Friday, May 2, 2014

Goldwater page 38

We have all discussed the usurpation of Lincoln in the civil war but I discovered this when reading court decisions:


Pages 607 through 617 of so. It discusses the issue of session and time frames - a sample below
The agreed facts will enable us we think to answer the inquiry without difficulty On the 17th day of April 1861 the convention of Virginia then in session at Richmond passed what is known as the ordinance of secession On and during the 20th of that month the greatest excitement prevailed among the people at Portsmouth The military compames in the city five or six in number forming a part of the Third Virginia Regiment of infantry were during the day called out by the Governor of the State and during the night of that day were stationed and picketed in small squads at various points around and near the navy yard The entire community was excited and on every hand arrangements of a warlike nature were being made I or the sectional strife which then it was apparent was imminent
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:15pm
Delete
Does the position taken by Rawle on the commerce clause apply in the current health care fight?

...the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence requires that Congress regulate an activity, as opposed to not engaging in an activity….Common sense alone compels the conclusion that an individual who does not purchase health insurance has not taken an action or exerted effort. The individual does not even need to take a “mental action.” The individual does not need to make a decision not to purchase health insurance; the individual simply will not purchase health insurance.

Since Congress has regulated this passivity, Congress has overstepped theCommerce Clause’s boundaries in attempting to regulate Appellants. Indeed, it seems that Congress has put the cart before the horse. In an effort to regulate Appellants, Congress is attempting to compel them into action through the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

Now recognizing the “weak underpinnings” of its conclusion that those who do nothing are performing an activity – which clearly defies logic – the lower court attempted to bolster its argument by reasoning that Congress can regulate individuals today because someday everyone will seek medical treatment and this will have an effect on interstate commerce.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:21pm
Delete
you can read the sample here - go to The new deal chapter and then read the FDR court packing?

Lock PiattPermalink Reply by Lock Piatt on May 28, 2011 at 1:15pm
Delete
Atlas,

Read the introductory of this book and give me your take on the Supreme Court and in particular the page 6 resolution of Luther Martin of Maryland about Federal supremacy over States?

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:21pm
Delete
They should all be embarrassed as the last poll I saw said that 73% of the Political class believed all the laws they pass are Constitutional?

We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.
Thomas Jefferson
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:22pm
Delete
If your interested you can listen to FDR threaten the court in his 1937 fire side "chat".


Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:22pm
Delete
Here's the link for this file.  There are many other speeches as well.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:24pm
Delete
Yes Jon, TJE is correct, the link to speeches does not open
Jon BrunkePermalink Reply by Jon Brunke on May 28, 2011 at 8:59pm
Try this link
Lock PiattPermalink Reply by Lock Piatt on May 28, 2011 at 9:01pm
Delete
That worked thank you

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:25pm
Delete
Reply by Lock Piatt on May 28, 2011 at 3:20pm
Delete
I just posted this on this site 


I think it is supportive of Rawle and natural law by free men.

I will take issue with both you and Rob on the available remedies for the people under Article V.

I find nothing in the Constitution or Article V that prevents 38 States from creating an amendment as instructed by the people of the many States to say revoke the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Then this amendment is submitted to the vote for approval of 38 State legislatures for approval; after which it is resubmitted for a ratification vote by each State. If the amendment is so ratified then it is presented to Congress and it becomes the law of the land. 

[or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;] In other words 3/4 or 38 States can change the Constitution anyway they desire and Congress has no say in the matter.

There is no language that says it can not be done by direct amendment by 3/4 of the States. There are volumes of writings by the Founders as to nullification and the Article V protections. These methods were devised to allow a peaceful rebellion by the States to protect the people from an oppressive usurping Federal Government and Congress gone wild.

If fact many said it was the absolute duty of the States [legislators] to protect the people from a usurping government. Many in fact went so far as to say that defense is mandatory on the States to nullify unconstitutional laws.

So, In my estimation there is no prohibition of the use of the Article V amendment process by the States alone.


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 Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:27pm
Delete
As an old political hack - No party will ever adopt any piece like this regarding the Constitution as they are all aware of the history of their acts and the last 150 years of varying legal opinions from the courts and the Legislatures.

Here is one of my all time favorite political stories:

A candidate was being instructed by his political handler how to react under certain conditions: 

If you are ever asked a question that is highly controversial and you do not want to take a position - just say: "SOME OF MY FRIENDS ARE FOR IT AND SOME OF MY FRIENDS ARE AGAINST IT AND I NEVER DO ANYTHING AGAINST MY FRIENDS - then find someone across the room and wave at them excusing yourself saying thank you I owe that person some information.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:29pm
Delete
The Rebublicans have added the requirement of "CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO EACH BILL"

H.R.157 -- Health Care Safety Net Enhancement Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

Here is one example - you tell me if you think it is legitimate authority or usurped by word meanings?

SEC. 3. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY .


The constitutional authority upon which this Act rests is the power of the Congress to provide for the general welfare, to regulate commerce, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution Federal powers, as enumerated in section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:30pm
Delete
Jon that is the same old S * * * the congress has been using for almost 100 years. Those are general clauses not meant for bestowing unlimited powers to do anything. IMO to think any other way about those clauses would be to believe that the Founders were intending to set limits [enumerated powers] and then void them by giving unlimited powers to the government. Why did they later pass the 10th amendment to clarify the State retained all other powers.

The only way forward is nullifications and the Article V convention. IMHO
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on September 23, 2011 at 4:34pm
Delete
This discussion began with an old account of the Constitution thanks to TJE.  We ventured into how to search Google Books to locate free old books.  So lacking any comments last night I'd like to offer an old book for everyone’s consideration.

It is a series of news articles between John Adams and the Kings Attorney General debating "the principle points of controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies".  It took place in 1774 and 75.  As a firsthand account of the struggle that ultimately produced our constitution it is unparalleled IMO.  If I may step out of bounds it is to the Declaration of Independence what the Federalist Papers are to the Constitution.

Here is the LINK to the book.  At the very least read the preface then use the Google search to explore 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)