Saturday, May 3, 2014

Goldwater page 108

Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 16, 2012 at 5:28pm
Delete
"The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lostwhen the legislative power is dominated by the executive."-- Edward Gibbon(1737-1794) English historian and Member of Parliament1776
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 16, 2012 at 5:33pm
Delete
"... judicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy."-- Senator Sam Ervin(1896-1985) United States Senator NC-D (1954-1974)
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 16, 2012 at 5:33pm
Delete
Reply
More
liberty.quotes@centre.telemanage.ca to me
show details Feb 14 (3 days ago)
"[W]e continue to evolve a cute little concept of a changing legal accommodation named the “Living Constitution Theory” which is only a perversion stating, “To heck with what our Constitution says; we in power will twist it to suit our ideas anytime and every time we so choose.”"-- Dr. Jack DownPh.D., Pres. of Citizens Against Repressive ZoningSource: Turning common citizens into criminals is perverse, THE UNREPORTED NEWS, p. 4, September 16, 1995. (The UnReported News, Box 22036, Lansing, MI, 48909)http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Jack.Down.Quote.8A70

"Unlike ordinary legislation, a constitution is enacted by the people themselves in their sovereign capacity and is therefore the paramount law."-- Justice HaymondWest Virginia Supreme Court
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 10:48am
Delete
How about - Freedom from government = Opportunity to produce unfettered = higher level of economic activity = wealth creation = a rising STANDARD OF LIVING = a free and independent citizenry =  SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS OVER GOVERNMENT. 
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 11:06am
Delete

Barry Goldwater Rss Feed for "Barry Goldwater"

Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 11:17am
Delete
Many articles here with links.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 11:20am
Delete

Never Let Law Profs Near the Oval Office

Constitutional law professors should be kept as far away from nuclear weapons as possible.

Gene Healy | February 7, 2012
Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.
"Surely as a former constitutional law professor, President Obama must know ..." -- that's a fairly common refrain whenever Obama commits another constitutional atrocity.
I've said as much myself -- but as a recovering law student, I should know better. Constitutional law professors should be kept as far away from nuclear weapons as possible.
The skill-sets they bring to the presidency just gives them the sophistry and brazenness necessary to invent new and creative ways of violating the constitutional oath of office.
Obama is the fourth former con law prof to serve as president, joining William Howard Taft (University of Cincinnati Law School), Woodrow Wilson (Princeton and New York Law School), and Bill Clinton, (University of Arkansas Law School).
Taft did comparatively little damage, but the rest hardly inspire confidence that familiarity with constitutional scholarship encourages fidelity to the national charter.
Wilson was a constitutional horror show, who imposed racial segregation in federal employment and waged war on free speech, imprisoning Americans opposed to World War I.
Clinton, who once lost a pile of his law students' final exams (he offered everyone a B+ in exchange) brought a cavalier, "dog ate my homework" approach to his constitutional responsibilities.
In 1999, he ignored three congressional votes denying him authority to wage war in Kosovo, and became the first president to wage an illegal war beyond the War Powers Resolution's 60-day time limit.
Last summer, as the bombs pounded Libya, the University of Chicago's Obama became the second.
"I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher," Obama proclaimed shortly after his inauguration, "we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience's sake."
Not long after, in the Citizens United case, his administration argued that campaign finance laws gave the feds the power to ban books.
Still, some held out hope that this former law professor would be "our first civil libertarian president," as the New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen put it. In January 2009, Rosen argued that, as a constitutional scholar, Obama was "likely to articulate constitutional positions and then conform his presidential actions to them rather than take positions and then rely on lawyers to justify them."
Of course, that's precisely the opposite of how Obama has behaved, cherry-picking among his legal advisers until he got one to tell him his actions were legal. In Libya, Harold Koh, Obama's servile State Department legal adviser, provided the necessary cover.
The War Powers Resolution, requiring the president to terminate unauthorized U.S. engagement in "hostilities" after 60 days didn't apply in the absence of "U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof."
Page:12>
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 12:32pm
Delete

posted on FEBRUARY 17, 2012 by BOJIDAR MARINOV

Sotomayor: Just Laws? I’ve Never Thought About It Before

Filed under GOVERNMENT, LAW
Comments (12)


SotomayorTownhall columnist Mike Adams tells us about a former student of his who used the opportunity to ask Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor a question which all lawyers and judges should ask themselves before they even start their career:
“What should American culture and society look to as the source for just laws?”
Sotomayor paused for a long time, looked at him, and slowly said,
“What a very interesting question.”
Then she made an even longer pause, and then said even more slowly:
“I don’t think I’ve ever thought of that question in that form before.”
Really.
Makes one wonder, if she thought of “that question,” what is the form it took in her mind then? A judge who thinks about the laws, should first think what laws are just and what aren’t; and how we know if they are. If laws are not based on a standard of justice then what are they based on? And if a judge is not interested in justice, then what?

Mike Adams then recalls some of her earlier remarks about how she judges. Her remarks make it clear that she bases her judgment on her own experience, on her being a woman, a Latino, on her subjective assessment of the situation, on her “heritage” (whatever that might mean), and on her “experiences.” Which means, of course, that any question of objective morality and objective justice is completely excluded.
Which means that Judge Sotomayor judges as she sees fit, based on her own prejudices and passions. Arbitrary judgments based on prejudice not on an objective understanding of what is good and what is bad.
That a hard-core liberal like Sotomayor cares nil for questions of justice and morality is not a surprise. Moral relativism is the central doctrine of all socialism and liberalism. After all, it was Frederick Engels who called for the abolition of all absolute morality. A self-conscious student of the founders of Marxism like Sotomayor wouldn’t miss that important tenet of Marxism.
What is less explicable is why Republican politicians would never ask Sotomayor the question about objective justice and the source of it when she was screened for a Federal judge, and then for the Supreme Court. If she never thought about the question, then she was never asked the question, until Mike Adams’ student did. If she was never asked that question, the Republican legislators didn’t really care about the issue of objective justice. And given the fact that some of them even voted for her nomination, that means that Republican politicians actively supported a hard-core liberal activist who openly proclaims that she judges on the basis of her personal bias and ideology.
Of course, the most inexplicable of all is Rick Santorum’s vote for Sotomayor’s nomination in 1998. A politician who profusely uses quasi-religious language and gives political homilies, who bemoans the “moral decline” of America and vows to use the Presidency to restore morality should be quite selective as to who gets his support. That Santorum voted for Sotomayor without even asking the first question a Christian should ask, “What is your source for just laws?,” only shows that Santorum either doesn’t believe his own moralistic rhetoric, or he doesn’t know what it means in practice. Either way, we know that thanks to his failure, and to the failure of many Republicans to understand the meaning of conservatism, we now have another liberal activist in the Supreme Court who cares nil for justice, and only cares for her own subjective “experiences.”
Or may be Santorum’s vote for Sotomayor is not that surprising, after all. Both Santorum and Sotomayor share one conviction: That more Federal government is better. Both are statist and power-mongers, and both believe that the average man on the street can not and should not be let alone to pursue his happiness in any moral and legitimate way he wants. Both Santorum and Sotomayor want the government to control our lives, liberties, and economic decisions. The rhetoric may be different but the essence of their philosophy of government remains the same.
And that statist philosophy of government has one enemy: Objective justice that comes from a transcendent source. Statists dislike that. It means that the government is not the source of our rights. That’s why they never ask the question about objective justice.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 2:11pm
Delete
My reference to the breach of promise by the official that took the solemn oath of office where they PROMISED TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. By reference they are guilty ofBREACH
of the contract of promise to defend when in fact they chose to usurp
the Constitution by their own actions. The oath of office is a sacred
pledge and can not be violated in any way shape or form. When they voted
to usurp powers they are in breach and we the people are duty bound to
void those usurped actions. 


Resistance to Usurpers, as Tyrants, is Obedience to God.

It is a traditional American motto that: "Rebellion to tyrants is
obedience to God." That is, resistance is a moral duty. This motto was
suggested by Benjamin Franklin in mid-1776 in the Congress as being
appropriate on the seal of the United States; and it was truly
expressive of traditional American thinking that Jefferson adopted it
for use on his personal seal.

A major part of the American philosophy underlying resistance to the
tyranny of the king and parliament prior to the Declaration of
Independence, and in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as
follows. Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated
to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or
endanger, the people's God-given unalienable rights thereby and to this
extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and
tyrants. They thereby act outside of the Supreme law, which defines
these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore
act without authority from the people. By thus exceeding and violating
the restrictions if this law, they act outside the Law: lawlessly, as
"out-laws." As Samuel Adams stated: " Let us remember, that if we
suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and
involve others [Posterity] in our doom."(Emphasis added). They
thereby, in practice, replace Rule-by-Law with Rule-by-Man. These
defaulting trustees - thus acting lawlessly - thereby free the people
from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under the
Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to
Law and not to the law-defying public servants.

The reasoning supporting the above-quoted motto's concept of moral duty
is this: Man, being given by his Creator unalienable rights which are
accompanied by corresponding duties, has the moral duty - duty to God -
to safeguard thee rights for the Benoit of self and others,including
Posterity. Man is therefore obligated to oppose all violators of these
rights to fail to do so is to defy duty to God as the giver of these
rights; and such failure betrays Man's duty as the as the temporary
Trustee of Posterity's just heritage. This is in keeping with the
philophy of the Declaration of Independence as reiterated in part for
example, in 1788 in the Virgina Ratifying Convention's proposals for
amendments to the Constitution including a Bill of Rights stating in
part as follows:

". . . that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and
oppression is absurd slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness
of Mankind."

Applied to the United States Constitution, which federal and State are
sworn to support, this means that - in resisting Federal officials who,
as usurpers, defy the limits on their power imposed by this "supreme Law
of the Land" - the people and governments of the States are opposing
Rule-by-Man and defending Rule-by-Law (basically the people's
fundamental law: the Constitution). They are thus defending the
Constitution against its violators: the Federal usurpers; and they are
acting in defense of the people's God given,unalienable rights and the
States' reserved powers. The American philosophy and system of
constitutionally limited government contemplate that the people for the
several States - acting through their State governments - will, in last resort,
use force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers, that
they will use military force (Militia of the States) to oppose and
military force used by such usurpers; as Hamilton and Madison explained
in detail in The Federalist, numbers 28 and 46.

The conclusion: The American philosophy reflects the knowledge taht the
history of individual Liberty is the history of the effective
limitations of government's power, which is expressed in the traditional
principle summarized in the phrase: Limited for Liberty.

"The above is from a work by Hamilton A. Long"
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 3:59pm
Delete
SCOTUS HEALTHCARFE DEBATE GOOD OTHER INFOR ALSO
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 4:00pm
Delete
MILITA ACT OF 1792 REQUIRED CITIZENS TO BUY MUSKET.
Permalink Reply by Mangus Colorado, Moderator on February 18, 2012 at 4:08pm
Delete
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)