- Locke, I certainly hope they are near to the tipping point and I agree we should be offering solutions. As for history again I agree, we should not look "only" to history and when we do we should look upon it as a reference and record of successes and failures just as our founder's did.Regarding revolution and anarchy I don't wish for either of those outcomes. A decent respect for history is in my view an ally in avoiding these things not a path to them. I do agree that hot blooded men who focus only on history and specifically how far we have drifted from original intent can become unstable.I suppose like most things in this life too much or too little of anything can be bad. There are exceptions, one can never suffer from too much length in a fish caught nor too few strokes in a round of golf played :)
- Jon as you know I love quotes for they are history in a short version -An American cannot converse, but he can discuss, and his talk falls into a dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance to become warm in the discussion, he will say "Gentlemen" to the person with whom he is conversing.
Alexis de Tocqueville
- Go here and see how much the regulations damage us and kill our efforts.
- I love that last part. In total it’s a great piece for those of us who wish to see the 17th amendment repealed. I hope some here find these little excursions interesting or better yet useful. I think my next foray may an exploration of the founder’s use of the words and phrase “evils of absolute consolidation”. Anybody wanna bet I’ll find a laundry list of the problems we’re facing today.Long live the RepublicNever fret that you are preaching to the choir. New members are joining TPP all the time. They are learning the words and getting in step to the beat of the drum. Preach on brother. Can I get amen!!
- Lock, I wanted to follow up on your (our) concern regarding the possibility of anarchy. De Tocqueville speculated:“If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation, and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.”He supported his view quoting Hamilton and Jefferson:“Mr. Hamilton expresses the same opinion in the Federalist, No. 51. "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”“In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: and as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves, so in the former state will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by alike motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”“It can be little doubted, that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits, would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people, would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it."I note by this last statement I think he refers to a society so fatigued it finally begs for order in the midst of chaos (Beck often warns of this historical phenomenon). For instance “some power altogether independent of the people” could be a presidency filled by a ‘strong man’ or a legislature that feels there’s no limit on their authority.“Jefferson has also thus expressed himself in a letter to Madison: "The executive power in our Government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.”How prophetic is that!
- Let us now go to Thomas Jefferson -
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson
- All of the Founders wrote of the dangers of usurpation when the congress and the courts get together as they did in the 1800s and then again in the 1913 Wilson era topping out in the FDR one vote saved nine period. Usurpation must be defeated with any and ll means available to the people as it will destroy the freedoms and unalienable rights both expressed and implied in the 10th amendment.America has been conducting a great experiment called Social Justice and equality of results. Basically code words for re distribution of wealth which is prohibited by the 5th amendment last sentence. The 16th amendment was passed so that they could fund this great goal and it has taken almost 100 years to bring down a great nation.Let us use California and several other States that have passed bill after bill to tax the RICH so they can fund the 50% that have needs and do not pay any income taxes. These States are in a state of rapid financial collapse as they have forced the rich to move their businesses to States like Nevada, Tennessee, Florida and Texas which creates a huge drop in tax revenues. The unemployment rates are increasing in those States as the revenues to pay benefits go down.The same situation is occurring on the national side, the RICH are moving out of the country like Jim Rogers who moved to ASIA. Corporation have done this for decades but not it is individuals and small businesses driving a huge loss in new business formations here and a corresponding decline in new job creations. The government has failed to do its Constitutional duty to protect the smallest minority - the Sovereign Individual from an oppressive Majority.This failure to defend and in fact assisting in the abuse have left the Sovereign Individual with only one acceptable alternative and that is to remove themselves and their wealth from access by this majority and the usurpers. The size of this movement is much larger than the media will present and most have no idea that it is happening except those that read and watch pure business media.Many rich are getting additional passports so they can be protected from legal actions and they are free to travel unrestricted by the USA government. Their wealth is now placed in a tax protected nation or ISLAND [tax haven] so they are just not taxed anymore. Super Super rich like Gates and Buffet use the charitable Foundation to remove their wealth from the tax exposure and shelter current income from income taxes. They give money away to themselves and then get to deduct it - they still have it all and they own the Foundation.Here is how it works for large Corporation and the super rich -Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocquevillede Tocqueville saw this a long time ago as he was born in 1805 and died in 1856 - so he saw the usurpation coming and the reduction of freedom more than 150 years ago.The social justice and the concept of equal outcomes according to needs and ability re distribution is a failed idea that broke a super nation - the only question remaining is do we the stomach for the fights to end this failed policy and restore freedoms of business and earnings.
- Feel free to substitute 'stimulus bill' with: Obama's knowledge of economics, his advisors knowledge, QE1,2,3, turbo Timmy, helicopter Ben etc..
Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics
professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you
explain it to me?"
The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my
office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my
weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you."
The student agreed.
At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's
house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his
backyard pool.
They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the
student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said,
"First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water
as you can." The student did as he was instructed.
The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and
then dump all the water from your bucket into it."
The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.
The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times,
and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.
The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?"
The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the
shallow end much deeper.
The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but
figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.
However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end,
the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone
mad. The student finally replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all
you'll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have
been truly productive action!"
The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile,
"Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill."
- Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out that there are some things that we know that we know. He called those "known knowns." We may, for example, know how many aircraft carriers some other country has. We may also know that they have troops and tanks, without knowing how many. In Rumsfeld's phrase, that would be an "unknown known" -- a gap in our knowledge that we at least know exists.Finally, there are things we don't even know exist, much less anything about them. These are "unknown unknowns" -- and they are the most dangerous. We had no clue, for example, when dawn broke on September 11, 2001, that somebody was going to fly two commercial airliners into the World Trade Center that day.There are similar kinds of gaps in our knowledge in the economy. Unfortunately, our own government creates uncertainties that can paralyze the economy, especially when these uncertainties take the form of "unknown unknowns."The short-run quick fixes that seem so attractive to so many politicians, and to many in the media, create many unknowns that make investors reluctant to invest and employers reluctant to employ. Politicians may only look as far ahead as the next election, but investors have to look ahead for as many years as it will take for their investments to start bringing in some money.The net result is that both our financial institutions and our businesses have had record amounts of cash sitting idle while millions of people can't find jobs. Ordinarily these institutions make money by investing money and hiring workers. Why not now?Because numerous and unpredictable government interventions create many unknowns, including "unknown unknowns."The quick fix that got both Democrats and Republicans off the hook with a temporary bipartisan tax compromise, several months ago, leaves investors uncertain as to what the tax rate will be when any money they invest today starts bringing in a return in another two or three or ten years. It is known that there will be taxes but nobody knows what the tax rate will be then.Some investors can send their investment money to foreign countries, where the tax rate is already known, is often lower than the tax rate in the United States and -- perhaps even more important -- is not some temporary, quick-fix compromise that is going to expire before their investments start earning a return.Although more foreign investments were coming into the United States, a few years ago, than there were American investments going to foreign countries, today it is just the reverse. American investors are sending more of their money out of the country than foreign investors are sending here.Since 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal, "the U.S. has lost more than $200 billion in investment capital." They add: "That is the equivalent of about two million jobs that don't exist on these shores and are now located in places like China, Germany and India."President Obama's rhetoric deplores such "outsourcing," but his administration's policies make outsourcing an ever more attractive alternative to investing in the United States and creating American jobs.Blithely piling onto American businesses both known costs like more taxes and unknowable costs -- such as the massive ObamaCare mandates that are still evolving -- provides more incentives for investors to send their money elsewhere to escape the hassles.Hardly a month goes by without this administration coming up with a new anti-business policy -- whether directed against Boeing, banks or other private enterprises. Neither investors nor employers can know when the next one is coming or what it will be. These are unknown unknowns.Such anti-business policies would just be business' problem, except that it is businesses that create jobs.The biggest losers from creating an adverse business climate may not be businesses themselves -- especially not big businesses, which can readily invest more of their money overseas. The biggest losers are likely to be working people in America, who cannot just relocate to Europe or Asia to take the jobs created there by American multinational corporations.
- I dressed this up and omitted the two other posts.Well here it is...This is from Chapter 9 Of The Enumerated Powers Of Congress...Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts,
whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in
the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and
privileges appertaining to that capacity.This seems to support my on going argument with Birther's and support the logic I have applied to the argument.In short...XIV Amendment- 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
From the wording of the XIV Amendment we see there are but twoavenues to citizenship; you are either a citizen at birth, or you become a citizen through naturalization. From this it has become evident that the President was a citizen at birth, was subject to the jurisdiction (i.e. not the child of diplomats, foreign envoys, or consuls and the like, for example) so therefore, he must be a Natural Born Citizen.This would be further evidenced by using Boolean (or reverse) logic. The opposite of the word Natural, would be Un-Natural. Un-Natural would imply that the citizen in question became a citizen in a manner other than his/her birth. i.e. A naturalization process. I know of no such process that the President has gone through. The President was born a citizen; hence, he is a Natural Born Citizen.
- But the 19th makes Minor moot for all arguments sake.
- Your logic is what is called a reductio ad absurdum, because the Court did not rule on something cannot be inferred to believe it allowed, disallowed, or ruled on something else
- Only a Man From HELL would quote a long dead language as an answer to a current real America law?
- Hell and Nathan,IMO the citizenship issue is dead as the qualifications are one or the other and under the current SCOTUS the 14th grants full citizenship even if both parents are alien. No discussion IMHO.
- I'm not buying it, and neither is most of the legal community. They would say your argument is weak because it infers a ruling rather than showing a direct intent to rule on an issue. The issue at question in Minor wasn't one of defining Natural Born Citizen.
- NO matter what the courts did or did not do the issue is MOOT as the born child is a citizen by law - which law is of no importance.
- Here is the paragraph I pick out of Minor to make my point in the logic example I have stated above, It apperars right before the text you quoted;Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,"[n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.Like I said what the Court ruled is that there are only two ways to citizenship, there is no third avenue to citizenship.
No comments:
Post a Comment