Goldwater page 99

Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on November 22, 2011 at 11:42am

Delete

I have read all the posts and it is obvious that people a angry and FRUSTRATED  with Congress and the President .so if you will bear with me  - let us discuss FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONAL METHODS FOR REAL.

1)     The President has very little Constitutional power. That being said he can usurp power using his Executive powers of ordering and organizing the thousands of agencies. 

2)     Congress is dysfunctional because it now only passes laws and then creates an agency to promulgate rules and regulations. These agencies are operated then under the Executive branch and are staffed with PROFESSIONAL POLITICAL OPERATIVES. There are hundreds of thousands of civil servant (mostly LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES) employees as regulators.

3)     RINOs in some States are the CONSERVATIVE element in that State. DINOs no longer have very many even centrist members -  most of these States have gone Republican [Southern States]. Both parties have factions that represent the full political spectrum that is why it is very difficult to govern when these factions simply pass laws and then give them to the PROGRESSIVE professional operatives that populate each and every government agency.

4)     IMO - not even one of the three branches will limit the size and power of the Federal super monster of inbred intertwined agencies - most of the members of Congress do not even know how many agencies they vote to fund. They have zero idea that all the operative laws and regulations [rules] as written by operatives in dark buried offices of unknown locations.

5)     We the People can not depend on any of these groups [elected of appointed or hired] making any changes that would reduce the scope and usurpation that now are the accepted standard of conduct. How can we expect a Congress and a President to change what they can not even understand - look a the House and Senate Banking committees managing the Fannie and Freddie fiasco if you want proof. The Congress refused to limit the government exposure to losses and the appointed [hired Professional bureaucrats] that were charge with bank and lender regulations and auditing activities to limit exposure of the people money. The regulators just looked the other way at the instruction of a usurping Congress.

6)     The current political reality will continue as is with the thousands of bureaucratic agencies are not actually managed by a responsible Congress. IMO this can not happen as the agencies are just to big and there are to many; so the only apparent answer is to decentralize all of the agencies and return those functions to the States as Article I section 8 required. Congress and the President will fight this to the dead as it make their positions almost powerless. 

7)     Now the question? How do we accomplish this decentralization without a revolution. How can the promised FREEDOMS for the people be returned to them.

8)    Well the Founding Fathers provided tow ways for the States to protect  the PEOPLE - the first was the Senate was populated by representatives of the Legislators of each State - so the Senator was the States agent - next was the tenth amendment that gave the States the power to reject any Federal law that exceed their authority and enumerated powers. The final power short of rebellion was the Article V State convention to amend the Constitution as needed to protect the people from tyranny and oppression.

9)    The 17th amendment took away the States representative in the government and the 14th amendment put the States under the requirements of the bill of rights which the Founders did not want the B of R extended to the States. The 14th amendment has rendered the 10th amendment toothless.[We are now attempting to use it to challenge Obamacare and immigration issues] The States have cases moving through the courts and one in the SC that will show if we can count on the 10th amendment to contain the super Federal government.

10)    It is my opinion that it will take a full 38+ State Article V State convention to restore the power to the States and the protections back to the people. Freedom is at stake here - if we fail the Federal government and the courts will tell us how and where we are going to live and what work we can perform. Each day the thousands of agencies promulgate rules and regulations that reduce our freedoms and rights. Look at the Patriot act, the EPA, the EEOC, the IRS, the bank regulations, wire taps, computer monitoring, web rules, campaign rules, Union rules and powers [Boeing be sued by the NLRB]. All freedom will be subject to obtaining some kind of a permit if we do not stop this usurping of our freedoms.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 21, 2012 at 4:52pm

Delete

Comment by Land Shark aka Bob E on September 2, 2010 at 1:29pm

Publius, here is a question that was posed by one of our ICaucus members to Hugh Hewitt. What is your take on this?

Hugh,

I have asked Senators and Representatives, Constitutional Lawyers, Professors of Constitutional Law this question for many decades and all I ever get is a dance with no steps and no end.

The 16th amendment permits an income tax without respect as to head count, does it permit of allow for a progressive tax rate?

If the 16th or any other portion of the entire Constitution permits the "TAKING" of property from one for redistribution to others, where is that language?

If you find some language that you believe permits the Federal government to tax at rates that discriminate against the high earners and allows payment to low wage earners, how do you reconcile that to the limits of the last sentence of the 5th amendment regarding the "TAKING" OF PROPERTY WITHOUT PAYING FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY EVEN IF IT IS FOR PUBLIC USE. Which progressive income tax is not for the benefit of the GENERAL population.

So, Professor where are the facts and truths. Where are our Founders promised protections against a over reaching central government?

Thank you
Lock J. Piatt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 21, 2012 at 4:53pm

Delete

Comment by Publius Huldah on September 2, 2010 at 1:47pm

Landshark, Would you make this a discussion? Call it "The 16th Amendment", and just copy and paste your comment below.
Piatt asks a very intelligent question!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 21, 2012 at 4:55pm

Delete

Comment by Vern Shotwell on September 2, 2010 at 3:58pm

Now this one, PH and landshark, will be interesting! Never heard thisparticular question asked! Might be fun!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 21, 2012 at 4:58pm

Delete

Comment by Publius Huldah on September 4, 2010 at 9:32pm

Right, we can not let hostile or ignorant congressmen or senators control the room. When we ask Questions and they give answers, we are submitting to them and they maintain control.
But we can wrest control of the room away from them and intimidate them by hammering them with the Constitution. As did the young lady with Congressman Pete Stark . Cheers and applause from others in the room adds to the intimidation of the representative. At the same time, we educate everyone there. We post videos on U - tube and who knows how many you can educate? And you might even instill some learning into your ignorant elected representative!

We showed them that we knew more about the obama care bill than they did. Now, we will show them that we know the Constitution and we are demanding that THEY obey. We may well kick out many democrats in Nov.; but then starts the long process of educating our ignorant clueless republican representatives. And while you are doing all this, you are encouraging others to do the same as you.
Landshark! Post what you showed me about what you had prepared for Congressman Barton - it was great!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 21, 2012 at 5:00pm

Delete

Comment by Goodbusiness on September 5, 2010 at 4:07pm

Delete Comment

Publius,

Let me submit the questions in a new format, is this more appropriate to the intent of the study group theme?

Does Hamilton mean that the courts a limited to finding a law valid or void, in compliance with the superior Constitution or not in compliance? Would Hamilton find the close relationship of the courts and the legislature or executive branch in violation of separation of powers?


Hamilton said:

"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."

Comment by Publius Huldah on September 5, 2010 at 3:31pm

Well now, Lock, this Study Group isn't an exploration of our viewpoints on The Constitution. We focus on the intent of the People who drafted it and those who ratified it. And it isn't a focus on our own subjective understandings of The Federalist. Rather, it's, "what did Hamilton say and what did he mean?" We use references such as an old American Dictionary, Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention, and other works consulted by our Framers, in order to understand what THEY meant.

The current focus on ourselves and on what WE think, is fairly new. Modern man has an obsessive focus on himself and on what he thinks. It really got started in the late 1900's as the philosophy of pragmatism replaced the concept of fixed Truths with subjective, changing standards. We have been going downhill ever since. I wonder if there is a connection.

Comment by Goodbusiness on September 5, 2010 at 2:59pm

Delete Comment

Publius,

Have been reading so much the old eyes are strained. After much review of the wall and debates on other sites I returned to reread the Federalist Papers on the Court and taxes.

I just finished reading Number 78 by Hamilton, interestingly he identified the dangers of a Judiciary that joined hands with either the of the other legs of government. He discusses some of the jeopardy that occurs when the Court works in concert with the Legislature to expand powers, or the administration to permit expansion of powers.

Well it appears that we have been doing just that for the last 100 years, So it seems that this activity by the central government is unconstitutional and therefor the Court should render the laws void or vacated and not interpret them, alter them or change the application of the law. That power was not given to the court?

I will need to study number 78 for a much longer period of time as it covers a lot of ground which requires reading other documents to attempt to gain insight into the true meaning. As I study more I shall share my view point.

My first take is that all three branches are operating in cooperation which is in direct violation of the limits on government. This begs the question: If they are working in cooperation, does this mean all laws or opinion rendered while in this state subject to nullification and refusal to obey?

Comment by Publius Huldah on September 5, 2010 at 12:23pm

Lock, if you will read down the wall some pages back, there is a discussion of the constitutional issues re justifying obamacare as a "tax". Trumpetblaster answer the question correctly. That will help you find the discussion below.

Comment by Goodbusiness on September 5, 2010 at 12:04pm

Delete Comment

The computer did its thing: post continues as follows:

factories in partnership with Unions. The people also rejected the stimulus spending as mostly wasted bailouts of State and local Unions such as the recent Teacher bailout.

Congress doe not have the Constitutional power to take our property (money) and give it to States and cities. I am still pondering the statement of Erwin Chemerinsky regarding the Administration now claiming the health care required participation of every citizen is a new tax so they can avoid the Constitutional limits of the 5th amendment. I guess when I read the powers to tax areas I am missing some language that expands the central government abilities?

Comment by Goodbusiness on September 5, 2010 at 11:56am

Delete Comment

John,

We are on the same page. Each time we have the opportunity to elect a Constitutional member we must spread the word via the web and letters to the editor and person to person. That word should be directed to that officials support of a strict Constitutional government.

We must work very hard to defeat those in Congress that do not or will not address the Constitution and the limits on government. Many Democrats will have their services terminated for reasons of not following the peoples will. As Bill Clinton said "THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER"; I believe we have just witnessed the last flurry of big government expansion.

Election polls and general support polls are showing rejection of the majority of health care, financial reform, owning auto, insurance, banks, factories in partnership with

Comment by Publius Huldah on September 5, 2010 at 11:51am

No, Phil! Don't ignore them! Kick their butts!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 9:23am

Delete

Comment by Publius Huldah on October 5, 2010 at 2:43pm

Right! Nullification by States is lawful & constitutional. Actually, since State officials take an oath to support the US Constitution, it is THEIR DUTY to refuse to obey an unconstitutional pretended federal "law". Because it is no "law" at all - it is a mere usurpation and deserves to be treated as such. Alexander Hamilton also said (in Federalist No. 78, 10th para), "...every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid..."

It is a testiment to our cowardice, lack of integrity, ignorance, and contempt for the principles of Liberty & Freedom for which our forefathers died, that we scurry to obey every unconstitutional law which is churned out of Congress by the nasty little statists who fill its halls.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 9:27am

Delete

Comment by Publius Huldah on October 6, 2010 at 7:28pm

Thanks for the encouragement! I don't know the book of which Lock speaks. But trustworthy books on the Constitution quote The Federalist Papers & other such original source documents to explain it. Trustworthy books on the amendments would need to quote congressional debates discussing the amendments, etc. Any book which quotes SCOTUS opinions to explain the Constitution is fit for nothing but the trash. Same for any book which quotes the author's personal opinions & analysis (oh horror!).

My next paper will be on the Westbury Baptist case. But see if you can figure out the answer! Remember, our rights come from God (Declaration of Independence), NOT the first amendment - it gives no "rights" to anybody! It simply lists some areas where CONGRESS may not make any laws. And
remember "federalism" - Madison's quote in Federalist No. 45 (9th para or so), where he talks of the few enumerated powers delegated to the federal government AND HOW ALL THE OTHER POWERS ARE RETAINED BY THE STATES & THE PEOPLE. So, can you figure out the answer?? Ask yourself: What gives SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear this case? Look at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1. My goal is to make myself.....irrelevant!

Well, Phil! I will get my walker and shuffle into the kitchen to fix my thin gruel (& metamuscel) for supper!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 9:32am

Delete

Comment by Publius Huldah on November 16, 2010 at 2:23pm

When a federal judge issues a decision which ignores the Facts or the Law, such renders him subject to impeachment & removal, because such is not "good behaviour". However, he is NOT subject to a lawsuit filed by the victim of his erroneous ruling - he enjoys immunity from such lawsuits.

It is only when he "steps off the bench" and commits a wrong that he can be held personally liable. E.g., if he rapes someone, slanders someone in his capacity as a private citizen, etc., he can be held personally liable. But if he ruins someone's life by issuing a wrong decision, he skates away free as a bird. The moral is: we need to elect US Senators who will be more careful about whom they confirm as judges.

Charlie! We have made progress - witness the last elections! Now, we redouble our efforts to educate people and clean out more bad people in the next elections. And get food storage and stock up on essentials.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 9:35am

Delete

mment by Publius Huldah on November 16, 2010 at 1:39pm

Right! In the meantime, I am trying (in my papers) to show everyone who has ever taken the Oath to support the Constitution that it is their Duty to ignore unconstitutional opinions which emanate from the fetid brains of SCOTUS judges. The Rule of Law demands that we obey the Constitution, not lawless judges.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on June 22, 2012 at 9:36am

Delete

Comment by Publius Huldah on November 16, 2010 at 1:24pm

I am sorry to be deflating, but: Whoever wrote that article isdangerously misinformed about supreme Court practice. Hundreds of petitions are filed with SCOTUS every year, and SCOTUS hears only a tiny fraction of them. THEY decide what they will hear and what they will refuse to hear.

Also, some of the statements in the "newswire" are ridiculous: E.g., "Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution."
Well, duh! SCOTUS has been "voiding the Constitution" ever since they rejected the view that the Constitution has a fixed meaning, and replaced it with the "evolutionary" view that the Constitution means whatever they say it means.

The only people who have ANY power over SCOTUS judges are Congress who can impeach & remove them for usurpations. See Federalist No. 81 (8th para), A. Hamilton. Federal judges serve during "good behaviour" only. Art. III, Sec. 1. The only way to reign in that nest of vipers is to impeach, convict & remove them.

Comment by JC Daley on November 16, 2010 at 12:29pm

Breitbart yesterday had an article about judges legislating from the bench. I am interested to read your remarks PH about whether this will actually come to light.....
United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution
Nov 13 01:55 AM US/Eastern
ATLANTA, Nov. 13, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.

The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:

Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20101113.CL01025

This article defines how out of touch the Judges really are with plain common sense.

Comment by Publius Huldah on November 16, 2010 at 12:06pm

Right on, Land Shark & Charlie! I have not seen Holler's work. As you recognize, one must be extremely careful in following so-called "authorities". You will all have noticed, I trust, that all of my papers are "self-proving": I never give my own analysis, but quote the Framers to show the original intent of the Constitution. Everyone can look up my quotes to find out for himself whether my selection of quotes is "honest" or whether I took the quote out of context.
The federal judges have, for a long time, been giving their"interpretations" of the Constitution - that is why our Constitution is being erased. Do NOT accept any "interpretations" of the Constitutionexcept those provided by the Framers . The Federalist Papers are (for reasons I have previously explained) THE most authoritative commentary on the true meaning of the Constitution.

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on November 23, 2011 at 11:01am

Delete

Larry,

I have participated with the group, PH is very good but hers is like all others a simple OPINION until the Court has ruled. You need to understand the Marbury case move I suggest you do some reading and use Google scholar to find all the Federal case law. I have working with trying to understand a case that basically says the Congress can do what ever it pleases and the Constitution can be set aside by the Congress.

I am a very serious student of these matters and have studied them for 50 years. So, I am not a novice and most Attorneys you will find actually know very little about the Constitution and Con law is not a big section in the Law Schools or the bar association tests.

This is you Article II section 1 issue :

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is where all your position cases have gone - 87 cases O birther wins.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LI...

Permalink Reply by Larry Self 16 hours ago

My point is to warn that Rubio is not eligible due to Art. II Sec. 1.

Your point is to defend that Obama is eligible in spite of evidence to the contrary. Evidence? His digitally "prepared" Birth Certificate is enough.

87 cases - "all of the dozens of cases brought over the years over Obama's eligibility have been rejected on procedural and other grounds, and not a single case has been decided on the merits of the allegations."  Maybe one day the Supreme Court will rule on this.  Maybe with Rubio, probably sail right in for a ruling.  Heck, the Constitution matters when the democrats need it.

Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt 16 hours ago

Delete

Larry,

Sorry but your position is just not correct - if you want more go to the meanings of Natural Born citizen at the time of the founders writing and it will tell you a different meaning than you are trying to use. Sorry the facts do not support your position.

You argument is just that all argument and no facts.

Permalink Reply by Larry Self 15 hours ago

Lock,

Sorry but your position is just not correct - if you want more go to the meanings of Natural Born citizen at the time of the founders writing and it will tell you a different meaning than you are trying to use. Sorry the facts do not support your position.

Your argument is just that all argument and no facts.

Permalink Reply by Larry Self 15 hours ago

And from our resident Constitutional Attorney PH from the TPN Constitution Study group:

Comment by Publius Huldah 53 minutes ago

Thank you, Larry.  Feel free to quote me, as you deem appropriate, in order to warn others about Piatt, and to steer them to a place where they can get the documented original intent [that would be here]. It is distressing to see people using TPN to mislead the gullible among us.

Comment by Publius Huldah 1 hour ago

Lock Piatt doesn't know what he is talking about.  His claim to fame is that he is a fertile source of misinformation.  I would say that he illustrates the principle that "a little information is a dangerous thing" - except that he doesn't even have "a little information".

Ignorance & Pride combined in one person are deadly.  He has refused instruction from one who really does know.  It is best to ignore everything he says.

Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt just now

Delete