- I am a man who advocates the Constitution so in all fairness, I must point out Article 1. section 4. [there was something about my comment that rang an irritable bell so I reread my copy of the Constitution]
'The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.'
So, we are all correct.
- Permalink Reply by on
- In retrospect, the 17th amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum of the 17th amendment was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate who has shown a callus disregard to the constitutionality or even the rights of the states they represent, lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. In fact one could argue that it has only compounded the problem and perverted the very structure of the Federal government. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman and divorce layers." not to speak badly of used-car salesmen. Unless the States are educated to the role of the Senate and forces them to a servant of the state legislature and governor there can be no change in outcome with or with the 17th Amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- “James Madison was not only involved in structuring the system, but was also a keeper of its contemporaneous record. He explained in Federalist No. 10 the reason for bicameralism: "Before any bill takes effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the State Legislatures / agents in the Senate."“The need for two powers to concur would, in turn, thwart the influence of special interests, and by satisfying two very different constituencies, this would assure the enactment was for the greatest public good. Madison summed up the concept nicely in Federalist No 51:“In republican government, the legislative authority, necessarily predominate. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions and their common dependencies on the society, will admit.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- "The state governments are essential parts of the system. Senators represent the sovereignty of the states;. they are in the quality of ambassadors of the states. [But suppose] that they [were] to be chosen by the people at large. Whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government?" : Fisher Ames of MassachusettsRemarks in the Massachusetts ratifying convention, 19 January 1788; in Elliot 2:46;
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nice find, I remember reading several letters regarding the Senate and they all agreed with your find. They knew if the Senate was directly elected it would just become another arm of the Federal beast they feared and fought so long and hard to avoid so we would be free. It worked until the Progressives took hold and we have been paying a very steep price since then.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The formation of the Corporation was in my feeble old memory caused by the need to OWN land for the Capital which the Constitution did not provide. There was a fight over MD or Virginia as they were of differing Religions and to solve the situation the land was half in each state and created a separate Federal zone. Politics from the beginning IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is the Wisconsin Supreme court decision - it states that the lower court Judge USURPED Legislative powers which the State Constitution prohibits.There are several other cases sited that are interesting. Now we will see what the SCOTUS says. 5-4 on our side if we are lucky IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- In retrospect, the 17th amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum of the 17th amendment was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate who has shown a callus disregard to the constitutionality or even the rights of the states they represent, lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. In fact one could argue that it has only compounded the problem and perverted the very structure of the Federal government. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman and divorce layers." not to speak badly of used-car salesmen. Unless the States are educated to the role of the Senate and forces them to a servant of the state legislature and governor there can be no change in outcome with or with the 17th Amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I too have seen them (the words, "of" and "for") in reference to that document. I still say there is a difference, a significant difference, between the two:1-In the context of "for" means the Constitution are rules 'for' government to follow, and2-In the context of "of" means the Constitution had come "from" a body that has not been clearly identified.I ask you sir if you have read the Act of 1871? It can be Googled very easily. The language is not difficult to understand but the 'implications' are varied and vague. The Act is legalese double-speak, to me anyway.Let me give you another analogy (and there a bazillion of them) on double-speak. If someone asks me, "Where do you live?" my response used to be, "I live in Florida." My current response to that question is, "I live on Florida."If I live "in" Florida does that mean I live 'within' and under the the commercial government-agency corporation doing business as the State of Florida? I say "yes" to that question but sadly I have no 'proof' of it. However, as a Natural, living man I reject that I live 'in" Florida as I choose not to allow them to make me a corporate, legal-fiction ruled by the capricious and arbitrary Uniform Commercial Code. No one explained to me what implications (purported duties, obligations or loss of Rights, etc) that designation has in store for me so therefore I reject such status.On the other hand if I live "on" Florida does that mean the organic earth, water and sky Florida as was admitted to the Union as a free independent State? Again, I say, "Yes" to that question and that is the status by which I choose to establish for myself.Ole Teddy Roosevelt, the great Imperialist, once stated he would do, "Whatever is in the best interests of the United States of America". This sounds great but Ole Teddy (nor anyone else since) has bothered to definitively define just "what" the USA is.Was Ole Teddy referring to the USA as organic matter or was he insidiously referring to the corporate-agency form of 'government' we have today? One form has to do with control by sovereign citizens and the latter form is under the control of the Eurpean Bankers, the UCC and monopolistic corporations.Personally I do not believe that any of our military adventures around the World has been to the benefit of American taxpayers. I do not wish a peaceful rest for the treasonous Mr. Roosevelt (either of them).
- Permalink Reply by on
- I reviewed the links and find no particular facts that would change, alter, bend, amend, defeat, override, redefine or perform any damage or reduction of the FREEDOMS GUARANTEED by the Constitution of the Republic Know as the:
The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, doordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.I see no evidence of any type that ALL CAPS changes the legal position of any section or clauses of the Constitution. The Constitution is for a Republic form of government which is designed to protect the smallest minorityThe Sovereign Individual from an oppressive majority or government. I see no mention in the Constitution that would permit any change such as you describe in this CORPORATE THEORY therefore I would assume it is a false premise.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I merely point out that the Act of 1871 (if that is one of the "links" you say you investigated) formally designated DC as the "Commercial Zone" for what I believe to be the corporation calling itself the United States of America. This new 'entity' in this new 'zone', I believe, replaced our Republic.I did not mention anything about ALL CAPS, why did you?You wrote: "I see no evidence of any type that ALL CAPS changes the legal position of any section or clauses of the Constitution." If the ALL CAPS you mentioned have application you are correct in your statement that they CHANGE nothing. But they, I believe, have significance in their application within the Commerce Clause as these ALL CAPS designations may define corporate entities.In my opinion the thieves have circumvented the Constitution thru their use of the Commerce Clause. Today, everything in America is under the law of contract (equity). Our Republic has died and the Commerce Clause is our new 'living' document which I believe was institutionalized with the passage of the Act of 1871.The law of equity is dictated thru the Uniform Commercial Code which, at best, is arbitrary and totally capricious.Again you are correct when you state you see nothing in the Constitution that would permit any change, it is all un-Constitutional. In fact, kindly make us aware of ANYTHING they are doing today that IS Constitutional!De facto 'laws' prevail today and that is because not enough people are exposing the the root cause of all these maneuverings, the European Bankers (the Rothschild's dynasty) and one of its holdings, our Federal Reserve Bank.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I want to welcome you, but the conclusion you reach gives me doubts on how productive you'll be to the discussion. We have been over this over, and over, and over. Please save others some time and this discussion the distraction by reviewing the previous debates concerning your conclusion.Most here don't agree with the concept of assigning blame for most every major evil in the world to the boogy man banker clan. While we're all convinced you're convinced - having a constant flow of your clique passing through insisting on nobody having a clue but yourselves - most of us are not of the mindset that there is any productivity in demonizing and assigning blame to a mysterious brotherhood of money. It's not going to solve anything - even if your 100% correct. Nobody is going to have the power to jail anybody with as much power as you assign to them and even if by miracle that happened, the vacuum would be filled by week's end.... there is no solution provided in y'alls passionate release of anger towards who you believe is in control of the entire world.Where understanding, teaching and re-validating our Constitution is the solution to most of our individual concerns, including yours. I can see you're knowledgable in this arena - and am interested in your input towards such. But I'm pretty sure none of us are interested in yet another belittling boring debate over the skull and bones crowd.
No comments:
Post a Comment