period as a way to give something back to the nation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Has the States ever held a convention to propose amendments?"
We came close once. In the early 20th Century, there was a strong grass roots move to call a convention, promoted by the Progressives, to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators.
Congress, fearing a convention and what it might do, sent out an proposed amendment (the 17th) to preempt calling a convention. The amendment, providing for the direct election of Senators was ratified in 1913.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Locke,
The honest citizen and patriot sounds very good. I would think some knowledge of the Constitution would be appropriate.
The State Legislature has never proposed a convention to amend. Maybe we will see history made in our life time."Let's Roll"
Thanks, Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- " . . . perform Criminal Background Checks, personal references checked, etc."
What? You expect the people who are delegates to the Convention to be more honest than the people who rule over us now?
[Just kidding ;)]
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glenn,
It was not my post. This I copied from James's post. Please see my resonse to Frederick below.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- "This is a long and expensive national program that will need a political constant of super intellect to get her done."
I personally don't think we have time for a long and expensive national program. Obama has us on the road to Socialism/Communism;¹ the Muslim and Sharia Law (which on its face is incompatible with the U.S. constitutional freedoms), is being integrated into our culture and political correctness won't let anyone talk about it. The country is on the verge of bankruptcy (the Chinese just downgraded our bond status from AA to A+); I feel a sense of urgency to get something moving now.
I have stated elsewhere in this string, "I want to be an intellectual arsonist!"
The reference is to American patriot Samuel Adams' “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.” I believe a small cadre of dedicated people can change history within a relatively short time (two years or less--witness the Tea Party), it requires only a good cause and someone to spark the popular imagination.
__________________
¹ Karl Marks said socialism is not an end state of government; it is a transition state that will be temporary because it is impossible to get directly from democracy to communism.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glen,
then let us be the nucleus of the Restore the Constitution bomb. I have been all over the my Texas Senators and Congressman so that is a start and I have other friends across the country that are on their elected officials. WE need this but I really am beginning to be convinced that we must take the fight to the State Legislatures one State at a time one member at a time until we have secured the necessary 38 States.
I am active in I caucus and they are small but are working district by district. I can give info to any that desire. The Goldwater Institute might also help and I am in contact with them and their Lawyers. Like the man on the Pennsylvania 9/11 plane said: "LETS ROLL"
- Permalink Reply by on
- What IMO we need is a end-round play take for example the 17th amendment we discovered that the amendment is unconstitutional because the amendment changed the very structure of the federal government. Article five last paragraph no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of itsequal suffrage in the Senate. without 100% confirmation from all the states the 17th amendment should have never been allowed to pass. Using this as our Ace we can get the state of Utah which was the only state to refuse the amendment and the other eight or so states who did not sign it, to challenge the legality of the amendment to the Supreme Court. this would solve a lot of our problems and if we fail it could be used to bring to light all the laws that have been passed that are constitutionally questionable.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James,
I have not looked into the problems with the 17th or the 14th which both have some issues. However if I recall the courts have refused to visit the problem and put it off to the Congress???
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, Glen, Frederick and others this might help us move the issue forward: this is proof that the people understand the problems with the courts:
Judges Get Their Comeuppance
by Phyllis Schlafly November 12, 2010
Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly
The most important decision the voters made on November 2 may turn out to be Iowa sending out to pasture three state supreme court judges who had voted to make same-sex marriage constitutional, overriding the wishes of the people in Iowa and their elected representatives. The reverberations are cascading nationwide, and we hope this landmark election signals the beginning of the end of rule by arrogant supremacist judges.
During the last several decades, many judges have decided they are supreme over the other branches of government. They are backed up by a chorus of lawyers, law school professors, and leftwing activists who say we must accept judicial pronouncements as the law of the land.
The Founding Fathers designed the judiciary to be the weakest of the three branches of government. But supremacist judges over the last half century have expanded the judiciary into the most powerful branch of government, making policy decisions on the most vital and controversial issues of the day (such as the supremacist federal judge who presumed to overrule the massive vote of Californians on the issue of same-sex marriage).
Iowa is a good example: the Iowa state legislature had defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But the state supreme court decided to overrule the legislature and make Iowa the first state in the Midwest to put same-sex marriage on a par with husband-wife marriage.
When the three Iowa judges received only 45 percent approval on November 2nd, the law school professors were indignant. From far-away California, the Irvine law school dean cried, "Something like this really does chill other judges."
Ads are provided by Google and are not
selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
Bob Vander Plaats, who led the campaign to defeat the three judges, rejoiced about the chill, saying, "I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people." Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford admitted, "Kicking out those three justices would be a warning shot across the judiciary's bow."
Some states elect their state judges in a general election in which candidates run against each other. Iowa is one of the states that, instead, use what is called the Missouri plan.
Under this procedure, the governor appoints state judges from a very small list of nominees chosen by the state bar association and then, after a term of years, the judge goes on the ballot, without any opponent, where the people can simply vote Yes to retain him in office or No to bounce him out.
If the judge gets a majority (sometimes a super-majority is required) of Yes votes, he wins "retention" and serves another term. If not, he is history.
Since states began adopting the Missouri plan in the 1960s, nearly all judges win retention, and very, very seldom is any judge rejected. Not a single Iowa judge has lost his perch on the bench since Iowa adopted the Missouri plan in 1962.
Almost the only judge who lost retention that the public remembers was California's supreme court Judge Rose Bird and a couple of her associate judges who were cast out in 1986.
The powers that be in Iowa tried to tell Iowa voters that they had an obligation to vote Yes on the three judges in order to maintain an independent judiciary. But what kind of an un-American election is that when you are told by important people you should vote Yes but not No?
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who for several years has been trucking around the country to support judicial supremacy, injected herself into the Iowa campaign by trying to make it unacceptable to vote No on any judge. She also joined the political campaign in Nevada where ballot Question 1 on November 2nd would have replaced the current voters' election of judges with the Missouri plan.
Robo-calls from O'Connor to Nevada voters were mistakenly activated to ring in voters' homes at one o'clock in the morning. That inconvenient, unwanted phone call was unlikely to win votes, and Nevada sensibly rejected Question 1 by 58 to 42 percent.
Oklahoma also allowed its citizens to make important decisions on November 2nd. A ballot referendum passed by 75 percent to require that official state actions be in the English language, a second ballot referendum passed by 70 percent to forbid courts from using or considering international law or sharia law, and a third referendum passed by 74 percent to require that each person present a document to prove his identity in order to vote.
We hope judicial supremacists don't try to overrule the vote of the people in Oklahoma. Fortunately, the judges can't do anything about the firing of the three Iowa judges; they are gone.
Further reading:
* Iowa For Freedom
* Judges
- Permalink Reply by on
- YES BUT when its the SCOUS that is doing it then what do you do?
Think of Roe v. Wade: before the case was decided a woman did not have a constitutional right to have an abortion. After the Roe decision a woman DID have a constitutional right to have an abortion. Play whatever word games with that you want--that is a de facto constitutional amendment. I take no position on whether legalizing abortion was a good idea--which ever way I come down, I would immediately lose half my audience, the country is that closely divided on the issue.
My contention is, if legalizing abortion was a good idea, Congress should have done it. The Supreme Court has no warrant in the Constitution to make that kind of decision.
PS I hope no one minds I copied this from some place but it makes my case that our government is out of control from one end to the other.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The USSC wrongly used its "magic glasses" to find abortion rights in the "wild card" 9A, then using 14A to apply this so-called non-enumerated constitutional right to the states.
In fact, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of 14A, had clearly indicated that that amendment applied only enumerated rights to the states.
So in order for the USSC to have applied so-called abortion rights to the states, the states would have had to ratify an amendment to the Constitution which protected abortion rights prior to deciding Roe v. Wade, IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Yes I recall but it is germane here as well.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James,
What America needs at every level of judicial branches:
The judge goes on the ballot, without any opponent, where the people can simply vote Yes to retain him in office or No to bounce him out.
KISS again.
Thanks, Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- i know i voted with a different strategy towards judges this time around.. under a seperate conceptual priority than the legislative branch votes
- Permalink Reply by on
- James,
I would not trust the USSC or Congress to fix any thing. Even if it is flagrantly obvious it is wrong. I do not trust them.
We have to fix it through our State Legislatures. I like the Utah and eight other States approach. That is a good place to start. Starting in New York would be suicide. GO UTAH.
The conservative States and build from there.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are very correct Pody, I live in NY, it is the liberal "Bat Cave", NY can't be counted on for anything responsible.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Pody
That was just one strategy that might be deployable but it needs some refining and a lot of PR. We need to think of many different ways to get our federal government back to a Limited role. Doing away with ear-marks, replacing the income tax and making our state governments strong with out federal aid are all things to work toward.
Jim
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have read the entire Constitution and most of the Works of the Founders - Framers and Ratifiers and I can find zero AUTHORITY for the Federal Government to own land INSIDE STATES except for military and postal roads . . spend some time in this great research library it is free and membership necessary, no cookies, no tracking and no ads just good solid information.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history.html
- Permalink Reply by on
- The U.S. Government can own land within a state but it must be approved by that States legislature and paid for. However, when Teddy Rossevelt formed the U.S. Forest Service in 1906 he said they would take "ownership" of all forest and grasslands.....did not pay for it either.....semper fi
- Permalink Reply by on
- That would be a Statutory law of Executive order neither of which can over come the hurdle of Constitutional limitations . . that would require an Amendment and they did not do that.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Absolutly in agreement....and congress can not make a blanket law to cover such expenditures because they do not have the Constitutional authority to do such....so every singel department with the possible exeption of Dept of Defense, Agriculture, Interior, Dept of State and Justice (and only portions of thier authority) are unConstitutional. Semper fi fivers....
p.s. I don't think the states would ever give up their "ownership" of lands wilingly or freely, that is until the 14th and 17th came along.....repeal is necessary....
No comments:
Post a Comment