- "The Constitution makes clear, through the further explanation of specifically enumerated powers, what the Founders meant when referring to promoting the general welfare throughout the United States. The Founders meant by this defense of the nation, as discussed elsewhere in this Platform, and the preservation of the nation's economic integrity. Thus, this provision of the Constitution authorizes Congress to take actions in matters that affect the economic prosperity of this country in relation to other nations, including encouraging creativity, invention, and entrepreneurial activities of citizens and setting uniform laws related to economic exchanges and transactions across the land."/b>br />
Ronald Reagan
- Permalink Reply by on
- Need national debt relief?
by Nick Dranias
Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in 1798 that one thing missing from the newly minted Constitution was some kind of limit on federal debt:
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."
Fortunately, President Jefferson’s wish can be a reality. Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives the states the power to provide powerful relief from the federal debt.
The National Debt Relief Amendment would require any increase in the federal debt be approved by a majority of state legislatures. Giving state legislatures the power to approve any increase in federal debt would force Congress to do what private individuals and small businesses must do everyday—assess the amount of money available for spending and prioritize that spending.
Moreover, requiring state approval would be even more powerful than a Balanced Budget Amendment because there would be no need to go to court to enforce the National Debt Relief Amendment. Financial markets would refuse to pay the face value of federal bonds that were issued without state approval because of the increased risk of default.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- My intended point is that if we can establish that usurpation has occurred [even if the Fed fights the legal battle as they now are] - we have 34 States calling for a Article V convention [not the mythical CON CON] and just need 4 more to Ratify the States act to revoke the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments and force the Court back into the Article 3 limits or review and accept or return the law to the proper legislature for their actions.If the States have 38 in agreement then the Congress has no option but to call for the Ratifying by the State legislatures. However if we have less than 34 we have no power to force the Congress to take action [indeed hundreds of times over history Congress has refused to put a requested amendment forward]. So, if we can show 30+- States and proceed with the litigation as the States are now doing on usurping the 10th amendment; the Political class might just stampede into action of calling for amendments that the States desire for they see the end is near.This strong action by 30+- States and pointing to usurpation might just turn the tide at SCOTUS back to the people and the States? The Justices know that they only have power if the people approve - if we the people just reject the decisions of the Supreme Court they are done and no longer applicable.As we can see there are a lot of factors in play and each one lends power and creditability to the others - fear in politics is more contagious than the flu; it spreads faster and is twice as deadly.
- Permalink Reply by on
- they can write their own rules and they can just ratify if they desire and the Constitution is amended upon the reuired ratification of the 38 State legislatureHmmm...so why do we still have a 16th Amendment? Why do we not have a Balanced Budget Amendment?
http://www.article5.org/Same%20Subject%20Applications.pdf(The short answer to 'why': Walker v. Members of Congress) Link for this? now the 38+ States that support revocation of the 16th amendment - if they desire the action then they need to all pass the identical proposed amendment through their Legislatures. Then Congress is powerless.WE still have all the amendments and usurpers because the State legislatures 38 have not been told they can do what they need to do to fix the Federal usurping tyranny. It has taken Obamacare to push the limits of the ability of the Federal Government to purchase the State legislatures with billions of STIMULUS BAIL OUT MONEY. The people now have seen the full effect of the usurping and bribery from the Super strong Federal Government to the weak debt ridden States. The people want the debt reduced and that requires spending limits.A balanced budget Amendment is a bad idea as it could give Constitutional approval to the usurped unauthorized spending that exceeds the powers of Article I section 8. The BBA does not get anything done but more borrowing and creative accounting - see California it has a BBA and term limits and has had them for many years - the budget has grow until they can not even borrow enough to pay the bonds and payments to Public Union wages and retirement plans. - They are BK and had BBA and term limits did not save them.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is very good and defines the issues of clauses and other issues. It is CODE
- Permalink Reply by on
- Link for the sackett supreme court EPA case =
- Permalink Reply by on
- A VEIW OF THE CONSTITUTION28 USC 455 Justices, Judges, Magistrate Judges, Disqualifications.Kagen should recuse herself from the obamacare ruling.*******SIMPLY AMAZING! CONGRESS CAN IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION*******Health Care Briefs, (obama care)Common Wealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelious "in her official capacity".*************THE FEDERALIST PAPERS http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.htmlTHE CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S.A. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.htmlTHE U.S. CODE. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscodeU.S. CODE OF FEDERAL REULATIONS. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/textU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ( G. P. O. )THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Permalink Reply by on
- We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power … All projects of government, formed upon a supposition of continual vigilance, sagacity, and virtue, firmness of the people, when possessed of the exercise of supreme power, are cheats and delusions … The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody, and in every respect diabolical. - Letter to Thomas Jefferson (13 November 1815) John Adams
- Permalink Reply by on
- The great jurist and scholar, Thomas M. Cooley must roll over in his grave.
Here’s what Cooley said:
A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. A principle share of the benefit expected of written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference to the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view to putting the fundamentals of government beyond their control, that these instruments are framed; and there can be no such steady and imperceptible change in their rules as inheres in the common law…a court or legislature which should allow a change of public sentiment to influence it in giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty.
- Permalink Reply by on
- “The house of representatives … can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 57, 1788
No comments:
Post a Comment