- ALTHOUGH I am of opinion that there would be no real danger of the consequences which seem to be apprehended to the State governments from a power in the Union to control them in the levies of money, because I am persuaded that the sense of the people, the extreme hazard of provoking the resentments of the State governments, and a conviction of the utility and necessity of local administrations for local purposes, would be a complete barrier against the oppressive use of such a power; yet I am willing here to allow, in its full extent, the justness of the reasoning which requires that the individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants. And making this concession, I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution.
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
No. XXXII:
The Same Subject Continued (Concerning the General Power of Taxation)
For the Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 2, 1788.
HAMILTON
- Permalink Reply by on
- Want to define what kind of CONSERVATIVE you think you are - here is a rare chance to find out about one of the Founders of the Conservative movement along with William F. Buckley - Mr. Barry Goldwater. Please take note that he was a social moderate [Libertarian if you like] - he said once that the government had no damn right or power in our bedrooms - today he would be attacked for that statement. I hope you enjoy learning about Barry and what a conservative really is and what they believe.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- The reason tea partiers carried signs saying "Read the Constitution!" was that we were hoping people would read the Constitution.
Alas, we still have Rick Santorum saying ObamaCare is the same as what he calls "Romneycare"; the otherwise brilliant Mickey Kaus sniffing that if states can mandate insurance purchases, then we're "not talking about some basic individual liberty to not purchase stuff" (no, just the nation's founding document, which protects "basic individual liberties" by putting constraints on Congress); and the former law professor, Barack Obama, alleging that a "good example" of judicial activism would be the Supreme Court (in his words, "a group of people") overturning "a duly constituted and passed law."
I don't know how a court could overturn a law that hasn't been "passed." Otherwise, it wouldn't be a law, it would be a bill. If it hasn't even been "constituted," it wouldn't be anything at all.
Of course the courts can overturn laws -- constituted and passed alike! If anything, the Supreme Court isn't striking down enough laws.
Suppose Congress passed a law (after constituting it) prohibiting the publication of books about Hillary Clinton. That would be a violation of the First Amendment and the courts should strike it down. Failing to strike down such a law would be judicial activism.
That's the judiciary's job, which has been pretty well established since the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, heretofore the second most sacred opinion in the liberal canon. (Roe v. Wade is the first most sacred.)
Marbury captured the imagination of liberals only relatively recently when they realized that, simply as a procedural matter, the courts have the last word.
The judicial branch isn't above the other two branches -- much less the states or the people. It is (one of my favorite words) "co-equal" to the other branches. Indeed, the judiciary was laughably described by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers as the "least dangerous" branch.Anticipating nearly every form of government corruption, our framers specifically designed the Constitution to prevent tyranny. But they never imagined the perfidy of 20th-century liberals. (Probably because the framers didn't have NBC.)What liberals figured out -- and were mendacious enough to exploit -- is that there is no obvious recourse for the other branches if the Supreme Court issues an insane ruling. So, beginning in the 1960s, liberals on the court started issuing insane rulings on a regular basis. Rather than referring to the Constitution, some of their opinions were apparently based on the dream journal of Andrea Dworkin.Soon every law student could recite in his sleep Chief Justice John Marshall's line in Marbury: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." So shut up and go home.To take one example of a ludicrous ruling, at random, off the top of my head: In 1973, the Supreme Court announced that the Constitution mandates a right to abortion.The Constitution says nothing about reproduction, contraception, fetuses, pregnancy, premenstrual syndrome, morning sickness -- much less abortion. (As the tea partiers say: Read the Constitution!)It does, however, expressly grant to the states those powers not reserved to the people (such as the right to bear arms) or explicitly given to Congress (such as the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes).Obviously, therefore, the Constitution implicitly entrusted abortion laws to the states.One hint that a "constitutional" right to abortion is not based on anything in the Constitution is that during oral argument, as the lawyer arguing for this apocryphal right ticked off the constitutional provisions allegedly supporting it -- the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Ninth Amendment, "and a variety of others" -- the entire courtroom burst into laughter.The ruling in Roe, incidentally, struck down the duly constituted and passed laws of all 50 states. (But that is soooo 53 million abortions ago ...)When conservatives complain about "judicial activism," this is what they're talking about: Decisions not plausibly based on anything in the Constitution.Curiously, the only court opinions liberals really get excited about are the ones having nothing to do with the Constitution: abortion, nude dancing, gay marriage, pornography, coddling criminals, etc., etc.Liberals try to hide their treachery by pretending that what conservatives are really upset about is the Supreme Court striking down any law passed by any legislature. This is a preposterous lie that could fool only the irredeemably credulous.Which brings us to the brilliant ex-law professor, who manifestly doesn't have the faintest understanding of the Constitution.On Monday, President Obama shocked even his fellow liberals when he claimed that it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to overturn "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." (Which Obamacare wasn't.)He added: "I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint."I guess now we know why Obama won't release his college and law school transcripts!It was so embarrassing that Obama attempted a clarification on Tuesday, but only made things worse. He said: "We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care," since the '30s.Except in 1995. And then again in 2000. (Do we know for a fact that this guy went to Columbia and Harvard Law?)In the former case, U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act -- which was, by the way, a "duly constituted and passed law"! And then the court did it again in U.S. v. Morrison, when it overturned another "duly constituted and passed law," the Violence Against Women Act.Both laws were defended by the Clinton administration as "economic" regulations, passed by Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause with arguments as stretched as the ones used to defend Obamacare. The Gun-Free School Zone Act, for example, was said to address the economic hardship, health care costs, insurance costs and unwillingness to travel created by violent crime.Conservatives want the rule of law, not silence from the judges. Not striking down an unconstitutional law is judicial activism every bit as much as invalidating a constitutional one.
- Permalink Reply by on
- USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it's intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and viod because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.) Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted-is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise they Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
Read more: http://www.912communique.com/forum/topic/show?id=3397719:Topic:1671...
- Permalink Reply by on
House of Representatives - POLITICS
Issa: Obama administration knew for 11 months about lavish Vegas conference
Published April 06, 2012Officials with the federal agency now under congressional investigation over a lavish conference were captured on camera joking about the expense at the summit's "capstone" event in October 2010.One official joked about how much was spent at a party hosted by the agency's commissioner. Another employee, in a mock music video, even sang about how he'd "never be under OIG investigation."OIG stands for Office of Inspector General -- the office that earlier this week released a bombshell report that triggered firings at the agency that held the conference. The report found the Public Buildings Service, part of the General Services Administration, spent more than $820,000 on the meeting near Las Vegas in 2010.Two House committees now are probing the agency. One of those, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, posted video of the GSA employees online.Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said a briefing Thursday by the Office of the Inspector General shows former General Services Administrator Martha Johnson and Steven Leeds, former senior counselor to the administrator, were told in May 2011 about the investigation of the conference.“This administration knew about the spending scandal 11 months ago and they didn’t act until this week,” Mr. Issa said.Issa, R-Calif., summarized the highlights of the briefing in a letter to Brian D. Miller, inspector general for the General Services Administration.The video shows one employee performing in the fake music video, which is laced with jokes and references that only federal employees are likely to get.In the lyrics, the employee sings: "Donate my vacation, love to the nation, I'll never be under OIG investigation."The creator was given an award at the conference, and named "commissioner for a day."In the award speech, an official identified as Public Buildings Service Deputy Commissioner David Foley joked that "there's just a couple of small matters.""The hotel would like to talk to you about paying for the party that was held in the commissioner's suite last night," he said, to uproarious laughter from the crowd.The inspector general's office detailed in its report that a party was hosted by the actual commissioner in his "loft suite" for senior officials -- at a cost of nearly $2,000.This and other parties, the report said, did not "fit any legal authority for GSA to spend funds on food."The Public Buildings Service commissioner, Robert Peck, was fired in the wake of the report, as was another GSA official. The chief at GSA also resigned.In a statement Thursday, the GSA condemned the contents of the conference video."This video is another example of the complete lack of judgment exhibited during the 2010 Western Regions Conference. Our agency continues to be appalled by this indefensible behavior, and we are taking every step possible to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again," a spokesman with the agency said.The spending habits of the GSA and its subsidiary buildings service have attracted widespread attention in Washington.Republicans on the House transportation committee on Thursday wrote a letter to the GSA inspector general asking for information about an incentive program they claim handed out "$200,000 worth of taxpayer funded iPods, electronics and gift cards for questionable reasons at best."Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., accused the administration of treating "hardworking taxpayer dollars like their own private slush fund."Separately, the nonprofit advocacy group Cause of Action wrote to other federal departments asking them to disclose spending on "commemorative" items -- after the GSA was accused of spending more than $6,000 on commemorative coins at the conference.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Law is mind without reason.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Just posted - so you understood that your return was noted on your first post. You bring the same idea and vision that has been defeated in more than just this forum. You have failed to post a single fact or language with Constitutional support to support your false premises.On the other hand many cases have been presented that use specific language from the Constitution and shows the court respect for the concept of limited powers of Article I section 8; they have even used the Federalist papers to support their arguments. You present nothing except case law and then trying to use the clauses to expand and permit the actions you allege are within the powers of the Court or the Congress/executive branch. If clauses were to bestow extended powers they would contain a "LIMITING POWER STATEMENT" as they Founders - Framers - Ratifies did not intend to give the Federal government power over the States except as ENUMERATED - the entire document is written to LIMIT the powers of Government it bestows no powers except as clearly Stated." The sceptical philosophers claim and exercise the privilege of assuming without proof, the very first principle of their philosophy; and yet they require from others, a proof of everything by reasoning. They are unresonable in both points." . . . . U. S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790 - 1791)"In question of power, then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."(Kentucky Resolutions, by Thomas Jefferson)FEAR OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
. . . the good people of the U. States in their late generous contest, contended for free government in the fullest, clearest, and strongest sense. That they had no idea of being brought under despotic rule under the notion of "Strong Government," or in the form of elective despotism: Chains being still Chains, whether made of gold or iron.the corrupting nature of power, and its insatiable appetite for increase . . . [makes amendments necessary to safeguard natural rights]The greatness of the powers given, and the multitude of places [offices] to be created produce a coalition . . . [dangerous to Liberty and requiring] . . such changes and securities as reason and experience prove to be necessary against the encroachments of power upon the indispensable rights of human nature. ** (Emphasis per the original) Richard Henry Lee(Letters to S. Adams and Geo. Mason ** Oct. 1787)SOME PEACEABLE REMEDIES OF THE STATESAGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT[In case of an unconstitutional, or an unpopular, measure by the Federal government] . . . the means of opposition to it[by the States] are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the the people,their repugnance and perhaps refusal to co-operate with the officers of the union,the frowns of the executive magistracy of the state, the embarrassments created by the legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose in any state difficulties not to be despised; would form a large very serious impediments, and where the sentiments of several adjoining states happened to be unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.The Federalist (No. 46 by Madison) (Note: Nos. 28 and 46 discuss States' defense by force in the last resort.)Therefore Resolved, that it be and hereby is recommended to the legislatures of the several states represented in this Convention, to adopt all such measures as may be necessary effectually to protect the citizens of said states from the operation and effects of all acts which have been of may be passed by the Congress of the United States, which shall contain provisions, subjecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts, conscription, or impressments, not authorized the Constitution of the United States.A Resolution fo the Hartford Convention, 1815(Note: a convention representing Mass. Conn. R.I. and N.H. protesting Federal usurpations, during War with Great Britain.)
Now it become clear that the States and the people are the power and the true owners of the Constitution - not the Federal government. So, again to refute your assertion that the government could use it's taxing authority under the Article I section 8 powers to increase taxes as they wish is both false and even if they did all direct taxes must be enumeration [head count] and applied equally to each citizen.The States could then just refuse to act and to protect the people from the Federal government overreaching or usurping. The tax would be required to pay for items stated in Article I section 8.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The origin of property taxThe French school of physiocrats, led by François Quesnay, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, Gournayand Ie Trosne usually regarded as the founders of the science of the political economy -broached the idea that land ownership appeared to divide the population into the have and have not’s they set out to destroy this system by the confiscation of economic rent; and this idea 'was worked out in detail in America by Henry George in 1897. None of these writers, however, seemed to be aware of the effect that their plan would produce upon the State itself bring in huge amounts of revenue. known as Georgism , whose main tenet is that people should own what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly the value of land, belongs equally to all humanity therefore land owners should pay rent to the state in form of property tax. Georgists argue that a tax on land value is economically efficient, fair and equitable; and that it can generate sufficient revenue so that other taxes (e.g. taxes on profits, sales or income), which are less fair and efficient, can be reduced or eliminated. A tax on land value has been described by many as a progressive tax, since it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce income inequality. How does this tax feel in your state in Washington State the tax on my house id greater than my mortgage.
- Permalink Reply by on
- More Chaos theory in the real world - government just reacts to previous errors while simultaneously creating the next mistake thereby guaranteed a continued need for their corrective services - how many time have we heard we will eliminate Fraud and Waste - did they ever do it even a single time - NO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Nobody is needy in the market economy because of thefact that some people are rich. The riches of the rich are notthe cause of the poverty of anybody. The process that makessome people rich is, on the contrary, the very consequence of theprocess that improves many peoples' lives. Theentrepreneurs, the capitalists and the technologists prosper asfar as they succeed in best supplying the consumers."LUDWIG VON MISESSeek first to serve needs of others and wealth will fallow.
- Permalink Reply by on
- From the very beginnings of the socialist movement andthe endeavors to revive the interventionist policies of the precapitalisticages, both socialism and interventionism wereutterly discredited in the eyes of those conversant with economictheory. But the ideas of the revolutionaries and reformersfound approval with the immense majority ofignorant people exclusively driven by the most powerful humanpassions of envy and hatred.
No comments:
Post a Comment