How Our Government Should Be "Changed"If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage, hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.
As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with cold water.After a while another monkey makes an attempt with same result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.Now, put the cold water away.Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one.The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment...... with enthusiasm, because he is now part of the "team."Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by the fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana.Why, you ask? Because in their minds...that is the way it has always been!This, my friends, is how Governments operate... and this is why, from time to time:ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME.Keep America Free,Tea Party Contacts
www.TeaPartyContacts.com
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- newspaper has identified the source for a series of reports it's published in recent days on secret U.S. surveillance activity as a former technical assistant for the CIA who now works for a private-sector defense and technology consulting firm.The U.K. newspaper, which broke the story of the NSA's acquisition of phone metadata and monitoring of Internet data through a program called PRISM, said Edward Snowden, who now works for Booz Allen Hamilton, is the source of the classified leaks.The newspaper says Snowden, 29, asked that his name be made public as the source of the leaks.In a video that is part of the Guardian's story, Snowden talks about his decision to come forward."I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he says in the video, which is dated June 6."When you're in positions of privileged access like a systems administrator, for some of these intelligence community agencies, you're exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale than the average employee," he says in the video. "Because of that, you see things that may be disturbing."Snowden says he felt compelled to become a whistleblower because "these things need to be determined by the public, not just someone who was hired by the government."The Guardian writes:The newspaper reports that three weeks ago, while Snowden was still working at the NSA office in Hawaii, he copied "final documents" that he intended to disclose and informed his supervisor that he "needed to be away from work for 'a couple of weeks'" for medical treatment of his epilepsy.The report says he boarded a flight to Hong Kong on May 20, where he has remained since."He chose the city because 'they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent', and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the U.S. government," the newspaper says.
- Permalink Reply by on
- FEAR AND DISTRUSTAmericans are afraid and confused as to the extent of their governments involvement in discriminating against political groups by the IRS, EPA, AG, NSA and the State Department.I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.The government is usurping the Constitution by violating our first and fourth amendment protections. The IRS picks conservative groups to delay and violate their right to free speech. The Attorney General sues our States to prevent them from protecting the people from invasion and alien law breakers. The Attorney General stops the Prosecution of the Black Panthers that harassed white voters outside a polling place. Next the White House lies about Benghazi and tries to spin it is a video caused issue.Now we find that the PRISM spy system is much bigger than the NSA and Administration told us it was. We now know that they can listen to phone calls, videos, emails, Skype contacts and much more. NSA head like all the other Department heads just flat out lied to the American people - we can not listen to your phone calls - not true now is it - they have billions of recorded calls and email or electronic communications. They told us it took a FISA court order for them to access our records, then they said - well if you receive calls from outside the US or from someone that is in the US but under a target warrant then you are now included in that warrant. What is the truth? It is impossible to tell as it is all SECRET and not even all of Congress is apprised of the acts.They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.All of the violations of the Constitution are pushing the limits of we the people being governed by a RULE - BY - LAW system or a simple DEMOCRACY where whatever the majority votes for becomes the RULE - BY - MAN system. Under this system the minorities are at risk and the individual has no protection from tyranny and oppression. America is now operating with all three branches USURPING the Constitution and the limits on what power the Executive, the Courts and the Legislature has. As things are now the true and actual Constitution has been suspended in the name of protecting we the people from enemies both domestic and foreign.If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.Let us think out of the box for a few minutes - the Progressive politic method has been to divide and then conquer each smaller group. Is this not what we see with the all out attack on Religions both Jewish and Christians? Are they not trying to get us to fight each other and to debate over our freedom of religion and the 1st amendment?It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.James MadisonI will close by asking all to visit this Article V Project to Restore Liberty.Thank you for readingMangus Colorado2013
- Permalink Reply by on
NSA Built Back Door In All Windows Software by 1999
In researching the stunning pervasiveness of spying by the government (it’s much more wide spread than you’ve heard even now), we ran across the fact that the FBI wants software programmers to install a backdoor in allsoftware.Digging a little further, we found a 1999 article by leading European computer publication Heise which noted that the NSA had already built a backdoor into all Windows software:We have repeatedly pointed out that widespread spying on Americans began prior to 9/11.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is beyond belief . . NSA is so much more per this guy? I want call blocking on all my private information. Voter Regs, Drivers License, Credit, phone number, address, etc - I want a way to block my info from getting out .
- Permalink Reply by on
- Searchable article of confederation and other papers of the times . . many links.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The following is a discussion on TPP and is posted here to provide a record if TPP closes or crashes.
- The Constitution written in eighteen hundreds did not consider the growth of the country. We have states with less than a million people and states with more than twenty million. California has a population of thirty-six million and Texas has twenty-five million. It would take twenty small states to have the population of California. Each of the twenty small states has two Senators, that is forty percent of the senate vote. The House of Representatives is completely dysfunctional. Seventy five percent of the citizen disapprove of the congress. We have over three thousand counties in the fifty states and each county has local governments. This organization cost excessive overhead and waste tax dollars. The Freedoms guaranteed by the
Constitution are timeless, but the management of government functions is time dependent.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Constitution are timeless, but the management of government functions is time dependent."
That is sooooo wrong. The INTENT of the Constitution is timeless. The management of Government functions is supposed to be by consent of the STATES and the PEOPLE not the whim of the central government policing itself.
ORIGINAL INTENT:
The People are to be directly represented by the House of Representatives by direct election.
The States are to be directly represented by the Senate and chosen by them.
The President executes the wishes of both the States and the People, so is elected by both via the popular vote and the electoral college (States).
A brilliant balanced design that was changed in a manner repugnant to the original intent by the passage of the 17thA (removing the States direct representation).
The "living" part of the timeless design was that in times of significant change, defined by 3/4 of the states approval, amendments could be made as needed.
Restore the originally intended balance and you will see a significant "change" in your government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Robert,
It appears that the States calling for the Con Con pick their representatives and also agree to the limited agenda (purpose stated). This should prevent the fear of the runaway Con Con. Keep in mind it takes 34 states to call one and 38 state legislatures to ratify the actions taken.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Atlas: When we talk about intent it is good to research the writings of the people. Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about the problems of the times and he realized changes would be needed. Madison and Washington also wrote about problems with the wording in the Constitution. They were very concerned about the number of members in the House of Representatives. While the Constitution set up the Federal Government with a Congress, an Office of the President, and the Supreme Court and gave each branch certain powers, it did not account for a government of a country the current size and population of the United States. The Constitution is a very simple document. There are very few original Articles, in fact Thomas Jefferson had to added the first amendments to establish the freedoms granted by the Constitution. He had just returned from France. In fact when they wrote "all men are created equal" they were not considering the slave trade, they were thinking about European governments where Royal Families held rule. This was especially intended to put George III in his place. Several Presidents have usurped the powers of the Constitution and carried out acts against the freedom granted by the amendments. The actions of Lincoln and FDR are examples, as well as the need of the Patriot Act.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Show me a majority of the Founding Fathers who advocated the States NOT have representation. Which ones advocated a pure democracy. Which ones thought that the central government should have the authority to police itself.
Until the States have their representation restored by repeal of the repugnant 17thA. the original intent is severly impaired.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Atlas
They detested the Democracy concept of government in fact they said it has never worked through history. Franklin said: "We have given you a Republic if you can keep it?"
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Articles of Confederation failed because the States with a large population had to provide the funds to operate the federal government while the states with smaller populations had equal representation at the federal level. As we all know the Constitution ratified in the eighteenth century provided a Senate and a House of Representatives. This fixed the problem then, but today we are a long distance from one man one vote. The differences in population of the various states has completely changed the one man one vote concept. The House of Representatives have far more members than the framers of the Constitution ever expected. And, the States with small population of less than a million have far more votes in the Senate than the large population States. An individual member of the House of Representatives, who are elected by the vote of less than 0.5 % of the national popular vote can be a very powerful member of the House. The leaders of the House are good examples.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The difference in State populations was known and considered by the Founders; that is why they created the Senate and made it an appointed position by the State legislature to keep it beholding to the power of the individual and the State. The change to an elected Senate has been a disaster with people holding power for 50+ years - the elected Senators have no beholding to the State Legislature and in fact often goes against the States best interest.
This is only one of the problems with the 17th amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- First of all, the States United created the federal government; the Constitution was simply the instrument by which the States did so.
The Constitution does account for a Union as large as we have now or as large as it will ever become for that matter. Larger numbers do not change the method by which we calculate them; they are simply larger numbers.
The Amendments nor the Constitution 'established' our freedoms. Our Rights [freedoms] are unalienable! The Constitution simply enumerated SOME of our Rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan,
you bring up a very good point about our rights, the Founders had considerable debate about the Bill of Rights as some thought that just stating some might be construed to eliminate other that were not mentioned specifically. In other words they were concerned about limiting our UNLIMITED rights from the Creator or the natural laws.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
Indeed they were very concerned and rightly so. I think they took great pains to eliminate the possibility of someone drawing the conclusion that they enumerated the ONLY rights we have. 10A being a prime example. I don't see how it could have been stated any clearer.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan,
yes about the 10th, but look at how the Progressives have abused and usurped the intent and powers contained therein? Power without a concern citizenry will be concentrated in those that will just take or act without fear of reprisal.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
"..look at how the Progressives have abused and usurped the intent and powers contained therein"
True.
That's why Progressives went after education first. They are now in control of which interpretation of gov. power is being taught. The power We the Citizens possess can only be wielded by being an informed active Citizen and that, under the circumstances, requires that we each inform ourselves of our unalienable Rights and the proper constitutional form of government and then inform others. That's the only way the truth can now be introduced to the Citizenry.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I sure agree with you, Nathan. We have knowledge at our finger tips to day. The internet search engines give the Citizens all the data. I just wrote a book called "SAVE TAX DOLLARS" that provides internet search data and calls for Citizens to show the same energy and effort that was present in Philadelphia in the eighteenth century that lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan,
It is interesting that Law Schools teach case Law Theory - Stare decisis theory (settled Law by prior cases decisions) and no longer the Constitution and it's Rule - by - Law theory.
They can not twist the Constitution at will so they just adopted the British Common Law System for use in America courts and it's Rule - by - Man theories. That is why there are now so many Attorneys in America they have created a entire separate set of laws to argue in court keeping the sovereign individual out of the process. The system we now use was created because England has a Parliamentarian Democracy with "NO" Constitution as the base of laws.
America has a constitution so why are the courts using Common Law and even using foreign courts cases to decide America cases? This must be ended; no one has seen where this legal system was adopted by the legislature of a state or federal?
It seems as though the courts just did what they wanted without adult supervision?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I could not have stated it better myself, Lock. Well done, sir!
It seems to me that our forefathers fought the Revolution of 1776 over the right of self-government and they, not England, won. So when they drafted a Constitution of moral justice between government and the governed, it's reasonable to think they had that right. But unknown to them, it was all for naught because our national destiny was not available. It was determined by the "Common Law of England" which, winning the Revolution notwithstanding, we were powerless to reject.
A very interesting form of "law" that England has. We fight and win a war to be free of its control, and we "inherit" all of its barbarian institutions, forever? That sort of takes the fun out of "winning" revolutions, does it not? But in fact we DID win the Revolution and in so doing set ourselves free before God and world to chose our OWN form of government and to write it into our Supreme Law; and so we did. That is our Constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Now we need a course of action to 'right' the ship of State and reinstitute constitutional law.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Central Government was designed to be IMPOTENT.
We need to stop feeding it Viagra!
Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan, as you said, the "course of action" is to 'right' the ship of State and reinstitute constitutional law" .
With ships, the normal course of action to minimize loses is to immediately but 'ground' the ship so it won't capsize or sink to an irrecoverable degree.
We already have all the law and political power to implement damage control and remedy. If we take time to design debate and build some 'ideal' tool - like a con-con - our ship of state will be lost. There comes a time, which now is, were fancy talk is irresponsible and dangerous beyond bearing.
Our Governor's already have all the tools they need to execute their duty.
It is time to invoke that duty in such a fashion that if a governor fails to execute "Constitutional Reset", as state law requires, the governor had best give themselves a pardon while they can.
The Nov. election is over. Now is the time.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russell,
Your reading something into my words that is not there nor implied.
I am, and have been for years, a very vocal proponent of 10A. While my part was minuscule I did play a role in getting a 10A resolution past in TN during the 2009 legislative session. Next up: a 10A bill.
So for the record I am and will continue to be a States Rights advocate and continue to believe that is the ONLY way to 'right' the abuse of power by the Fed and restore the Constitution to it's rightful place as the supreme law of this Union.
- Nathan,
If I have misunderstood you in this tangled thread I am very sorry. It appears in my attempt to trace this discussion that I have. Though I don't know the context or content, It seems that with respect to you - You were right and I was wrong. No hard feelings?
- Permalink Reply by on
- The eighteenth century was a very interesting time, especially here in the Colonies. Reading the papers, sayings, and books of the period is very enjoyable. They were very concerned about States Rights and Individual Rights, but they were also engaged with problems of the times. The right to bear arms, the relationship of church and state for example. Several of the amendments to the Constitution have dealt with problems that arose after the Constitution was written. The party system which several of the early leaders wanted to outlaw has cause many of the problems these far sited people recognized. No matter how you look at it we have a very dysfunctional Federal Government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I would submit because we the people let them rule us instead of us taking responsibility for our problems and asked them to MAKE A LAW and they did - just to damn many and now they own us as chattel, We have returned to slave status for the Federal usurpers of the Constitutional Republic.
Return the powers stolen back to the States and let them compete to create a good economy for their state.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nice point Lock, i see even here, too many whose first inclination to solve any issue is "There oughta be a Law".
What was that famous quote about the lawyers?
- Permalink Reply by on
- The distribution of the population changes things. Twenty States with population only slightly more than one million, have forty percent of the Senatorial vote. California with a population of over 36 million has 2% of the Senatorial votes. Add the population of Texas, Florida, and New York to the 36 million and you have a population of at least 98 million. But, they control only 8% of the Senatorial vote. As stated in a reply above a member of the House of Representatives elected by 0.5% of the population can be a leader that controls votes and what comes to the floor.
- Permalink Reply by on
- And this is the way it must be in one house of Government to protect the individual person and the small States from being run over. If we return to Original Constitution, these things will not matter because the enumerated powers will protect the States by removing their usurped powers now in use.
The Founders had the same problem back then many farmer States and a few industrial manufacturing high population States. They designed the
Senate to protect these small farm based States. What you are describing is a "DEMOCRACY" AMERICA IS A "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" - by design to protect the smallest minority from a aggressive majority - that smallest minority would be the sovereign individual (single citizen).
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock: It appears to be the other way around to me. The large states need protection from the populations of the small states. The voters in the large states do not have the Senatorial power per person that the small states have. The minority is governing the majority. Is that Democratic.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas,
That is why the people house is based on population to provide a voice for the majority. you must remember America is "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" and we are not a Democracy or a Democratic form of government so the question of is that Democratic is mute.
The Senate was designed to be a voice for the States and minorities, before the 17th amendment Senators were selected by the State legislatures and the Senators were then beholding to the State population through their elected representatives in their State houses.
- So we should let our states and federal government follow the 'by their right of size' lead provided by Caifornia and New York?
The states created our federal government.
QUESTION for Thomas: At this time in history,
how can our federal government obtain the power to create or rebound states
short of a criminal usurpation of authority only enabled by:
. . . fraud (exchange inalienable birthright for a bowl of proverbial bowl of porridge)
and/or
. . . .force of arms contrary to the law of nations and sovereigns?
Thomas, Please answer the issue fairly or accept default admission according to the best of your understanding and professed expertise.
- Answer to Thomas' question "Is that Democratic"?
It is the constitutionally republican rule of law that protects the rights of ALL - including the minority of the moment.
Apparently you have a large problem with that.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The minority is governing the majority. The small population states have more power than the large state populations. House of Representative leaders are elected by 0.5% of the population. There are on an average only 650,000 total population of a House District. Some of the 650,000 are not voters or they do not vote. The election winner usually gets just over 50% of the vote. The winner can become a leader in the House and control what goes to the floor for a vote. The leader has great power. When comes to one man one vote the House is way out of balance. We should have just the Senate and each Senator should represent voting districts that or near equal in population. Then we would truly have one man one vote.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas,
You are wanting a Democracy form of government and not the Constitutional Republic the Founders designed for our protection of the sovereign individual not the collective society.
If you read the Founders papers and the Federalist Papers you will find that the Founders were well aware of the total failure of all Democracy based societies in history. They debated all form of structures but selected the Representative Republic because it had the most protections for the individual from a king or a unjust majority.
One man one vote theory is not in the Constitution to my recollections? Where does this concept come from?
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is time for another Constitutional Convention. Dare I say it but I am starting to salivate at the mouth. ALL of the states should be reawakened and realize that this is "THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY" to give our country back to the people.
Article V would be a great starting point.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree it is past time to fix the dysfunctional congress and the excessive executive government. The state, county and local governments are costing excessive tax dollars.
- Thomas, state, county and local governments should and would be more manageable and interesting to the voters if the higher governments stayed out of the lower governments business.
A con-con does not appear to address that with any certainty.
A 'Constitutional Reset' immediately devolves
the federal dept. of education
HUD
much of the Dept of commerce
much of the EPA
and much of the remaining federal departments
to the states .
Immediately 50 states would bring,
more brain power applied,
more experiment to match local conditions,
much more balanced match of authority, responsiblity and accountiblity with much less diffuse connection of consequences.
How does a con-con address that?
A con-con just kicks that essential can down the road by offering boundary issues that just bring complexity and barely relevant considerations that are so contrary to custom that the citizen's are apt to lose their bearings.
That kind of boundary shifting (such as you proposed) was a favorite ploy of imperialists who want to take over resources will giving the illusion that much value is given in exchange.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Where do many of the Local governments get there money. I think it is from higher government. That means it is someone elses tax dollars they are spending. Many local governments provide excessive salaries and have excessive numbers of administrative employers. The councils are to large. We require employes to train candidates who are elected to office with no experience. There both private and government funded organization that are responsible for these training corporations. A popularity contest has never been the best way to select a manager. When we have States that have populations of less than one million who have over fifty county governments and addition local governments, I do not think this could be called efficient. It is a rip of taxpayer dollars. It is time voters studied their governments. Google searches can provide excellent data.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas - Forget it for now IMO. Way too small of an issue (moneywise)based on a false premise. So far down the list its a dot.
BTW, the local governments get their money from YOU. Only some of it comes BACK to the State & local governments from the Federal confiscation from YOU.
It's ALL our money!!!!!!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas,
you bring a interesting thought - the local governments and school districts have many employees that were created by the GRANT programs of the Federal Government. All those that want fed funds must have staff or hire consultants to make GRANT applications. The beggars line to The Agencies of Congress that bribe lower governments to behave in desired ways.
The beggar creates government jobs to talk and appeal to other government employees that are managed by other government employees. It also applies to Universities, Amtrak, Freddie, Fannie, Post office, DOT, FHA, USDA and a very long list of takers - not one item of value produced? Huuuuummm
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock: Like I have said before, we are getting ripped off by government office holders. We have excessive governments and excessive administrative employees. They cause confusion in decision-making and lead to dysfunctional government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Like the parasite consuming the host. They will bleed us until we remove them or we die - the choice is clearly ours.
- Study government yes.
Study to redraw state and county boundaries? No cost benefit comparison has even been attempted and for good reason - the cost of detailed knowledge would buy nothing of value relative to its cost. If you fund that study yourself you might find a different answer, but on sample and gut estimates, you may not find many willing to help with the work. I have faced similar situations and found the work worthy of my time - but I WAS on my own. Thomas, Perhaps you are a better salesman than I and will have a different experience.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Davis: Your statement that not many would want changes in State borders. We thing in terms of the status quo. It is time for thinking outside the box. There are many ways to fix many of our problems. Since our governments are not organized like a corporations management chart or the Military chain of command, why is it necessary to elect Federal Senators from States. Why not make Federal districts like we have House Districts, but let them cross State lines. That way we could have Federal Districts of near equal populations. This would eliminate the need for the dysfunctional House of Representatives. We have stuck ourselves with limited thinking. We need major changes and we need results. The budget deficits of the State and Federal government prove that changes are needed.
- Pardon my error Thomas. I think the only con-con proposal I have heard of that intends to address State, county and locality boundary issues is yours. Perhaps I even err in that.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "A con-con just kicks that essential can down the road by offering boundary issues that just bring complexity and barely relevant considerations that are so contrary to custom that the citizen's are apt to lose their bearings."
Russell,
You make me smile and laugh. Do you know how much 'piss and vinegar' there is in this land? Do you know what will happen when states that have illegal immigration issues put their minds and heads together?! Solidarity, my friend. Solidarity of we the people. If the Constitution is suitably utilized it will ensure us to be more in control of our commerce.
I could write more but I have parties to attend to. If these states do not gather and bind up together, in a "Con-Con", Europe will not be the only continent to know of a "Dark Age".
Russell, build it and they will come.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Recognizing that Congress might grow remote and isolated from the public will, the Constitution provides ways around Congress in amending the Constitution. Two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states may call a constitutional convention. Although this convention sounds as it is intended to address a particular issue, like term limits, nothing prevents the constitutional convention from doing precisely what the men in Philadelphia did - propose major reforms in the structure of government.
B. and Atlas,
Like getting rid of the 17th and 14th!!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- We need 34 states so let's get cracking.
- Permalink Reply by on
- B. Franklin you must be a direct descendant from old Ben. The Constitutional Convention should be charged with studying the problems with all governments and correcting the problems. We have inefficient and ineffective governments at all levels of the status quo. Less Governments means Less taxes.
- Hmmm. . . . B. Franklin. Was that a non sequitur reply or do I just need another cup of coffee this morning? Perhaps both?
To my trace of this discussion, in the context of a con-con Thomas inserted the issue of reapportioning state and county boundaries like they were US & State districts for population based representation. We were speaking of moving state and county bounds NOT qualifying the porosity of our country's borders..
If the distinction of counties forming(authoring) states and states forming(authoring) a federal government was forgotten so the National government now defined the states and the counties there would be no need of a senate in either US Congress or state house.
Conceptually, Whenever a child concept authors its parent concept all inalienably inherited rights and duties are mere cavalier presumption. In computer programming such cavalier presumption inevitably crashes the system, when the damage survives RESET or REBOOT such cavalier conceit is called a virus.
You will find 'EVIL' is born in every such backward approach to 'LIVE'.
Take care that you not define yourself as children of the lie.
It is little wonder that Thomas' broad brush con-con proposal creeps me out so much that it I would not attend the discussion except for its persistence - to my understanding this whole set of arguments appears to be settled by proof and repeated default with the appearance of remaining substance only given by the deception of non sequitur rejoinder.
The boundary that foils the growth of a new "Dark Age" is our Constitution as it stands. All flaws of amendment 14, 16 & 17 are safely and quickly fixed by constitutional means of modest ambition.
B. Franklin, We already built it and they already came.
Why should we want to change that?
People do not need to be guided on to serfdom's road.
Our state's constitutional duty to educate its people is intended to save them from serfdom.
All we need is to do our duty as it currently stands.
Our defaults on that duty are the source of our problems -
Redefining those duties is a dangerous and wasted effort at best.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Davis: Borders that are drawn for government reasons have only government purposes. Why pay for far more government administration than we need? Less government administration means less taxes. With movement of funds from one level to another we have other governments that use our tax dollars to cover their cost. We need to reorganize the mess the country has allowed to develop. What is the population of your county? What is the population of your local government? Could they we properly administered by one administration? Could the number of people need to properly administer the government be reduced?
- Excuse me Thomas,
My understanding is that
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "
and that
"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the" change in borders and their form of government.
The burden of persuasion and proof is upon those who propose a change.
With modest certainty that those whose territories and spheres of influence that are defined by those bounds will be defended and any mover of boundary markers is apt to be attacked. I see much fuss and bother inherent in your boundary proposal.
You have not shown any substantial statistic that weighs the economies I doubt with the trouble and expense that seems certain. I am not really saying that you are wrong. I am saying that it is a difficult case to make and the case has not been made.
- Thomas, it seems I am irritating you. Perhaps, I should back off this discussion for a week or too. Sorry if I pushed to hard.
- Thomas, your "Borders that are drawn for government reasons have only government purposes." is true but not reliably so. State and county borders are drawn for State and county purposes and are WRITE-AUTHORIZED for those purposes ONLY. Should the federal government attempt to have more than READ-ONLY access to those definitions it would be a great incestuously criminal trespass.
You may wish to reevaluate the way you reckon boundaries.
Several fallacies posed in this discussion have that mis-comprehension of attribute ownership as their source.
- B.Franklin, Why a Con-con?
Will not, can not a 'Constitutional Reset' accomplish more good than a con-con could? Much faster? Much less risk?
Please contrast and compare, numbered point by numbered point, if you would convince.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Maybe because the existing Constitution has been usurped by all three branches of the Federal Government and has three fatal flaws that must be eliminated the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. We also must (reset if you like the term) the true and actual meanings of the Founders words and clauses. The Progressives over the last 110 years have created holes in the basic fabric of the Constitution. So, they can create new rights and laws outside the limits that most of us citizens would see in the Constitution.
This would appear to fix the Federal problems - no more alphabet agencies telling the States and the People what, when and where they can exercise their freedoms and individual sovereignty.
- Right, re alphabet agencies:
The obligatory duty to effect "Constitutional Reset" is in the state Governor's hands. State law is the short leash used to bind the state's federal officers to their oath bound duty.
But first the state must effect its own "Constitutional Reset", restoring its constitutionally republican rule of law that protects the civil and inalienable rights of ALL, not just the minority of the moment.
For a state to achieve this every cavalier conceit to perpetrate felony as a prerogative of social position, no matter how customary, must be recognized as felony.
Traversing a proverbial come-to-Jesus moment where every member of the state bar association must surrender to their governor while pleading for pardon for cause of toothy particular parole oath addressing penance and remedy.
That is the only way that up-rightness can become a contagious practicality.
This event cascades throwout state and local government.
The cascade takes in the states federal judges and all the states federal officers who are members of the state bar.
ALL the members of the state bar are now on a short constitutional leash and bound by their profession notice of the law to recognize felony when perpetrated or considered by their unknowledgeable associates. "Misprision of Felony" and "Misprision of Treason" laws now binds them to their duty to 1) prevent by warning, and 2) make proper Hue & Cry should the warning not be heeded. Upon failure in that duty members of the bar will have combined in the felony with knowing and willing criminal intent.
This degree of cascade should take less than 30 days from the governor's invitation to the bar.
Now all officers of government on every level will have cause to surrender to their governor while pleading for pardon for cause of toothy particular parole oath.
Now every government officer must look at their mission and determine its constitutional lawfulness.
What government missions that are actually good can be implemented in ways that don't taint the accomplishment with felony.
Good processes are more likely to produce good outcomes.
State and local governments in all three branches probably require little more than a tuneup unless there is a conflict between the existence of substantive law embedded in administrative code and a state constitutional provision on the separation of powers or that ALL legislative authority is vested in the legislature as a non transferable service duty. In this case it may be a simple matter for the legislature to make legislation of what was substantive law in the administrative code.
All three branches of the federal government will find that so many of its officers are also bound by state constitutional reset that they can not function unconstitutionally.
Those agencies that can still function will only be able to function until they need Congress to renew their funding.
Most federal agencies and missions will have to devolve to the states. As a matter of convenience of economy the old federal agencies by act under a contract from a state.
Again all substantive law in the CFR is likely to be unconstitutional until particularly and directly enacted by Congress. Most of those enactments will likely be no more than model state legislation in Congressionally authorized interstate compacts.
There are additional details covering the federal budget, taxation, the 14th, 16thand 17th amendments at http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/bho-shouts-what-would...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Donnie,
Very good points, A Con Con is the first step to taking back "our" Constitution and government from the Progressive stateist. You are spot on that they all take the oath of office to defend and protect when the defy and deform that very document. If the court system was not so vested in the usurpation, we could use them to bring justice to those that breach their solemn oath and violate the laws of the land.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock and Donnie: The Declaration of Independence, which states,
“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. —That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”
The Declaration also says that governments are established to insure "SAFTY AND HAPPENIST" of it's citizens. It seems at least seventy-five percent of the citizens disapprove of the lack of action by the Congress. The Constitution does not cover the organization of the States and the Counties. If you Google you can find out the populations of the States, the number and population of the counties with in a State. You can also find out the number of House of Represenatative members of each State. Several small States do not have the necessary average population of six hundred and fifty people to have a Representative. But with less than six hundred and fifty people in the State they have two Senators and one Representative. While it would not take a change in the Constitution to improve the State, County, and Local governments, the Constitution requires approval of the State legislature and the Congress to make changes in State borders. The Congress has never consider the problem they create when they granted statehood. We are left with a very costly five hundred and thirty-five member dysfunctional Congress. The Executive Branch has added layer upon layer of costly disorganized government agencies. After two hundred and thirty years we could use a Constitutional Convention to restore order efficiency and effectiveness to all of our very expensive over staffed governments. With out a Convention much could be done with some good thinking out side the box. The status quo does not seem to be keeping Citizens "SAFE AND HAPPY."
I have studied and review many of these problems in the book "Save Tax Dollar" I am not interested in the money from book sales, but I am interested in people taking a hard look at the disorganization and decision-making problems with the status quo.
- Precisely, 2 Chronicles 7:14 or bust.
- Permalink Reply by on
- 2 Chronicles 7:14 (King James Version)
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Amen to that!
- Good QUESTIONS, Donnie. Questions that have not been answered in this discussion.
The silence on your question #1 ". . . .have no intention of even paying any attention to it, what's the use?" means "There is no known USEFUL PURPOSE for a Con-Con" by default.
The silence on your question #2 "Why change something that is going to be ignored anyway?" means "There is no known WHY for a Con-Con" by default.
Lock, Given your correct observation "If the court system was not so vested in the usurpation, we could use them to bring justice to those that breach their solemn oath and violate the laws of the land."I understand your sense of confoundedness that has you reaching for an unknown Con-Con that could, perhaps would, fall uncontrollably in the hands of the corruption that brings us where we are now.
Before I ask you the next three question please consider your STATE constitution's construction of the chief executive's duty and authority - begin at your states equivalent of:
VA.Article VI Section 7."The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
"The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Commonwealth and shall have power to embody such forces to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the execution of the laws."
VA.Article I Section 2. "People the source of power. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.”
VA.Article I Section 6. "Free elections; consent of governed. That all elections ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of, or damaged in, their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives duly elected, or bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good"
Lock, Why is A Con-Con 'the first step to taking back "our" Constitution and government from the Progressive statist'?
It may or may not be a first step on that path. Such has been asserted in this discussion and is far from being established as even reasonable.
MOREOVER, Are there any other first steps available?
Perhaps, a first step that will get us where we INTEND to go, with fewer & smaller steps, faster, safer, more certain of being effective, conceptually less complicated and can be initiated NOW?
I can answer those last two questions.
I believe I have already done so in this discussion unless I have erroneously merged discussions in my memory.
No comments:
Post a Comment