- Permalink Reply by on
- good site for research on wealth
Who Owns the World
The hidden facts behind landownershipLogin | | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)Largest Landowner
“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acresLargest five personal landowners on Earh Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres
- Permalink Reply by on
- Article V is just coming into the public debate. We all need to lend our voice to it every chance and opportunity we can find. Article V is the PROCESS. Using it we need to promote the best proposal for the states to consider. After years of quiet talk and development, we believe we have come to the perfect proposal for it, for all the reasons we document, we built the site for the project. It is there for the states to take and use...all the work has been done for them.
We are not selling anything, asking for money, or in this for personal gain. Our site, project and proposal are for WE THE PEOPLE, we just need for the people to find us and take it to their states...that is the needed ingredient. How best to do this is why we work so hard to engage, your help in this, and your ideas are welcome.
At the state level is where we have influence and local and state government is where the better government that we can effect and trust resides. We have 30 state governors...looking to the coming elections...although I will say, for myself, I am also very tired of hanging hopes on the election solution, we must also work our best efforts within those frameworks and systems.
But for lasting and effective change,we must return to Constitutional governance and restore the proper check and balance, or we will always be at the mercy of those who govern for power and self interest rather than in the name and in the behalf of those who elect them...how may elections have we been given the choice between the least and the worst?
Popularity is a frivolous and effective tool. Look at the ridiculous 'tweets' and 'you-tubes' that capture the public's attention? Somehow we must harness that public interest toward something substantial, I am ever amazed that our very lives, Liberties, and pursuit of happiness in freedom cannot become the most popular notion! Perhaps our president with his pen and his phone will drive that condition...? The People Living in the States MUST recognize, we are the ONLY check left against the 'progressives', and this president that leads them.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We need all of our friends, TP groups and all sites - to post the Article V Project to Restore Liberty link every and I mean everywhere we go. All can tailor a section like the basis library, 28th amendment, Article V history, History of Political parties, or the http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.htmlMake it easy to read on our library - ask them to study the issues ask them to help save the Republic, ask them to help stop the over spending and burying our next five generations in the current politicians efforts to stay in power and ignore the future.We must all post the link every time we can . . use it as your Email signature line.Check out how they stole our income . . and profits . .See how easy it is to share the knowledge?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- We are asking all friends and Tea Party groups along with the Political party offices in the many counties to make sure each and every member of their State Legislators gets many copies of this B & W brochure via email and person delivery at all public and private meetings . . hand to hand. Next is the Take action plan which is being started in many locations.If we can get just 5,000 people in each State we could force the Legislatures into Article V 28th amendment support - it gives the State Legislators MORE POWER and God knows they love power.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ladies and Gentlemen,It appears that many would like short simple solutions to the complex issues of 235 years of USURPATION. Well, it took a long time before most would even admit that they had lost rights and Liberties. Some found they lost their land and water, some lost the ability to use their land - even to farm.Then we found we had no power over our own school boards. We found that we were required to supply ALL PEOPLE with a basic standard of living even if they refuse to work . . yes we were required to feed, house, clothe, educate their children, provide free medical care, dental care, vision - even after school care with three meals a day.We the people watched this all happen and did nothing . . then found that Congress and the Courts have flooded us with laws that limit our ability to even seek relief in the Courts. EPA, Species act, Department of fish and game, US wildlife Department can all fine us on a daily basis for ALLEGED offenses. Many times we can not even seek a day in Court as if they go forward without even issuing a written order. [See Sackett V EPA SC case].All must dedicate themselves to read, study, learn, about our history, Constitution, States rights and powers. All must also read and understand their State Constitution - be prepared as many are very very long. There is no short cut to Liberty and Freedom - just as the FF&R found when it took them 12 years after they agreed on principle - they had to fight out every single word - now we have allowed the three branches to just change the words and meanings as they desire. We the people can not take the Legislative acts to Court - we must then use the State Legislatures to make a Article V Amendment to Restore the Balance of power between States and the Federal governments.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The “Convention of States” Scam, the War over the Constitution, and how the States Sold the Reserved Powers to the Feds.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- That is why WE THAT KNOW THAT WE MUST SHARE KNOWLEDGE WITH THOSE THAT DO NOT KNOW.The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers wrote a Constitution that they knew not 1 in 100 would have a single idea what they were saying and Limiting - They did not give up it took 12 years but those few hundred men created a binding document and then taught the masses how and what it did for them as individuals.It took 85 Federalist papers and many anti Federalist papers to convince all 13 State legislature to Ratify the Constitution. The fight is worthy and the need for teachers is greater . . thus so many of the Article V Project to Liberate have spent so much time providing the base to acquire knowledge.We have all known from day one that few would study at first but as time went on and the situation more dire the many would start sharing and studying with friends and families . . we even have States legislatures using the site to evaluate their Article V pending legislation. Michigan has a Article V vote coming up and they are now looking at our 28th amendment proposal.It is happening no matter how negative the dooms dayers are we will continue to grow and become a force for the political class to recognize [AKA fear]. They will start talking [they are today] about Article V and we know that from contacts from the Senate and the House - they are watching - they see the movement growing. Fear is a great motivator.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Dual federalism
Dual federalism is a political arrangement in which power is divided between national and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the national government.
Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which national and state governments collaborate on policy. Dual and cooperative federalism are also known as 'layer-cake' and 'marble cake' federalism, respectively, due to the distinct layers of layer cake and the more muddled appearance of marble cake.
- Permalink Reply by on
The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis
Michael B. Rappaport
University of San Diego School of Law
April 6, 2012
Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 81, p. 53, 2012
San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 12-084
Abstract:This article revisits the classic question of whether the Constitution allows limited conventions. The Constitution provides two methods for proposing constitutional amendments: the congressional proposal method and the convention method. Under the convention method, when two thirds of the state legislatures apply for a convention, the Congress is required to call for a “Convention for proposing Amendments.” An issue much debated over the years has been whether the state legislatures can apply for a limited convention – either a convention limited to proposing an amendment on a specific subject or, even more restrictively, a convention limited to deciding whether to propose a specifically worded amendment. A long line of leading constitutional scholars, such as Bruce Ackerman, Alexander Bickel, Charles Black, Walter Dellinger, Gerald Gunther, and Michael Paulsen, have argued that the Constitution does not authorize limited conventions.
In this article, I argue that the Constitution’s original meaning allows for both types of limited conventions. In making this argument, I supply the first rigorous account of how the original meaning of the constitutional text permits such limited conventions. In particular, I show, based on evidence from contemporary dictionaries, from other parts of the Constitution, from conventions existing at the time, and from other evidence of word usage, that the original meaning of the Constitution’s phrase a “Convention for proposing Amendments” includes both limited and unlimited conventions. I also show that the Constitution’s authorization of state legislatures to apply for a “Convention for proposing Amendments” allows them to apply for limited conventions. Finally, the article critiques the leading theories arguing for the contrary view, focusing on the work of Charles Black and Walter Dellinger.Number of Pages in PDF File: 57Keywords: constitutional convention, constitutional amendment, originalismAccepted Paper Series
- Permalink Reply by on
- What does the Constitution LIMIT? What people are Limited by the Constitution?Now read the 10th amendment again.If you research the FACTS the Philadelphia Convention did not highjack the Articles of Confederation you will find that is just not factual. The members were charged by the State Legislatures to do what ever was necessary to make the States more responsible for war debts and financing the DEFENSE of all States from Attacks that they saw coming as they as individual States were weak and defenseless.If they did not do as the many Legislatures desired then why did the many legislatures RATIFY the Original Constitution.?Col, please provide some links to what you are posting as it appear that I have seen these mistakes before?I try to provide links and support for arguments and as above piece shows - I am not afraid of conflicting arguments.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Recently a prominent originalist scholar, Professor Michael Rappaport (well known to the readers of this blog), has concluded that Article V permits a convention for proposing amendments to be limited by either subject or the wording of a particular amendment. See Michael B. Rappaport, The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis, 81 Const. Comm. 53, 56 (2012) (“The Constitution allows the state legislatures to apply not merely for a convention limited to a specific subject matter [but allows them] to draft a specially worded amendment and then to apply for a convention limited to deciding only whether to propose that amendment.”).
Although the issue is not free from doubt, I agree with Rappaport that the state legislatures have the power to limit an Article V convention to a single amendment. This is so for five reasons:
1. Constitutional Text. Although some commentators suggest that the term “Convention for proposing Amendments” in Article V implies that the convention must at least have discretion over the specific wording of an amendment, nothing in the constitutional language itself supports that conclusion. The “proposing” of an amendment occurs when it is formally offered for adoption. See Rappaport, 81 Const. Comm. at 65 (“The proposing convention has the formal power to offer an amendment for adoption by the ratifiers.”). The ordinary meaning of the word does not imply that the amendment was originated or drafted by those doing the “proposing.”
Similarly, the word “convention” does not imply discretion beyond holding an up-or-down vote on whether to propose a specific amendment. Indeed, Article V provides for state ratifying conventions, which are limited to holding an up-or-down vote on whether to accept a specific amendment. Thus, “a convention can be limited as to whether or not to propose a specific amendment and still be a convention.” Id. at 70.
This point is bolstered by looking at the state resolutions leading up to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Many of these resolutions explicitly referred to the Convention’s function of “devising” (e.g., New Jersey), or “devising and discussing” (e.g., Virginia and New Hampshire), or “devising, deliberating on and discussing” (e.g., Pennsylvania and Delaware), alterations and provisions related to the federal constitution. If the Framers had wanted to specify that the Article V convention would be drafting or originating the amendments it proposed, they could have easily incorporated such terms.Support for the repeal of Prohibition was overwhelming.During 1933, laws were passed in 43 of the then-existing 48 states providing for action on the proposed repeal amendment. The five states not passing such laws were Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and North Dakota.In the same year conventions were held in 38 states and all but one (South Carolina) ratified the Amendment. North Carolina residents voted for convention delegates but against holding a convention.
- Permalink Reply by
- Now what it does not do is to limit the States to approval of Congress - that line of thinking would contradict the words and works of the Founders in many places like Federalist 43 - the intended purpose was Article V was to be a METHOD TO CORRECT be in something changed by time and circumstances or it being cause by Federal government and Congressional overreach.You have no language about Conventions - because there is no definition but in the webster's 1828 dictionary - a Convention is defined as meeting of two or more to conduct business.2. Equality of the Federal and State Governments in Proposing Amendments. A key precept of Article V, reflected in constitutional structure, drafting history and contemporaneous statements of the Framers, is that Congress and the state legislatures are to have an equal ability to originate constitutional amendments. Thus, two-thirds of each house of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures is required to initiate the amendment process. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 43, Article V “equally enables the general and the state governments, to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side or the other.”
Natelson argues persuasively that this equality principle strongly supports the authority of the state legislatures to specify the subject matter on which the Article V convention will deliberate. See Robert G. Natelson, Proposing Constitutional Amendments by Convention: Rules Governing ..., 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 693, 726-27 (2011) (Federalist representations of equality suggest that in construing Article V, preference should be given to interpretations that raise the states toward the congressional level and treat the convention as their joint assembly. This, in turn, suggests that if Congress may specify a subject when it proposes amendments, the states may do do as well,”); see also Rappaport, 81 Const. Comm. at 90 (“[T]he limited convention view will further the constitutional purpose of permitting the convention method to be an effective alternative to the congressional proposal method.”).
This argument applies at least as forcefully to a single amendment convention. Congress, after all, drafts the actual wording of a proposed amendment; it does not merely identify the subject matter. Thus, if the state legislatures are to be treated equally to Congress, they must have the power to draft a specific amendment, just as Congress does. It is difficult to explain why the equality principle requires that the state legislatures be able to limit the convention to a particular subject, but not to a particular amendment.
3. Constitutional Purpose. As Natelson explains, the state-initiated method of amendment was created specifically in contemplation of amendments needed to limit the power of and/or curb abuses by Congress and the federal government. The Framers believed the state legislatures were best able to decide when such amendments were needed. Thus, in Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton said that “[w]e may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”
Both common sense and the record of the framing and ratification periods indicate that the Framers expected the state legislatures to act in response to some particular congressional abuse or to obtain a particular desired amendment. See, e.g., William W. Van Alstyne, The Limited Constitutional Convention- The Recurring Answer, 1979 Duke L. J. 985, 990 (1979) (Article V convention most likely will be called to address “particular usurpations” by Congress) (emphasis in original), Thus, Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 85 that “every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. . . . And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place.” As Natelson observes, Hamilton’s reference to nine states “represented the two thirds then necessary to force a convention” (while 10 were needed to ratify). Natelson, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. at 727. This in turn indicates that two thirds of the states could initiate the amendment process when they were already “united in the desire of a particular amendment.”
If the applying states have already decided that they desire a particular amendment (including, perhaps, the exact wording of the amendment), there are significant costs to allowing the convention to propose other amendments. This rule would impose an “uncertainty tax” on the state initiation of amendments and make it less likely that state legislatures will apply for a convention in the first place. Rappaport, 81 Const. Comm. at 89. It also may make it less likely that the convention, if called, will be able to reach consensus on the desired amendment. Id. at 90. In either case it would tend to undercut Hamilton’s assurance that the amendment “must infallibly take place.”
By contrast, what purpose is served if the convention, called at the behest of state legislatures “united in the desire of a particular amendment,” is free to propose a different amendment? See Michael Stern, Reopening the Constitutional Road to Reform: Toward a Safeguarded A...Convention, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. 765, 774 (2011) (“Scholars who believe that an Article V Convention must be unlimited have struggled to explain the constitutional purposes that would be advanced by this interpretation.”). Hypotheses have been offered to the effect that the Article V convention would serve as a check on the state legislatures, but these claims make little sense (the convention can provide a check by refusing to propose the desired amendment and does not need the power to propose an alternative). In any event, they have no foundation in the actual purposes of Article V discussed during the Philadelphia Convention and the ratification period. See Rappaport, 81 Const. Comm. at 90-91; Stern, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. at 775-78.
Once it is accepted that the state legislatures have the power to limit an Article V convention, “[n]o constitutional principle appears to support distinguishing a convention limited to a single subject from one limited to a single amendment.” Stern, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. at 785. There may be reasons of pragmatism or efficiency that militate against seeking a convention limited to a single amendment, but these are questions that state legislators themselves, not courts or constitutional scholars, are in the best position to evaluate. There is little reason, either in 1787 or today, to constitutionalize the answers to these questions.
4. Contemporaneous Statements. We have already discussed statements by Madison and Hamilton which support the limited convention view. Other contemporaneous statements, compiled by Natelson, provide additional support for a limited convention, including one limited to a single amendment.
For example, Natelson cites 1788 letter by George Washington, in which he explained that “a constitutional door is open for such amendments as shall be thought necessary by nine States.” Natelson, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. at 727 & n.230 (quoting Letter of Apr. 25, 1788 from George Washington to John Armstrong). Again the implication is that the applying states would identify the amendments they thought necessary, not merely a subject matter or a problem to be solved, prior to the convention.
Even more strikingly, the Federalist writer Tench Coxe wrote in 1788:
If two thirds of those legislatures require it, Congress must call a general convention, even though they dislike the proposed amendments, and if three fourths of the state legislatures or conventions approve such proposed amendments, they become an actual and binding part of the constitution, without any possible interference of Congress.
Natelson, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. at 727 & n.232 (quoting A Pennsylvanian to the New York Convention, PA Gazette, June 11, 1788)).
As Natelson notes, Coxe’s statement “reveals an assumption that states would make application explicitly to promote particular amendments,” which would be known (and possibly disliked) by Congress before the Article V convention. Natelson, 78 Tenn. L. Rev. at 728. He cites several others, including Patrick Henry, who shared the same assumption and spoke as if “the states rather than the convention would do the proposing.” Id. at 730.
One might argue that these statements were imprecise and that the Founders only anticipated that the state legislatures would identify the substance, rather than the exact wording, of a desired amendment. But even if that is so, this evidence shows that the Founders did not assume the Article V convention would necessarily be originating or devising the amendments it proposed. All of these statements are therefore consistent with the view that the state legislatures may prescribe the wording of a particular amendment in the applications and confine the deliberations of the convention to whether to propose that amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment