Thursday, May 15, 2014

Goldwater page 198

 Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 27, 2014 at 11:53am
Delete
If you highlight it like you are going to copy it will be readable. Try it otherwise we must get Irma to change it.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 25, 2014 at 4:02pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 27, 2014 at 10:08am
Delete
I too am from the VietNam period 1965 so you can not play the vet card on me. Yes we have issues and disagree on what is really happening today - 
Let me ask you - what Constitution are you speaking towards - clearly not be followed by the monied interest in the Federal government. Congress and the Courts have rewritten the Constitution to meet their needs for power without a single amendment. So, what you are saying is that you trust the Congress and the Courts to continue to amend as desired without  LIMITS because they have a majority of the votes.
Yes, what we have is a PURE DEMOCRACY without most of the limits of the original Constitution. Now to use your analogy about the gun to the head - you are worrying about a pistol and the government is shooting us with machine guns and TAX BOMBS. 
They have killed our freedoms to open a business or practice our skills without getting a very expensive series of permits, approvals and licenses. They have taken our liberties and freedom of property and choice as the people stood by saying we just need to elect others to make changes and set us free - can anyone present a single nation that has gone this far down the road to a PURE DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST/FASCIST government and restored the freedom and liberties? I know of none and I have read the classics and history from the Greeks forward.
The bullets are being fired and they are only killing our economy and our rights to earn a living keeping our money.
If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.
Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.
Thomas Jefferson
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 27, 2014 at 10:54am
Delete

In Defense of the Elastic Clause of the Constitution

February 27, 2014 by J. Christian Adams 11 Comments

American-ConstitutionReprinted from PJ Media.
If college students listened to Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh, they would receive a better American history education than they are getting from their professors. I recently spoke at Emory University, where one student defended all of President Obama’s unconstitutional actions by invoking the Elastic Clause of the Constitution.
Citing the Elastic Clause could indeed justify a wide range of administration actions, except for one problem – it doesn’t exist.
But you couldn’t tell that to the student at Emory University who came to my speech last week on Obama’s abuses of power. He persisted in defending the actions through the Elastic Clause, as if the be-all, end-all provision was common knowledge.
From the sound of it, the Elastic Clause must be common knowledge in faculty lounges.
The Elastic Clause, he persisted, gives the president the power to address a wide range of issues through executive prerogative. It allowed the government, he said, to adapt to new circumstances unlike the age when the Founders wrote the Constitution.
Of course the Founders did include an “elastic clause” of sorts, namely Article V, which gives the people and the states the power to amend the Constitution.
But he wasn’t speaking of something quite so stiff and formal. He wasn’t referring to something that required broad assent. He was referring the Elastic Clause that allows the president to swiftly respond to needs as they arise – sort of like Mussolini and Mugabe did.
He was serious. He really believed the Elastic Clause was real. But the constitutional literacy of a different student was even worse. With a straight face, she defended the exercise of executive power and the issuance of executive orders as constitutional because of the inaction of Congress.
“It’s part of the Constitution that if the Congress doesn’t act, then the president can issue executive orders to fix something,” was her argument.
Even more frightening, the person saying this is an officer of the campus Democrats. A little totalitarian in training.
Naturally, this was all quite an eye opener. I’m no fool when it comes to the institutional left and their corrosion of the system. But to have a student debate me over a verifiably fictional constitutional provision, to have a student presume I was the one making things up when I said the Elastic Clause didn’t exist – that blazed new territory.
All of this illustrates the dangerous rot occurring on campus, facilitated in large part by the faculty. All signs point to their success. Students are learning the lexicon of the institutional left and producing tragic-comedy like complaining about equality at UCLA, and worse. My appearance at Emory was sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the College Republicans. Recognize that groups like these are fighting an uphill battle on campus. But without them, college campuses would be intellectually monolithic.
The talk at Emory wandered into the small discrete psychological components of tyranny as described brilliantly in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. No doubt Mr. Elastic Clause and College Democrat Vice President Edict had never heard of the Nobel Prize winning description of where elastic ideas can lead.
Solzhenitsyn’s great book of the 20th century describes the small ideas of totalitarianism, and the camouflaged embryonic consent that individuals give to tyranny over time. Tyranny isn’t just about gruel with potato peelings day after day and bullets to the back of the head.
I presume Mr. Elastic Clause and Ms. College Democrat Officer will never read Gulag, but if they did, they would learn the story of Georgi Osorgin. Osorgin was imprisoned in the Solovetsky Islands in the early 1920s. The date was important because American leftists (such as some Democrats of the 1960s) like to pin the mass murder system only on Stalin. But Solzhenitsyn documents that the gulags were a necessary part of Lenin’s vision of the International Brotherhood. Without terror, his system would not work.
Osorgin was to be shot, but he begged his jailers for a few more days because his wife was coming to visit him at the gulag. Osorgin’s wife visited him, then as her boat pulled away from Solovetsky Island, keeping his part of the bargain, he undressed to be shot. Niceties were part of the gulag in the early days because nobody really knew where the fledgling system was headed.
Solzhenitsyn:
But still, someone did give them those three days. The three Osorgin days, like other cases, show how far the Solovetsky regime was from having donned the armor of asystem. The impression is left that the air of Solovki strangely mingled extreme cruelty with an almost benign incomprehension of where all this was leading, which Solovetsky characteristics were becoming the embryo of the great Archipelago and which were destined to dry up and wither on the bud. After all, the Solovetsky Islands people did not yet, generally speaking, firmly believe that the ovens of the Arctic Auschwitz had been lit right there and that its crematory furnaces had been thrown open to all who were ever brought there. (But, after all, that is exactly how it was!)
People there were also misled by the fact that all their prison terms were exceedingly short: it was rare that anyone had a ten-year term, and even five was not found very often, and most of them were three, just three. And this whole cat-and-mouse trick of the law was still not understood: to pin down and let go, and pin down again and let go again. . . .
Here too, on the first islands of the Archipelago, was felt the instability of those checkered years of the middle twenties, when things were but poorly understood in the country as a whole. Was everything already prohibited? Or, on the contrary, were things only now beginning to be allowed? Age-old Russia still believed so strongly in rapturous phrases! And there were only a few prophets of gloom who had already figured things out and who knew when and how all this would be smashed into smithereens.
I explained to the students that a written Constitution, free from the phony Elastic Clause and power for a president to issue edicts, is what keeps them free. It is what lets them have fun and have a good life. Structural constraints on the power of government allow people to experience joy, worship God, build dreams and fulfill potential. Our Constitution does not have an Elastic Clause for a very good reason. It was established to be inelastic absent the consent of three quarters of states. It was established to lay down fundamental ironclad restraints on the power of government, especially the executive branch.
Some are trying to redefine freedom away from this ideal and toward freedom from want.
That it is becoming fashionable to reject our particularly American version of freedom deserves an overpowering response.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 28, 2014 at 10:11am
Delete
Seth maybe they suffer from the disease you want to support . . they forgot about the Limits of the Constitution on their spending so they have serious memory and retention of things like the OATH of office . . uphold and defend the Constitution - say what?
Question: What Is Cognitive Dissonance?
People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief? The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.
This project will change DC forever - making it smaller, weaker and LImited. No money to bribe with, no power without Money.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 28, 2014 at 10:30am
Delete
Permalink Reply by The Tradesman on February 28, 2014 at 11:25am
Delete
That could cover a lot of ground. I wonder if Citizens United will apply that to the contributions to the Democratic Socialist Party from the Soros groups? I'll bet not.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 28, 2014 at 12:18pm
Delete
We know damn well that they will not go to Soros or any of the left E=GREEN PACS, OR THE UNIONS.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 8, 2014 at 2:56pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 9, 2014 at 1:40pm
Delete
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 14, 2014 at 11:55am
Delete
There is no legal foundation nor is there a Constitutional definition of Natural Born and this is why the many arguments. All foundation support the legal concepts.
 
 

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States.  Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President.  See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII. 
Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase.  Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a "natural born Citizen."  One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

wex: 
 
Here is the most definitive and open discussion of scholarly work I have found on the issue of natural born citizen - he even shows in detail why Vattel's translation of the 1758 French to English
The problem with that argument, however, is that the English translation of the 1758 edition did not use the term “natural born Citizen.”  That term did not appear until the 1797 edition, a decade after the Constitution was ratified.
 
All of his research is here and if you read it like I have it leads to no single absolute answer. In my opinion the questions will never be solved to the satisfaction of all citizens and scholars.
 
The facts have been laid upon the table for all to read and ponder - the decision is yours and yours alone. To blindly repeat talking points of of one Constitutional scholar is silliness as evidence that is rooted to a firm FOUNDATION is required to present a viable provable conclusion.
Visit this library and you will find much more and it is free. Learn and read all sides of the issues we all discuss. Facts not emotions will carry the day.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on March 14, 2014 at 3:20pm
Delete

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)