About
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following:
There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus.
* * *
PERMISSION to re-post: You may re-post my papers on your own sites, provided you do not change the text, and provided you have a link back to my website. However, since I periodically revise my papers – and sometimes an error is pointed out to me by a kind reader – the better practice is to post a para or so and have a “continue reading here” which links to my site. That way, your readers will have the most recently revised edition.
* * *
Where do Rights come from? God? The Constitution? The supreme Court? Or the “government”? I’ll show you. It is important that you understand. (videos in two parts totaling 22 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpXBckyDac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN29tAiNV7o
* * *
To the Department of Homeland Security:
I am delighted to learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution! Please feel free to browse around to your hearts’ content.
Also, if any of you have questions as to the original intent of any provision or provisions of Our Constitution, please feel free to post your questions.
To learn Our Constitution, you will need to get a copy of The Federalist Papers; and for word definitions, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language. You can find The Federalist Papers on line; and here is an online copy of Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: As I trust you know, word meaning are like the clouds: meanings change as time passes. So, naturally, we want to focus on the meanings enjoyed by Words during the Era of our Founding.
OK! Here is your homework assignment: Get a hard copy of The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Read them cover to cover. Using different colored pencils, highlight (1) the powers of Congress, (2) the powers of the Executive Branch, and (3) the powers of the judicial branch.
With a 4th color, highlight all references to God in both Documents!
Please pay particular attention to what the Declaration says about the SOURCE of our Rights. Mark that with a 5th color.
Surprising, isn’t it?
Oh! You can get pocket copies from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc. I think Heritage sells them in bulk – really cheap – so you can buy lots and distribute them to your co-workers, family and friends.
Again, do not be shy about posting your questions! I am just a little old lady, and do not bite.
Kindest regards, Publius Huldah.
Publius Huldah and her children,
Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Fluffy
PUBLIUS HULDAH
-
Publius, I have a question maybe you can answer. I know under the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 that “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” Now my question! Does that apply to State officials? Our Governor was just made a Knight of the Royal House of Portugal under The Order of Saint Michael of the Wing as Knight Grand Cross. Since the Constitution clearly states that “And no person holding Office of Profit or Trust…….accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever.” Is this not a violation of the Constitution?
Good question, Richard: but I can not give a clear YES or NO answer.
1. Federalist Papers No. 39 & No. 84 discuss Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 8; but focus on the absolute prohibition of “titles of nobility”.
No. 39 (Madison)
No. 84 (Hamilton)
We KNOW that “titles of nobility” means “dukes”, “earls”, “barons”, “baronet”, etc. – the aristocracy. And our Framers properly did not want THAT system here.
Obviously, A State governor is one of the persons encompassed within Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 8
So the question is whether this knighthood is an “Office” or “Title”, of “any kind whatever”.
Being an American, I do not know the finer points of heraldry, but do know that a mere “knight” is not necessarily a “titled” aristocrat. So, I don’t think a knight is a “title of nobility” in the sense our Framers meant.
The issue is confused by the honorary titles which are so common today. Universities hand out “honorary” doctorates all the time.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary has the following entry for “knighthood”:
Again, being an American, I don’t really understand “knighthood”, but know that Queen Elizabeth makes famous English writers “knights” or “dames”. I suppose such knighthoods are “honorary” or “social”.
This “knighthood” bestowed on Utah’s Governor seems to be of the “honorary” kind.
I suppose if you went to France, and performed some heroic feat there, the French government would honor you and thank you by extending to you some honorary “title” or “knighthood” or “academic degree”.
In any event, if Congress consents, Americans holding office may accept such “titles”. THERE MAY BE AN EXISTING FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH ADDRESSES SUCH MATTERS AND WHICH PERMITS THE ACCEPTANCE OF “HONORARY” TITLES.
I had taken note, hence the post to establish the distinction between “un” and “in” which is, in the context of political considerations, a distinction WITH a difference.
The ‘movement’ to use the words as if they are entirely synonymous is much like the movement to consider “native born” and “natural born” as also being entirely synonymous, at least in the ‘evolution’ of historical usage I have witnessed.
Webster’s Dictionary 1828 Definition
INA’LIENABLE, a. [L. alieno, alienus.]
Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.
The original meaning & intent of our founding documents does not evolve. Some judges corrupt the meaning for personal reasons and of ignorance but the original meaning & intent doesn’t change. which is why it is necessary to use a 1828 or earlier dictionary. Because the meaning of some words have changed since 1828.
Right. You nailed it. Justice Clarence Thomas uses an American dictionary from the 1790s – but it is not readily available. But Webster’s 1828 is!
I don’t get your point, SLC.
The word used in the Declaration of independence is unalienable – Webster’s 1828 dictionary of the American language defines unalienable and inalienable the same – see Spense’s post where he gives Webster’s definition of inalienable.
It appears that the concept is identical – that there are just two alternate spellings of the same word. This happens in English e.g., “gray” and “grey”; “honour” and “honor”, etc.
And if you would write more simply, you would be easier to follow.
In the bill of rights, all of the recognized rights are stated explicitly, for example “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime …” The only exception to this is the first amendment, which is indirect: “Congress shall make no law …” Does this mean that the first amendment is not applicable to the states, since presumably “Congress” refers to the Federal Congress and not necessarily to the states’ congresses? As I read through the other ones all spoke in general, which I guess would refer to any place in the country.
Ross,
The so-called “bill of rights” has been a disaster for this Country:
They conditioned the American People to believe the LIE that their “rights” come from The Constitution. But what does our Declaration of Independence say about the origin of our Rights and the purpose of civil government? See also my paper on Rights and the video where I also show how Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 grants to the federal courts judicial power over all matters “arising under this Constitution” – that includes the “bill of rights” – and THAT is how you got a handful of federal judges determining the scope and extent of your “rights”.
Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 84 (10th para or so) that bills of rights are dangerous b/c they provide a pretext to regulate for those inclined to usurp. And that is precisely what happened. The federal courts have taken our God-given rights away from us.
Look at the 1st Amendment: Ponder it. What does it do? Just look at the plain words – don’t read anything into it. Forget what you have been told it means – b/c what you have been told [except by me] is all lies.
I suppose it limits the rights of the government, rather than outlining rights that the people have. That is, congress cannot make any laws abridging freedom of speech, etc, even if those laws are allowed under other enumerated powers that they have. So congress could not, for example, forbid someone from distributing material on a Federal dock-yard (assuming said person is not trespassing) even though Congress has “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.”
Yes?
Right! The 1st Amendment is merely a list of some of the things CONGRESS may not make laws about. It is not a list of our rights – they are too innumerable to list (Decl. of Indep, 2nd para, and the 9th Amendment).
Power over the objects listed in the 1st Amendment are reserved to the States or the People:
CONGRESS may not “establish” any religion, but the States may and did. When the Constitution was ratified, about 1/2 of the States still had “established” churches (i.e., tax supported denominations). The last of the original 13 States to disestablish its State religion was Massachusetts which disestablished the Congregational Church around 1832.
Always distinguish between the federal government and the STATE governments. In our federal system, they have totally different powers and functions. Remember Federalist No. 45 (9th para), where James Madison says:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed45.htm
About distributing materials on the federal enclaves: There might be safety reasons to keep members of the public off the docks; but yes, the federal government can not properly stop dock workers from distributing political brochures, etc.
Now, here it gets a bit confusing – but if you bear in mind that Our Declaration of Independence says that Rights come from God, and that the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights God gave us, it makes sense:
Congress can’t make laws “abridging the freedom of speech”, but that doesn’t mean that you can go into a federal courthouse [which is a federal enclave] as a party or witness and lie under oath. God never gave you the right to bear false witness or to testify untruthfully in a trial. So Congress can properly make a law making perjury in federal trials a crime. B/c God never gave you the “freedom” to bear false witness.
The same with slander & libel on federal enclaves: God never gave you the right to utter slander or libel against others. So, Congress can make a law for federal enclaves prohibiting slander or libel. Otherwise, federal enclaves would become hotbeds where you could lie under oath, bear false witness, slander & libel others all day long, urge violence against groups of people you didn’t like; falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater and sit back and laugh at the chaos and make bets about the number of people who got trampled to death as a result of your words. God never gave you the “freedom” to say such things.
So, on the federal enclaves, Congress can prohibit such speech.
But God gave you a general freedom of speech – you just can’t abuse that freedom. So while Congress can make laws prohibiting you from lying under oath in federal court; or from distributing materials in the D.C. urging violence against blacks, etc. (b/c you don’t have the God given right to urge violence against people groups); Congress may not properly make a law prohibiting you from distributing political materials, teaching the original intent of the Constitution, handing out copies of The Federalist Papers, talking about the Bible, etc. when you are on federal enclaves.
For the Country at large, Congress has no authority to make ANY laws restricting speech (it is not one of Congress’ enumerated powers). For the country at large, power to restrict speech (perjury, slander, etc.) is reserved to the States and the People.
We have lost the religious foundation for our Constitution – the Judeo-Christian morality and principles of civil government. That is why we are collapsing. If we don’t reclaim our religious foundations very quickly – the religious foundation which supported Our Declaration and Constitution, then we will soon be like NAZI Germany.
“UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. ”
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
Excerpt: The Declaration….
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….”
A small thing between U & I, yet of consequence when construing meaningful things.
1828 Webster’s Definition
UNA’LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,UNALIENABLE
Right! Webster’s 1828 is a magnificent dictionary and is the one I always use when writing on Our Constitution. Do take note, Steven Lee.
PH, progressives make ” assumptive statements ” ; they like stating something as if it isn’t a lie … but it is a lie. When in fact it is simply a presumptuous statement. It’s done to further their personal agenda. It is of course done to deceive people. As you know the end always justifies the means for these pathetic people.
Spense and Brearly:
I don’t know how to add data to Wiki – we are ‘puter illiterates here. Aren’t members of the public allowed to add data? If so, do you know how? Do you want to ask him to PROVE HIS ASSERTIONS WITH SOME LINKS TO ORIGINAL SOURCES? Do you want to quote and link to Federalist Paper No. 10 (next to last para) as an example of our Framers’ positions on socialism?
Hello PH,
I’m sure that you will write an endorsement of, presumably, Mitt Romney at a later date (probably a very grudging one) but at the moment I am just curious about your position on Ron Paul. I know that you hate him, having read through most of these questions, but based on my own research I would think that he would be better than Mitt Romney. I am *not* a PaulBot, I’m just looking at all of the alternatives.
Here is why I like him:
1) Likely to at least *try* to balance the budget by eliminating unconstitutional depts of energy, education, etc, or at least more than any recent president
2) Very likely to eliminate or weaken the Fed, which you called “the worst scam ever perpetrated – to date – on the American People”
3) Yes, he will gut our military, but leave us with the largest military in the world. Should be enough.
4) Breaks away from the focus on family values, gay marriage, etc over which the federal government has no authority (this really bugged me about Santorum– I’m not a fundamentalist and don’t care about this stuff)
5) I know he’s a porker. Is he not better than the alternatives in obeying the Constitution (especially given the culture in Washington)
6) He’s a straight talker. Aside from the very relevant issue of those newsletters that he wrote, he doesn’t dodge questions and definitely has no hidden agenda.
My initial assessment of RP is that he is a product of Washington- he’s as close to a Constitutionalist as can exist in this corrupt legislature and, while not ideal, perhaps a good stepping stone on the way to a real Constitutionalist.
Please, explain why I am wrong. I promise that I am not closeminded about this and am looking for information/non-biased opinion.
By the way, given the choice between Obama and Romney, will you endorse Romney at some point?
Hi, Ross!
I am trying to teach the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, teach People how to think, to restore the rational enlightenment philosophy based on Judeo-Christian values (i.e., the Natural law”), and our Constitutional Republic.
I always thought Mitt Romney was the most sensible and least objectionable of all the candidates in this (and the last) nomination process. He is the only one whom I never heard butcher the Constitution, or speak incoherently, or urge suicidal positions. He seems to be an astonishingly competent manager. And I have had no reason to question his personal moral character.
He is not my ideal candidate – but we don’t have any Thomas Jeffersons or George Washingtons or James Madisons. But I think he is the best candidate for the nomination of his party.
Of course, I will support him over zero!
I have known about Ron Paul (RP) from the beginning, and never ever saw in him the virtues his followers seem to see. It is true that the federal reserve is unconstitutional (which is why I didn’t support Herman Cain who was a former official of the Fed and who still supports it.) It is true that we ought to eliminate many federal agencies and departments – RP is not the only person who says this. But I never heard a coherent word out of RP’s mouth – listen to him carefully – sometimes his speech is incomprehensible. Some of his positions are tin foil hat looney tunes – that the Bush administration was behind the bringing down of the Twin Towers. He attracts, with this kind of talk, a particular kind of person to his camp – the resentful squint-eyed souls who hate. He also attracts to his camp anarchists who spew hatred of Alexander Hamilton (whose writings in The Federalist Papers are essential to understanding original intent), who say the Anti-Federalists were the ones with the right idea, and that the U.S. Constitution is a statist document. These are among RP’s followers, and RP does nothing to disavow them or distance himself from them. He makes use of them.
E.g., when I started posting on my website, someone was posting links to my website on some white supremacists websites. SO! I took action. I modified Galations 3:28 to add “or black person or white person” so as to repudiate the white supremacists. RP doesn’t repudiate the loonies & crazies & haters who have attached to him. So he either agrees with them or he is too weak to distance himself from them.
And RP’s position on islam is profoundly ignorant and naive. He seems completely unaware of a 1400 year history of bloodshed, conquest, and unmitigated cruelty. And that islam’s campaign today is not just against the United States and Israel, but against all of Western Europe and the entire world. RP’s passivity in the face of islamic jihad is so dangerous that I would not support RP under any circumstances.
Go to Act for America – Brigette Gabrielle – to get the straight truth about islam.
The recent business about RP’s newsletters revealed to all who care to see a seamy dishonest side to RP’s character. I saw videos of RP hawking those newsletters, saw letters with his signature hawking those newsletters, and I remember those newsletters when they came out! We all knew what was in those newsletters – that’s one reason I repudiated RP from the very beginning! And when they came to light a few months ago, he denied knowing anything about what was in them. So either he lied or he is senile and forgot that he had said (when he was selling subscriptions) that they were his way of “educating” the American People.
Well, I certainly can’t argue with any of that. While I do still think that he would be the most likely candidate to balance the budget, I guess that we do need someone a little more sane in the office of the presidency. Haha.
Kudos to you for putting the supremacists in their place.
Yes, under the circumstances, I figured God would forgive me for altering the text of Galations 3:28 to add that white Christians do not look down on their black brothers and sisters. And yes! My plan worked! I alienated the white supremacists!
He’s even worse than that, PH.
One of those anarchists who claim that the Constitution is a statist document, that it created a big government, that the antifederalists were right and that the US was better off under the Articles of Confederation is Lew Rockwell, his ghostwriter who served as his chief of staff for many years. RP has not only not disavowed him, he has embraced him and for a long time kept him as his chief of staff. Another person who says that and who claims Alexander Hamilton was a statist is Thomas DiLorenzo, whom RP has also not disavowed.
On Israel, Ron Paul is unrelentingly hostile to the Jewish state. He has proposed to cut off all aid to it, and has even done an interview with Iranian TV whereby he blames exclusively Israel and America, and exonerates Hamas and Iran. He has condemned the 2010 IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara and claims that Gaza is a concentration camp. He makes light of the Iranian threat, and in 2009, when even Dennis Kucinich voted for a resolution condemning the Iranian regime’s butchery of its own people, Ron Paul voted against it.
The resolution was not calling for any intervention against Iran and would not have obligated the US government to do anything. It was just a verbal condemnation of the genocide.
When it came to choose whether to side with good or evil people, Paul choose the evil people. He’s a man without any moral principles.
Regarding 9/11, not only does he believe that 9/11 was an inside job, he’s too much of a coward to say so publicly and explicitly. When asked by one of his supporters why won’t he come out with what they consider to be the truth about 9/11, he said he “can’t handle the controversy”. But he has claimed publicly that after 9/11 there was “glee” among members of the Bush Admin.
As for his newsletters: if there is anyone who seriously believes that for many years these racist newsletters were being distributed without him knowing, I have a bridge to sell to you.
Thanks for the input about the military and foreign policy issues. Those are things I don’t know enough about to comment on. And now that you mention it, I do remember his interview on Iranian TV – I think my dislike for RP did turn to utter revulsion at that point.
One day, I need to take on that poisonous viper, Thomas DiLorenzo – he’s as bad as that Harvard law professor and that Progressive woman lawyer. I haven’t taken DiLorenzo on yet b/c I haven’t read his book on Hamilton and don’t know if I can bring myself to do so. I certainly won’t buy a copy. I’ll look for an online article. Then I will have no mercy.
“3) Yes, he will gut our military, but leave us with the largest military in the world. Should be enough.”
You’re joking, right, Ross?
Firstly, the US military is NOT the largest in the world. The largest is the PLA (China’s military), which also has the world’s largest Navy and Army. The active-duty military of the DPRK (the KPA) is also larger than the active-duty US military.
And if you were a real coservative or a real Constitutionalist, Ron Paul’s support for deep defense cuts and for gutting the military would have caused you, by itself, to reject Ron Paul. Gutting the military is not only a foolish and suicidal policy in practical, economic, and political terms, it would also be a gross DERELICTION of the Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. And without a STRONG military, the American people will not enjoy any freedoms; without a strong military, America will be bullied and threatened by whoever decides to exploit its weakness.
Furthermore, by requesting pork, Ron Paul is also vilating the Constitution. And he does so routinely.
No, Ron Paul is no better than the vast majority of other members of Congress. And opposing a strong defense by itself disqualifies him as a “Constitutionalist”, regardless of his positions on all other issues.
I can immediately think of several Congressmen and Senators who have a far BETTER record of obeying the Constitution. For example, Michele Bachmann, Ron Johnson, Jeff Sessions, Jim Demint, Saxby Chambliss, Pat Toomey, Ted Poe, and Jon Kyl.
Of all presidential candidates who ran this election season, Bachmann was, IMO, by far the most conservative one.
I just got the book, “The Five Thousand Year Leap: Twenty-Eight Great Ideas That Are Changing the World” by Cleon Skousen and looked up the summary on Wikipedia. In the Wikipedia summary is a quote from some guy named Sean Wilentz, which reads as follows,
“Disputing Skousen’s claim that the Founders opposed the redistribution of wealth, Wilentz writes that:
He does not mention the Founders’ endorsement of taxing the rich to support the general welfare. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote approvingly in 1811 of having federal taxes (then limited to tariffs) fall solely on the wealthy, which meant that “the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
This goes against everything that I have read on Jefferson, namely my favorite Thomas Jefferson quote, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
Did Jefferson really say the quote as stated by Wilentz?
Brearly, what I am trying to teach Our People to do is this: Don’t believe anything people say unless they PROVE it with links to original sources. Please review the two most recent papers on my website. There I show a prominent progressive lawyer and a Harvard law professor making claims about our Framers which are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE! I proved, via quotes from original sources, that what they said was not true.
Progressives don’t prove what they say, they just assert it. And count on people believing it.
So! To Sean Wilentz, I would say, “Prove it! Link to some original sources to prove what you say.”
What Wilentz says is false. I don’t have time to write a paper on this now, but have a look at, e.g., Federalist Paper No. 10, next to last para, where James Madison says:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm
PH,
Thank you! Thank you!
I have been looking for something from the federalist papers that shows they believed redistribution of wealth (and socialism in general) is evil. Thank you for documenting your replies. You make it so very much easier to speak when so armed.
Well, you are so welcome, DP! Any time.
What was/is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? What were the Founding Father’s statements on the 2nd Amendment. I think United States v. Miller is one of the most interesting cases that the Supreme Court ever ruled on. The defense didn’t even show up to court because he was dead and his attorney didn’t have the money to travel!
Is the 2nd Amendment intended to be a fail-safe against a fascist government? History has shown time and again that right to keep and bear arms is the foundation of liberty.
Brearly, I have been meaning to write on this whole right to keep and bear arms issue.
The place to start is with the Declaration of Independence which says your rights come from God. So they pre-date & pre-exist all human governments.
The Bible (and The Natural Law – that law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality) recognize that you have the right to defend yourself & your family, etc. and you have the right to feed yourself & your family, etc. That means, swords, knives, rifles, handguns, etc.
The next place to look is Federalist Paper No. 46, second half) where James Madison speaks (rapturously) of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed.
So, for hundreds of years before the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, Americans were armed.
We must be clear: The 2nd Amendment is NOT the source of our right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment merely states the prohibition against the federal or State governments infringing the [pre-existing] right of The People to keep and bear arms.
Also, remember my most recent paper: Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 16 authorizes the federal government to REQUIRE adult male citizens to buy guns & ammo. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/why-congress-may-lawfully-require-citizens-to-buy-guns-ammunition-but-not-to-submit-to-obamacare-2/
So! States couldn’t do anything in contradiction of this power granted to Congress by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16. If they did, their act would violate the “supremacy clause” (Article VI, clause 2).
I’m in a terrible rush and will have to finish this later. You might have to remind me or wait for the paper.
This guy writes what I think is an accurate statement on the 2nd Amendment…
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/how-are-gun-rights-god-given-and-inalienable/
Yes, our Declaration of independence recites that our rights come from the Creator God; and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.
See my paper on “Rights” and the video on why we cut our own throats when we speak of “our constitutional rights”.
PH, this is just unbelievable!
Police Shut-down Event Promoting U.S. Constitution. CAIR Behind the Shutdown
“In the middle of an event to extol the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and “American Laws For American Courts,” the audience learned first-hand how easy it is to lose their freedom of Speech and Assembly.
Amid shouts of “What about free speech?” from the audience, the Allegan Police Department ordered the event shut-down. School officials notified police that they had received a letter complaining about the event from Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI). The letter asked the school to disallow the event despite an existing contract. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U. S. history, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.
As a result, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR- MI), its Executive Director, the City of Allegan, the Allegan Police Department and the School District were named as defendants in a thirty-four page civil rights lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan, this morning. The claims included constitutional and contract ”
http://visiontoamerica.org/9549/police-shut-down-event-promoting-u-s-constitution-cair-behind-the-shutdown/
http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/files/City%20of%20Allegan%20Complaint%20-%20Filed%20043012.pdf
Spense,
We hang by a thread.
The multiculturalists, the pacifists, and the chum-bye-yah wimps & wusses, labor under an Ignorance which is destroying us.
The rest of us are too embarrassed to stand up for Western civilization and defend it as morally superior to any other system which has ever existed.
Multiculturalism NEVER works. In Federalist Paper No. 2 (5th para), John Jay [first chief justice of the U.S. supreme Court] speaks of how Providence has given us one united People – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same Religion, attached to the same principles of government, and very similar in their manners and customs. Basically, we were English speaking people of the Puritan form of Protestant Christianity. And when the Presbyterian Scots came here, they assimilated as fast as they could!
We made a terrible mistake when we gave this up, and became “multicultural”. But we didn’t start massive importations of our sworn enemies – the muslims – until recent decades.
Thank God for the Thomas More Law Center.
[Black slavery, was of course, a great evil and was the exception to felicity described by John Jay. And we shed much blood because of that sin.]
Don’t let anyone fool you; that thread is pretty darn big. Somewhat related, what was the original intended purpose of the Second Amendment?
Would you start a new post re your question about the 2nd Amendment? I need a system which organizes Q/s & A’s better. Thanks, Brearly.
I posted your most recent article on a gun forum… check out the responses…
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=657427
Well, it is disappointing that they seem to have missed the point. Perhaps they missed the point because they didn’t read the entire paper – all 3 pages of it.
Are none of them are willing to take the trouble to read it through and think about it? Do they think they already know all about it?
Are we going to be done in by the conceit and shallowness of The People of today?
May I suggest that you tell them they should read the entire paper?
And what about steering that one person who thinks s/he knows about the general welfare clause to my paper where I explain the original intent of the “general Welfare” clause?
Are these the people you say are on our side?
Are these the people you say are on our side?
I wouldn’t by any means say all of them are, but some definitely are. My favorite author sometimes uses that site…
I’ll do my best… my intent was to get more people over to your website…
Well, I’m sure you can find a way. Meanwhile, other mags are publishing articles talking about how “brilliant” Professor Elhauge is for finding these laws where our Framers required people to buy guns & ammo and fund the marine hospitals at the federal dock-Yards.
And the unknowing ones “on our side” sneer at my work b/c they think they know all about it.
And so we spiral downward at an ever increasing speed.
Check out comment #25
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8140264&postcount=25
Interesting. That article starts out with this quote:
Quote:
Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional
In truth, the SCOTUS DOESN’T have a Constitutional mandate to rule on the Constitutionality of an Act of Congress. That power was invented by Chief Justice Marshall (a rabid and unscrupulous federalist) in Marbury v. Madison.
One could, of course, argue that it IS Constitutional because the Court SAYS it is, and the Court SAYS that it gets to decide these things, so, therefore it IS because we say we can say that it is, and that’s what we say. But that would start to sound like circular logic.
That is depressing. Sam has no concept of checks and balances – no concept of the meaning of the Oath of office – no knowledge of the Federalist Paper where this is discussed. I provided the links where he could find out – but he is too self-satisfied to check it out?!
Sam is the poster child for ignorant & obstinate conceit. Why he is as ignorant as obama!
So! Congress can pass any law they like? And the other two branches must obey? No matter how blatantly unconstitutional it is?
What if Congress passes a law requiring Jews to wear armbands with a yellow star; and Christians must wear armbands with a white cross? What if Congress makes it a capital felony to refuse to wear the armbands?
Must the other two branches go along with it? The President must order the Attorney General to prosecute those who fail to wear the armbands? The Courts must sentence them to death? The President must obey Congress instead of the Constitution? The supreme Court must obey Congress instead of the Constitution?
Sam is not a thinker. He spouts off what he thinks he knows. He is an ignorant show-off.
READ my paper on the Oath of office! I explain all of this. The problem is that the Sams of the Country would rather show off what they think they know than actually make the effort to learn.
Brearly, are you up to teaching these people?
A similar bill was passed during the Clinton regime and the Supreme Court shot it down. You would think that these same career politicians would learn, but like baby birds they wake up to a new world everyday. I don’t think our Founding Fathers would look upon our elected officials with anything but contempt. Delegating their sworn authority to others so they’ll have more time for fund raising and campaigning for re-election. It’s not a very honorable lot we have and we have nobody to blame but ourselves, we elected them.
“I don’t think our Founding Fathers would look upon our elected officials with anything but contempt.”
True. And they would look at us and weep.
Hi PH…. Have you seen this proposed bill; H.R.3521? If I understand it correctly Congress is basically giving the President some power to legislate. The Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2012, H.R.3521 has already been passed by the house.
No, Congress would not be giving the President any power to legislate. It would be merely giving him an additional veto power, which is not about legislating. The line item veto bill recently passed by the House would only allow the President to veto a portion of a bill (e.g. a line item expenditure) instead of the whole bill, and return it to the House in which it originated. Congress would then have a number of days to hold an up-or-down vote on the subject, during which time they can override his veto. If the Congress does nothing within that timeframe, then, as with normal vetoes, the President’s line item veto stands.
This is nothing extraordinary. The vast majority of the Nation’s governors already have line item veto power and use it regularly. The procedure with LIVs at the state level is the same as described above. The Governor can veto a portion of a bill and return it to the House in which it originated. The State Legislature then holds a vote on the subject, but if they vote to sustain his veto, or do noting within the deadline set by the State Constitution, the governor’s veto stands. The LIV is very useful for rooting out wasteful spending, especially in bills which, overall, are constiutional and needed (e.g. defense authorization and appropriation bills), but into which members of Congress insert wasteful items like pork. It is no coincidence that the House’s biggest porkers, Hal Rogers and Ron Paul, oppose the LIV.
The statute passed during the Clinton years was completely different. It gave the President the power to unilaterally modify laws passed by the Congress by vetoing portions of bills in an unreviewable manner, i.e. Congress could not override such a line item veto. The SCOTUS rightly struck that statute down.
Well done. Can you write up a paper on Ron Paul’s pork [proving all that you say] so I can flaunt it in front of the self-righteous paulbots who suggest that I don’t understand the Constitution; and am a bad person, and ignorant, as well; since I don’t support ron paul ?
One more thing: do you plan to write a topic on the constitutional merits of a strong defense, and generous funding for it, i the near future? I’m asking because libertarians and nowadays even some liberals claim that defense is just like any other government function, or even the least important of them, and that defense/the Pentagon is just another Big Government program that needs to be radically cut. And a Libertarian paulbot candidate running for Congress somewhere even alleges that “pretty much everythng Washington does is unconstitutional”, and his website makes it clear that he does not consider defense to be an exception.
Well, I don’t know much about military matters. My knowledge can be summed up in 4 sentences:
1) We ought to have a strong national defense.
2) The Constitution authorizes Congress to provide for a strong national defense.
3) It is the DUTY of the United States to protect us from invasion (Art. IV, Sec. 4).
4) We ought not get involved in wars and foreign entanglements unless intervention serves our “national interest”. But [unlike the Dixie Chicks & certain movie stars], I am not an expert in foreign policy and so don’t know when intervention is or is not in our “national interest”, or what kind of intervention is appropriate and wise. I have to defer to others. What do you think of John Bolton?
Do you recall the name of the libertarian paulbot congressional candidate? Maybe that is something I can write on.
PH,
I understand that you may not know much, or be interested in, military matters, but the question presented was a Constitutional/legal one, not a military one. National defense, as understood by me, means a military protecting a country. The only question here was whether generously funding national defense – i.e. the troops, their training, their bases and housing, their compensation and health programs, their equipment, the operation, maintenance and development thereof, and administrating the Defense Department is a Big Government Program or not – whether it is Constitutionally legitimate (or even mandated) or not.
But don’t worry, you won’t have to do the hard work of writing such an article, because I’ve already written two on this very subject:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/defense_and_the_principle_of_limited_government.html
http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/is-robust-defense-spending-a-big-government-program/
Furthermore, since you’ve mentioned it and asked a question, I’ll answer. I agree that the US should not involve itself in wars and other crises unless the US national interest demands that, but the brutal truth – which Ron Paul and his isolationist minions don’t want to face – is that SOMETIMES the national interest DOES demand that. Sometimes it is necessary to intervene.
What is relevant to “the US national interest”? By my understanding, anything that would have a significant material impact on the security, strength, and/or the prosperity of the United States. That means not only physical threats to the US and its citizens, but also threats to the freedom of navigation on sealanes (on which American trade, and the US economy, are totally dependent), and flight in air, the security of the world’s mineral resources (not merely, but particularly, oil), and the security of key allies such as Britain, France, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, who are important military AND economic partners. Because the world’s economies are so interdependent today, any aggression against these countries would have huge repercussions not just for their economies but for America’s economy as well. At the same time, of course, these countries must take lead responsibility for their own defense.
Most post-Cold-War military interventions were not within the national interest: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya. The currently ongoing nationbuilding effort in Afghanistan should be terminated immediately. But the others were justified.
I don’t have the time to do so right now. But the evidence is, inter alia, here:
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron-pauls-earmark-requests-for-fy2009/
http://thecrossedpond.com/2007/07/01/ron-paul-king-of-pork/
http://unsettledchristianity.com/2011/12/ron-paul-pork-king/
http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/ronpaul/
According to the 4th blogpost, Ron Paul brings back about $00 mn’s worth of pork back to his district every year, and “In Texas he brags about these pork barrel projects, but in the presidential campaign he claims to be against earmarks. Paul is one of only four Republicans on Capitol Hill who requested earmarks in the 2011 budget.”
So much for fiscal conservatism. No wonder why he and Rep. Hal Rogers (RINO-KY), the Prince of Pork, are the most strident opponents of the LIV.
BTW, the LIV is useful not just for striking out *unconstitutional* items, but also ones that are constitutionally legitimate but unneeded and therefore wasteful. An example will illustrate the point.
The DOD wants to retire, and stop buying, Global Hawk Block 30 drones, because they are far too expensive while not capable enough to justify the expenditure. But the HASC AirLand subcommittee’s latest mark would, if passed, force the USAF to keep flying and buying these marginally useful, overly expensive drones. And every dollar that you spend on unneeded things is one that cannot be invested in needed equipment. The LIV would enable the President to strike out such items (while, sadly, also potentially allowing him to strike out needed items that he doesn’t want the military to have, so it’s a double-edged sword).
And if you want to make the conservative case against RP, you can use more arguments than just his pork – you can also use his strident opposition to a strong defense, his advocacy of appeasement towards America’s enemies, his statements blaming the US for 9/11, his belief that 9/11 was an inside job that produced “glee” in the Bush WH, and his support of abortion on demand state-by-state against him. Be warned, however, that the vast majority of paulbots are irrational fanatics who will stick to their prophet no matter what, so your effort will be futile.
Oh, there is much to criticize about ron paul. But the things you point out about him are the things his rabid followers love him for. There is only one class of ron paul supporters whom I may be able to reach – those who think he is the “constitutional candidate”. Some of those people may change their minds when confronted with irrefutable proof that he is a porker.
“his strident opposition to a strong defense, his advocacy of appeasement towards America’s enemies, his statements blaming the US for 9/11, his belief that 9/11 was an inside job that produced “glee” in the Bush WH, and his support of abortion on demand state-by-state”
Let it be rightly understood that I am not a Ron Paul supporter (I am not a Mitt Romney or Obama supporter either) but I must add my two bits here. This is not in defense of Ron Paul, it is in opposition to your points above, not as they relate to RP, but as they relate to our country in general. I understand that we have not discussed this at any length and neither of us knows the position of the other. The points are quickly made and not necessarily intended to be a full statement of position so if I have misunderstood then please forgive me. Sorry this is so long.
First: Our constitution allows for a strong national DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. We have no business setting up an empire. Ours is to be a DEFENSIVE position. I agree with RP on that. We have no business being in over 100 countries, spreading our version of reality and forcing the world into “democracy”. They can follow us if they want, that is their business. Besides, we ARE NOT a democracy and yet we insist on going to the middle east and forcing them to become a democracy. That is hypocrisy by democracy (ha ha). RP has said, in effect, “how would you feel if they came into our country and did what we are doing to them?” Well, how would you feel? I know I wouldn’t like it. Imagine Russia coming in and trying to take over. How would you feel? We have killed many many innocent people in the name of national OFFENSE for which our government leaders are going to be held accountable to God, and I will stand as a witness against them. I’d get my gun out and start defending my home if someone came here and did what we have done there. That isn’t appeasement, that is putting war in its proper place. Who in the middle east are our enemies? Who is opposing us? I doubt if Egypt or Syria are our enemies. Iraq certainly was not our enemy. So why are we there? Can you give me even one good reason? We could have used a constitutional Letter of Marque against Al Qaida as RP has many times pointed out. We could have singled out our target, get in get out. But no, we are fighting non-enemies in a foreign lands in a never ending, unconstitutional war setting and to what point? I propose that is not national DEFENSE that is OFFENSE. George Washington said we shouldn’t become embroiled in other country’s affairs. The only valid reasons I can find for war are if we are attacked we can defend and drive out an enemy. Not pursue them outside of our country. And perhaps in rare cases we might go to the defense of someone who is getting beat upon if they ask us to do so. What is this business about pre-emptive strikes? That is like locking up a person because they might be a thief. The constitution says a strong national DEFENSE! I agree.
Second: Concerning 9/11 – I personally have met Dr. Stephen Jones and know others who will give him the highest character references. I know of no one who knows him who does not have the highest regard for his intelligence and character. I have discussed with doctors of physics and chemistry as well as other professionals the ideas that his paper puts forth (for which he was forced out of BYU). His basic point is that we are not being told the truth about 9/11. Architects For Truth agrees with him. The planes alone did not bring down the towers. Dr Jones’ paper now has international interest and co-authors. I know research chemists who also agree with him. I have discussed this with many architects and peers of Dr. Jones as well as professionals who have reviewed his paper. I am convinced that the government is lying about 9/11. I don’t know who did it and I don’t know if Cheney and Rumsfield shouted for joy and did a jig (it wouldn’t surprise me) but I am convinced that we are not being told the truth. I am not going to expound on it, do your own research and forget what the liberal MSM has told us. My first premise of the federal government is that everything they tell us is a lie. I can’t think of a time when I have been disappointed. You certainly can think what you like on the subject just make sure you don’t do it blindly.
Third: RP says the federal government is not allowed to condone abortion. He is right so far. If it is going to be an issue it is a state issue. (I.e. perhaps allowed in cases of rape, incest or mother’s health). I have never heard RP say he is for abortion on demand. His point has been that it is not a federal issue and only the states can make it an issue. I have an open mind, tell me where he’s wrong?
As a last note, if I were the bad guys pulling the strings, I would buy up both dominant political parties and have them say the right words to both sides of every issue so they control the outcome no matter what.
DPatterson:
You are completely wrong on all counts.
Firstly, America is NOT an empire. America is a country that helps other countries defend themselves (whether they deserve to be helped or not is a different matter). A real empire invades other countries, imposes its government on them, and exploits them economically and demographically. The US does not behave in this manner. Ron Paul’s claims about the number of countries where US troops are present and where the US has “bases” are not just completely false, they’re also non-sequitur. The vast majority of American “bases” around the world are tiny military installations like fuel depots, waste dumps, and hospitals, iand in the vast majority of countries where US troops are present, the only American troops there are Marine Embassy Guards and defense attaches. By that same standard, dozens of countries are occupying Washington, DC.
America has not imposed its system of government on any country, whether Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country. In fact, in those two countries, it has tolerated, and continues to tolerate, Islamic form of governments based on sharia, and tolerates all barbaric customs that come with Sharia in these countries: female genital mutilation, spousal rape, polygamy, etc. A true empire would impose its own system of government, laws, and customs on these countries.
Iraq *was* America’s enemy. It perpetrated aggression against two of its neighbors, gassed thousands of its own citizens (with chemical weapons) and thus had WMDs, attempted to assassinate a former US President, and yes, it did have a nuclear weapon program (some analysts estimate that if it hadn’t been for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Saddam would’ve obtained a nuclear weapon by the mid-2000s). That’s because after the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor Saddam Hussein became firmly convinced that Iraq needed a nuclear deterrent and ordered its development to be conducted in a more dispersed, clandestine fashion.
Today, Iran is the enemy of the US in the Middle East, as are Islamic terrorist organizations. I would not, however, advocate bombing Iran, because that would likely lead to a replay of the Iraqi scenario (see above): Tehran would have evidence, right before its own eyes, that it needs a nuclear deterrent and would disperse its nuclear program even further, while the Iranian people, most of whom currently hate the regime, would rally around that regime in the event of any attack on their country. The mullahcracy needs to be toppled from within, preferrably by the Iranians (and internal Iranian insurgent groups) themselves. And as then-CIA Director Leon Panetta testified during his SECDEF confirmation hearing in 2011, Islamic terrorist organizations based in the ME, such as AQAP, pose a direct threat to the US homeland. To allow such a threat to gather and wait until America is attacked would be suicidal.
Think about it: if President Madison (or Captain Decatur) had been alerted in 1812 that the Royal Navy was on its way to Norfolk, would he have waited until the RN attacked the base, or would he have ordered the USN to sail out of its port and meet the Brits in the Atlantic *before* it was attacked?
Paul’s claims about US bases and troops abroad are such blatant lies that even the WaPo has called him to task for them and gave him three pinnochos.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-pauls-strange-claim-about-bases-and-troops-overseas/2012/02/08/gIQApZpqzQ_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics
Defense treaties with foreign countries are Constitutionally legitimate, as long as they have been ratified by the President with Senate consent. And if a loyal, crucial ally were attacked, it would be not only perfectly legitimate to help him, it would be America’s moral duty.
Defendng America means defending it EFFECTIVELY, since an ineffective defense would be pointless. Nowadays, defending America requires fending off threats as far away from the homeland, as close to these threats, and as soon as possible. If China carries out tis threats and starts an expansionist binge, or North Korea perpetrates aggression against its southern neighbor again, it is far better and far effective to stop them early in Eastern Asia, rather than ignoring such threats and hoping the crocodile won’t come to eat the United States. Isolationism did not work even during the early years of the Republic and it won’t work now. Any claim that threats to America are limited to America’s borders and anything outside America’s borders is not a threat of the US is ludicrous and wrong. As proven by the 1930s.
What would the American people think if a country did that to America? Actually, jihadists DID attack America on 9/11, so your point is moot. Islamists have been at war with non-Muslims since the 7th century, and they would’ve attacked America even if it had always pursued an isolationist foreign policy.
But even if one were to believe that nothing outside America’s borders is a threat to America and that the US should adopt a strictly “defensive” and neutral posture, that still doesn’t help Ron Paul: he’s adamantly opposed even to that. He has repeatedly tried, together with the most stridently liberal Democrats in Congress, to deeply cut and thus gut America’s defense by deeply cutting not just the defense budget but the number of troops, the force structure, equipment stocks, procurement and R&D programs, and the US nuclear deterrent. He’s a fanatical supporter of sequestration, which will make even more drastic cuts than what Paul, Frank, and Wyden proposed in 2010. He has even voted to cut funding for the Ground Based Interceptor program, which is based exclusively in, and defends exclusively, the United States (and not any allies). He has repeatedly voted and proposed to deeply cut America’s own defense, even programs with purely DEFENSIVE purposes, such as the GBI program.
So your whole “defensive posture” argument has been refuted, rendering the rest of your post moot regarding defense issues.
As for 9/11: who is Stephen Jones? What are his credentials? Where does he work? Just your words that you believe his credentials are impeccable prove nothing. In any case, 9/11 conspiracy theories have already been debunked many times, e.g. by Ryan K. Owens (RKOwens8 on Youtube, please watch his videos), and have been proven to be nothing more than lies. Your claims that you are *convinced* that “the government is lying about 9/11″ prove nothing; that is merely your opinion. Furthermore, they are insulting to the memories of all who died on 9/11. I would strongly suggest that you retract those comments.
What you say is true. 220 years ago, an enemy ship had to be in our coastal waters in order to fire a cannon on one of our coastal towns. Today, an enemy 1/2 way around the world is a threat to us if they have nuclear weapons and have said that they are going to wipe us out (as the President of Iran has said). Just as we would have dealt with the enemy ship in our coastal waters 220 years ago, so we must deal with the threats from countries across the globe who have said they will take us down and are busily developing the weapons so they can carry out their threats. We have to deal with the FACTS of the modern world.
The issue is where should we intervene and what form should that intervention take? To answer that intelligently requires a specific knowledge of foreign affairs and weapons and their capabilities and military tactics which I do not have. It requires access to intelligence data which none of us have. It also requires an understanding of the mindset – the philosophy – of the enemy. [This is why Thomas Jefferson read the koran - he wanted to understand "where the Barbary pirates were coming from". And I am certain that Jefferson, an exquisitely well-educated man, knew the bloody history & cruel nature of islam.] The Dixie Chicks, various movie actors, the hard left, and Ron Paul and his followers seem to take the position that we shouldn’t intervene anywhere at any time for any reason. That position is so blindly irrational, I am at a loss to explain how anyone could believe it. They seem to shut Reality out of their minds and live in a cum-by-ya imaginary land where “everybody is nice as long as you are nice to them”.
I traveled a good bit in E. Europe during the Cold War. The People in the communist countries loved America! But there was resentment against America in E. Germany. Why? Because the soldiers in the German Army wanted to surrender to the Americans. But America refused to accept their surrender and made them surrender to the Soviet Union. That was not a good outcome for those German soldiers. Now why did they want to surrender to the Americans? B/c Americans were famous for being THE GOOD GUYS.
The former Soviet Union got to Berlin first. They set about raping the women so the Germans had to hide their young wives and daughters. The German people were thrilled when the Americans finally got to Berlin. They knew American soldiers wouldn’t be raping their young women and daughters.
When the former Soviet Union sealed off West Berlin from ground traffic – intending to starve the West Berliners into submission to the communist East, the Americans came to the rescue with the Berlin airlift. Every few minutes,every day, for quite some time, an American airplane landed in Berlin loaded with food, medicine, and other provisions. They also dropped thousands and thousands of little parachutes with candy for the German children. Oh yes! The West Berliners had good reason to refer to The Americans as “The Protectors”.
So when Ron Paul talks about foreign policy, he is not talking about the real world. His mind is in fantasy-land.
So what’s needed is a foreign policy which prudently decides where we will go and why and what we will do. Bill Clinton is said to have bombed that aspirin factory in order to detract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Who knows why we are in Afghanistan and what our objectives are? I expect we have no objectives there. But when Bush was president, the hard left was saying, “We should be in Afghanistan, not Iraq!” Yes, as practiced recently, our military involvement here and there doesn’t make any sense.
But instead of terminating all military & other involvement whatsoever – as Ron Paul and his followers, the hard left, and the pop singers and movie stars want to do – we need a coherent foreign policy based on Reality, Facts, solid intelligence information, etc. And it is our Duty to defend our Country for ourselves and our Posterity. Do we wait until Iran has actually wiped out Israel (as they have said they will do), and then wiped out some of our cities (they have said they will destroy us) before we do something?
No! As John Bolton and our foreign policy guru ZM suggest, we find a way to topple the present regime of Iran. Bolton has long been saying that many of the Iranian PEOPLE are pro-West. I say, let’s find a way to help them topple the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad. To shut our eyes to the threat – to deceive ourselves so that we can evade Reality – is to betray our children and our grandchildren.
Dear Spense,
I looked at HR 3521 and confess I got angry [at Congress] because in order to understand it (to the degree of certainty I must have in order to comment on it), I would have to dig up the law(s) it was amending and understand that before I could understand HR 3521. And I don’t have the time, and must save my eyes as much as I can.
So, just speaking generally: Certainly, if I were President and Congress sent me the type of defense appropriations bill Zbigniew described in his post of May 2, I would be required by my Oath of Office [which is to obey the Constitution, not Congress] to strike out unconstitutional appropriations inserted by corrupt, dishonest, and Constitution-perverting Representatives & Senators. I would just strike them out. I would claim my Oath of Office as Authority. And I would order the appropriate people in the Executive Branch that they were not under any circumstances to appropriate the funds I had struck out.
So if Congress wants to make this a bit neater by “authorizing” the President to do what his Oath of Office already requires him to do, that is OK.
Re the length of Acts of Congress. In my most recent paper, I link to the Militia Act of 1792. Note how short it is. How short the surrounding Acts are. Any person of common sense & understanding can read these entire acts and understand them.
Now, we have incomprehensible Bills that no one reads b/c they are too long, and incorporate so much previous legislation, that it is impossible to understand them. But our representatives vote the way they are told to vote even though they haven’t even read them.
So! Let’s re-elect everyone in Congress! They all do such a great job. The stupid American People will re-elect most of them. John Boehner should be the first to go in the next election.
I’ll ask two questions that I asked earlier, but asked to be removed in fear of recriminations from the Obama regime. No longer. I shall ask again:
1) Do offers of limiting one’s own country’s defenses, such as missile defense, to placate Russia (“This is my last election. After my election, I’ll have more flexibility.”), or transferring classified information (e.g. the parameters of the SM-3 missile) to a hostile country in possible violation of the law count as treason?
2) Does dramatically cutting, and thus gutting, of America’s defenses count as treason?
ZM,
Those are difficult questions. “Treason” is the only crime which is defined in the Constitution – See: Art. III, Sec. 3. In Federalist No. 43 at 3., Madison explains that “treason” is defined in the Constitution in order to prevent people from calling whatever they don’t like “treason”. E.g., in old England, the Monarchs would denounce whatever a political enemy did as “treason” and then have the enemy’s head chopped off.
As a former criminal defense lawyer, I know exactly what constitutes pre-meditated murder, armed robbery, rape, etc. Crimes like those are broken down into “elements”, and the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s pretty cut and dried.
But what constitutes “adhering to the Enemies of the United States, giving them Aid and Comfort”? Most people of my generation who fought in Vietnam, think Jane Fonda committed treason when she smiled and cavorted and posed for photos with the North Vietnamese on the anti aircraft missile – the one which was used to shoot down U.S. military pilots. And I, PH, would volunteer to be the executioner if she were convicted of treason.
In Fonda’s case, North Vietnam was clearly our “Enemy” as we were fighting a war against them. She “adhered” to them and gave them propaganda assistance plus demoralized OUR troops.
But is Russia our “enemy”? We are not fighting a war against them. The former USSR was our ally during part of WWII. Then, we had the cold war with the USSR, but I don’t know if that makes Russia our “enemy”. Obviously, Putin, etc. is not to be trusted; but we are not “at war” with Russia.
Re the examples you gave: It would depend on the surrounding circumstances. E.g., if zero had worked out a deal with Iran that zero will dismantle our defenses so that Iran can launch a nuclear strike against us, and this is carried out – such would constitute “treason” on zero’s part.
But if zero guts our defenses for the reason that he is a naive fool; or if he sincerely believe that if we disarm, so will everyone else [yeah, some of the progressives and Ron Paul supporters really ARE that stupid], I don’t think that would constitute “treason”. Although I am beginning to believe that STUPIDITY should be a criminal offense.
I understand. You might want to know, however, just for the record, that:
1) If Russia gets the info I mentioned, it will almost certainly use it to adapt its BMs to overcome America’s missile defenses and pass this information on to China, NK, and Iran, so that they can use this info for the same purpose.
2) In 2009, Russian intelligence services (most likely the SVR) bombed the US Embassy in Tbilisi, which is an act of war.
And yes, Obama is naive and does sincerely believe that if America disarms, so will everyone else and we can all live in peace thereafter. And he’s hardly the only “progressive” who is that naive.
Thanks, ZM. And I didn’t know those things about Russia. Those acts are relevant to the question of whether zero commits “treason” if he makes secret promises to Russia about disarming us after the election.
Okay, PH, since you didn’t want to comment on my ‘spending power’ inquiry earlier in the month, let me try another bothersome subject. I am interested to understand if there exist special catagories of legislation that have the power to bind future legislators. I have in mind the so-called ‘entitlement’ programs that onced passed, continue on automatically in perpetuity until altered or ended. This catagory, by design, escapes the need for annual renewal or review, unlike what I would call normal legislation. To me, there is something untoward in the idea that because Congress passed something in 1935, all future generations become impressed into a particular scheme by intent.
What? Did I miss a question? Sometimes I fall behind. I’ll go look for your “spending power” question now.
I thought you were just “venting” in your “spending power” inquiry – didn’t know you had a question. And I assumed you had read my paper on the interstate commerce clause. That is foundational. Along with the papers on the “general welfare” clause, Congress’ Enumerated Powers and the President’s Enumerated Powers.
Re your question about “special categories of legislation”: I ask you: Can you find it in the Constitution? Hint: If it isn’t authorized in The Constitution, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN’T DO IT!
REMEMBER: Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only.
I have a question: How valid is a state’s (CA) overt strict control over personal concealed weapon carry permits, as comparatively outlined in the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights? Are individual States truly acting within the Amendment & Bill of Rights when it seeks to tightly control the ability of it’s citizens’ self defense weapons to be permitted for concealed carry?
Very good question, Don.
I have a bit more research to do on this. However, I am certain that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to make it clear that neither the federal government nor the States have lawful authority to infringe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms. [And remember: This Right to keep & bear arms pre-exists & pre-dates the Constitution.]
It is certain that “Militia” means The Citizens. Do read the Militia Act of 1792 and you will see that every able bodied male citizen between 18 years and under 45 years IS a member of the Militia – the armed citizenry. The Act is short, and I expect you will enjoy it. Here is the link to the official source: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394
My next paper will touch on this. I have a longer one in the works. But it is certain that neither the federal government nor the States have lawful authority to infringe ownership of guns.
I haven’t read California’s gun control laws. But as long as the progressives hold the power, they will prosecute (probably successfully) anybody who violates their laws.
I have taken the Hillsdale College course on the Constitution and it is well worth the time to take it. Even for those that have read the Constitution it is a very good course for explaining the Founders ideas on a more perfect government and the need for it. It constantly refers to the Federalist Papers and other writings by the Founders on the real meaning of the Constitution. Being a man that knows a lot about nothing, but a little of everything, it explains our Constitution very well. It is called Constitution 101 and is easy to understand and I highly recommend it. It is free, but you can make a contribution if you like.
Thank you, L.E.! That is so encouraging that the course constantly refers to The Federalist Papers and other original source documents from our Founding Era.
What do you think of the Hillsdale College classes on the Constitution?
http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/page.aspx?pid=474&utm_source=rushforhillsdale.com&utm_medium=redirect
The classes are free. If your goal is to teach people about the Constitution I think you should take and talk about this class some. Maybe even teach or supplement it. Just an idea…
Brearly,
I haven’t seen them. My internet access is so slow that it is not feasible to watch videos. I don’t recommend things I don’t know about.
You tell me: What Authority does Hillsdale use to show the meaning of the Constitution? The Federalist Papers and other original primary source documents? Supreme Court opinions? The subjective standard where each person decides for himself what it means? Or what he thinks? Something else?
Hi PH,
Did you hear about this: http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/201
Nancy Pelosi is backing it. This amendment is really truly scary. Seems like it would completely eliminate freedom of association and just about everything in the first amendment. I could see people using it to “regulate” opposition political parties.
Also, whatever happened to your daily commentary? I was looking forward to that section.
It is scary, Ross. The poison in it is this: It sees the right of free speech as coming from the Constitution – not as a right which comes from the Creator God and which thus pre-dates & pre-exists the Constitution. I have been beating people over the head over the importance of understanding that their rights do NOT come from the Constitution – but they still babble about “our constitutional rights”.
Re the daily commentary: I couldn’t figure out the mechanics of how to do it. I wanted to have a “Page” like the home page which allowed me to post short comments every day on a constitutional issue – e.g., the misinformation we hear every day on FOX news. But the word press people said it couldn’t be done. For Christmas, I want a website designer to come to my house and set up a professional web site which does things.
Oh, too bad.
What is your take on the Federal Reserve? The power to coin money and regulate its value seems pretty clear, but I’m not sure. Also, does “coining” money preclude paper money?
Ross, I am not an economist and don’t really understand monetary theory. However, I understand enough to know that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, an abomination, and the worst scam ever perpetrated – to date – on the American People.
In the Constitution, we delegated to CONGRESS the power to coin money and regulate it’s value. Basically, that means that Congress has the power to say that a Dollar will be worth such and such a fraction of an ounce of gold or silver. Nothing prohibits paper money as long as there is gold and silver to back it up! Gold coins are heavy; and besides, they get battered up and worn away jingling around in your pocket, so paper is a convenient substitute.
With a currency backed by gold and silver, governments are limited in their spending. They must either limit their spending OR tax their people to pay for the government’s spending programs. Governments like to spend money b/c spending increases their power. But heavy taxation is not popular. SO! the fractional reserve system was created. With the Federal Reserve law, Congress granted to the Federal Reserve (a system of PRIVATELY OWNED BANKS), monopoly power to create credit. This “credit” was created out of thin air; the federal government “borrowed” it, and WE have been paying it back to these privately owned banks who “created” it out of thin air. A good portion of the national debt is “owed” to these privately owned banks who “created” it out of ….nothing!
To illustrate: If I lend you $100., I actually have to have $100. which I take out of my pocket or my bank and transfer it to you. But when the federal government “borrows” a trillion dollars from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve just creates the credit out of thin air! And your grandchildren, and their grandchildren, have to pay it back. It is the biggest scam ever. [BTW, Herman Cain was a former official of the Federal Reserve, and defended that system! So, I could NEVER vote for him for that reason.]
Dr. Edwin Vieira is a lawyer who is also, I understand, an expert on The Federal Reserve System. So is the fellow who wrote the HUGE book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. I expect those two understand The Federal Reserve System and monetary theory better than anyone else alive. Certainly, if I were president, I’d get those two to work out a plan to dismantle the Federal Reserve system and to REPUDIATE that portion of the national debt “owed” to the PRIVATE BANKS. I would even see about going after them for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Then, I’d dig up Woodrow Wilson and burn his bones and flush the ashes down the toilet. Along with the bones of everyone in Congress who voted for it.
One question: where in the Constitution does it say that the money has to be backed by gold and/or silver?
Great question, ZM!
The Constitution does not expressly state that money has to be backed by gold and silver (other than Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1, where the States agreed that they would not make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts).
The Answer is found in the common definition of “money” at the time of our framing.
If you inject today’s understandings of terms, then you are amending the Constitution by redefinition; and that would violate Art. V of the Constitution. [This is a very common error!]
Our Framers understood “money” to be gold or silver or copper coin; or banknotes which were redeemable in coin. See, e.g., Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language (under “money”), for a very good illustration of “money”. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary is on-line.
I don’t have time to do this now, but you can search The Federalist Papers and Madison’s Journal for more discussions of “money”. In the next to last para of Federalist No. 10, Madison wrote of “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project,…”.
Also, in the early coinage acts, Congress defined the dollar in terms of amounts of silver or gold. see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792
That does it. Having the dollar backed by silver and/or gold is a sound policy, which kept the dollar strong, i.e. very valuable. That was a policy that the US followed for most of its history until 1971. I think returning to a gold standard (perhaps the Bretton Woods standard, i.e. $35/oz) would be a good policy.
Yes. True, although I don’t understand HOW the price of gold should be set. I regret that I never had time to study economics. I had to lay down my study of Hellenistic Greek and the Bible in order to write on the Constitution. It is a shame that we don’t have time to learn everything we want to learn. Well, we have to rely on each other to learn what we ourselves don’t have time to learn; but so few of us were taught to actually think. It is a crime that the government schools in America were so militantly anti-intellectual that they did not teach Logic; but instead taught “feelings” and group consensus as the guides for “forming views”. Truly, Americans got their minds destroyed in the public schools.
Dear PH. Have you read anything from Commander Kelly, americanconservativeinlondon? He has an article,”War of 1812″. It seems Madison and Washington, also Jefferson, saw things quite differently. If you’ve written on this, could you point me in the right direction?
Evan, I couldn’t find his article so know nothing about it. If it is short, and you give the link, I’ll read it. But I haven’t written on the War of 1812.
Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson did sing off the same sheet of music respecting our Constitution, however!
Dear P.H. Not sure how to send link. The article seemed to say Madison was more libertarian than Washington and Jefferson. After the war, though, it seems he came around to their way of thinking of a stronger military. Changing the subject, I just received, in the mail, my copy of “The Abolition of Man”. It is short, but I think I will be working on it for a while. Thanks for the suggested reading. Evan
Thanks, Evan!
As a whole, our Framers did not want a large permanent standing Army. That’s why appropriations for the Army could not be for a longer period than 2 years (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 12). Hamilton discusses this in the last half of Federalist No. 26 – they wanted Congress to have to publicly debate about appropriations for the military every two years. And warned that we must NEVER turn this over to the President!
In the last half of Federalist No. 46, Madison shows that the Militia – the armed citizens – are our final defense against a Regular Army of the federal government.
The system our Framers designed for the Military is the best! Congress to control the funding, to make the rules for the military, to declare war, to issue letters of Marque & Reprisal; and the President to be merely CINC.
Don’t worry if you find The Abolition of Man a bit difficult! It is – it takes several readings and outlining. Lewis writes about the central philosophical & moral problem of our time: The rejection of the idea that some things are Right, and other things are Wrong; and it’s replacement with the notion that all is merely a matter of personal opinion and that there are no objective Standards. I love him so much.
In my own lifetime, I have witnessed the rejection of the former and the adoption of the latter.
PH, I’ve got a question. I know that if there’s no imminent, urgent threat to national security, the President may not go to war without a Congressional declaration of war, but if there was an imminent threat, such as an enemy fleet detected as sailing towards, and nearing, a major US Navy base, or enemy submarines detected off the US coast, or Russian Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers very close to US airspace (e.g. in the offshore Air Defense Identification Zone), may the President use the US military to protect America WITHOUT Congressional authorization?
Yes. Military matters are NOT my area of expertise. However, in cases where immediate defensive military action is necessary in order to stop an attack on the U.S. or on U.S. property (ships, etc.), the President may order it.
The Constitution says the President is CINC. Surely being CINC involves authorizing whatever emergency action is necessary to protect us from imminent attack. Then there is that natural right of self-defense. Just as if a strange man breaks into my home at night and threatens me, I will kill him. I won’t ask for permission. When minutes count and there is not time to convene Congress and get permission to take defensive action, the President must make the decision.
But when the emergency is over, he needs congressional authorization to follow through against the entity (whether nationstate or transnational organization) which attacked us.
The Constitution doesn’t specifically grant this power to the President. But I expect it is part of being CINC. Just as it is part of a man’s responsibility to protect his family even if it means killing someone who attacks them. And he shouldn’t call for permission first. But if the attacker flees, the man should report it to the police.
If I may, I listened to a talk show host discuss this idea of the president being the CinC and his understanding of the constitution lead him to believe that the President is only the Commander in Chief of the armed forces when they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. (Of course he stated it far more forcefully than I have written here.) I don’t read anything in the words of the constitution that would refute his argument. Do Misters Madison, Hamilton or Jay clarify this role of the president?
Sorry – to clarify my point. if there isn’t a declared war then he isn’t the Commander in Chief if he can only become such when congress has declared war (and I suppose when there is imminent attack as stated above). This means that in our current situation of war after war, he really has no authority to send our national guard soldiers over seas becuase there is no declaration of war to warrant it. War on terror doesn’t count because it is a philosophical war, not a war against a nation. If that is the case and I were the governor of any state in this union I would tell him, without him possibly being able to misunderstand my words, that he can’t have my national guard soldiers because there is no war. Bring them home. Now! In my opinion, the states are going to have to tell the federal government that they can’t do anything unconstitutional. No one else is big enough and the federal gov’t absulutely refuses to control itself.
When you suggest that the President isn’t CINC unless there is a War declared by Congress, you raise a point which is addressed by another provision of Federalist No. 69:
So! The president is CINC of the Militia only when Congress has called them into active service. [In my most recent paper, posted today, I tell you exactly who the "Militia" is!]
But he is ALWAYS CINC of the regular military – he is ALWAYS their head commander – the head admiral. This is why, in times of imminent peril, the president has constitutional authority to shoot down armed enemy aircraft, subs, ships, which are attacking us – and he doesn’t need congressional approval. Just as if I were a combat platoon sergeant, I would order my men to shoot any enemy which was attacking us; whereas I would wait for orders before initiating any action.
You raise a brilliant point: I expect if I were Governor of a Sovereign State, I would tell the President to take a hike if he tried to call up MY State Militia w/o a congressional declaration of War. Well done!
When you see how easy what I do is, you will be amazed! OK! Here is one of my professional secrets:
Go to an online ed. of The Federalist Papers with a searchable text. You know the one I use. Type commander in chief in the search box: The first paper which comes up is Federalist No. 69 http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed69.htm At the middle of the 6th para, we see:
See? There you have it. The best Evidence there is as to the constitutional role of CINC.
I was just following the links in one of your articles and reading your comment on the federal judicial abuses of the 14th amendment. While I agree with you in every respect, I think you (and Mr. Hamilton) place too much confidence in congress impeaching federal judges. There is a long train of abuses but has impeachment ever been done to a federal judge? To my way of thinking that will never happen especially at the SC level. Congress is complicit in the destruction of the constitution and is not willing in any way to control itself and actually needs the rulings of the SC to justify what it is doing.
I believe the only remedy is going to be for the states to take a stand. The individual is too small. If 20 individuals band together they will be vilified and destroyed. However, if 20 states band together they are large enough to actually have an impact. If the states aren’t willing to take a stand then I am afraid we will be lost. If the states do take a stand then the federal punishments will be tremendous and the pain and suffering will be immense. Their vindictiveness will know no bounds. Will we be able to stand with our forebears?
Our socialist leaders have no moral compunction. History teaches us that according to the rules of socialism, they can do ANYTHING to promote the agenda. They are allowed to murder, terrorize, steal, lie, twist truths, kidnap and starve or otherwise destroy anyone who gets in the way and will not comply. We can see that the socialists, though relatively small in number, have taken over the government. (I say socialist but you can include fascists and communists, they accomplish the same thing).
I am leading up to this: There is a move afoot to have a con-con (constitutional convention), which I am opposed to in the strongest language. However, if it comes to pass, then wouldn’t it dissolve the current contract (our constitution) between the states and the federal gov’t? Could we not then claim freedom from them and be able to have each of the freedom-loving states re-establish our beloved constitution and not join the new federation of socialist states? A new consitution would have to be approved and ratified. We just won’t do it. (I believe war would follow.)
Although I am opposed to it – I would rather fix congress – sometimes I wonder if a con-con might actually be what we need. Just a thought.
Thank you for asking the questions I’m sure many have.
1) Re impeachment of federal judges: Our Framers designed an elegant system of checks and balances. Each branch of the federal government has a check on the other two branches. The Check the Constitution provides to Congress to reign in usurpatious federal judges and presidents is Impeachment.
But, as one of our Framers said, Our Constitution was written for a moral People – it is suitable for no other. If Congress were filled with moral people who knew the Constitution, they would impeach usurping federal judges and presidents. But Congress is filled with moral degenerates who love power and go to Congress to get rich, and whose Oath to support the Constitution is just another Lie. And why are the people in Congress corrupt? B/c The people who sent them there are corrupt, or are lazy, or are ignorant.
I look at the rah rah Republicans and am struck by their shallowness. They know nothing and can’t think. They don’t understand Our Constitution and don’t care. The Ron Paul bots are even worse – they are often nasty, self-righteous prigs, in addition to being ignorant. I go on tea party websites and see very little interest in learning our founding Principles. Most tea party people just want to spout off what they think they know. They want to appear “knowing”. They are not willing to make the effort to actually become knowledgeable. E.g., when I was an undergraduate and started reading The Federalist Papers, I had to outline them – para by para!
So, we are not the victims of some nefarious cabal who has been plotting against us. We are in the mess we are in – and most likely will be destroyed – b/c of our own Ignorance, Shallowness, Laziness, Pride (the desire to appear “knowing”, but the refusal to make the effort to become knowledgeable), and Greed (“cut welfare benefits! But don’t touch my pension – it’s mine – I earned it!”)
What is required is a moral regeneration of the People: To regain the discarded notion that People have a responsibility to take care of themselves and their own families. Adult children have a responsibility to take care of their aging parents. Neighbors have a responsibility to help their neighbors. Church members have a responsibility to help other members. No one has the “right” to live at other peoples’ expense. But the Americans just love social security and medicare. Of course, they are bankrupting the Country, but so what? “I want mine” is the cry.
A moral People who troubled themselves to do their civic duty and learn our Founding Principles would send moral people to Congress who also had troubled themselves to learn our Founding Principles. THEY would impeach federal judges and presidents who usurp powers.
Only a handful of a federal judges have been impeached, tried, convicted and removed. I think the last one was in the early 1980s: federal district Court Judge Alcee Hastings (Democrat, Northern District of Florida) was impeached for taking bribes and perjury. But, after he was kicked off the federal bench, the morally blind people of his district elected him to Congress.
He is STILL the U.S. Congressman for that congressional district in Florida. Democrats don’t care that judges take bribes and commit perjury as long as the judge is democrat.
2) If the system of checks & balances set up in Our Constitution is not enforced by the three branches of the federal government, THEN the States must Act. Note that in my model Nullification Resolutions, I recite that the three branches of the federal government have failed to remedy the violations of the other branches. That is part of the moral and the legal justification for the States to act – to nullify.
How will the federal government retaliate if the States nullify acts of the federal government which are outside its delegated powers?
a) Cut off “federal” funds? But consider: Federal funds are merely “borrowed money”. If I have been giving you money to force you to do my will, and the money I have been “giving” you is money I have taken from you in taxes, or money which I have borrowed from Red China which your GRANDCHILREN will be forced to pay back – aren’t you and your grandchildren better off just to deal with it now? Shouldn’t you just tell me to STOP meddling in your life? Shouldn’t you just bite the bullet now? And the bullet will be a lot easier to bite now that it will be 10, 20 or more years from now.
b) Make war on us? Well, our beloved James Madison addresses this eventuality in the second half of Federalist No. 46. Sometimes the only manly & womanly thing to do is lock & load and prepare to defend yourself and your family and your community. These are the words of James Madison, Father of Our Constitution.
3) Re fascists & Communists: In essence, these are the same: both are totalitarian, both are collectivist, both have scapegoats (Jews or the Middle class), and both use Terror as the means of enforcing obedience. The only differences are nominal: In Communism, in theory all property is owned by the State. Under Fascism, property nominally remains in private hands, but the government dictates all matters re its use. Our Country has become a fascist country. hillary clinton, the indonesian in the white house, etc., are fascists.
Somebody really pulled a fast one on the American people when he convinced them that “communism” is on the “left”, fascists are on the “right” – so to be in the Middle is the ideal. Millions of people have swallowed that lie!
4) re a con con:
a) I explain in my Model Nullification Resolutions that THERE IS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES! There never was. That is a lie which was put out to deceive us.
Rather, the relationship between the federal government and We The People is this: WE THE PEOPLE are the creators of the federal government. The federal government is merely our creature. It has no powers other than those WE said it could have in Our Constitution. The Federal government is not a party to ANY compact or contract.
The only compact is between the States who, as representatives of their own Citizens, made a compact with each other to unite for the limited purposes enumerated in Our Constitution.
Again, these are not MY words. Both Hamilton & Jefferson refer to the federal government as our “creature”.
My model nullification resolutions are really very important for setting forth our Founding Principles. And again, the model does not reflect MY thinking – I merely set forth the words of our Framers. Much of my model Nullification Resolutions is taken from the Kentucky Resolutions which Thomas Jefferson wrote.
b) We are being led to believe that with a con con, we can dissolve the existing federal government and start over. That is the most monstrous lie ever told, and the person who made that one up is closely aligned with The Father of Lies himself.
Note that Article V says, “The Congress … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…
So CONGRESS will call the Convention – the very same Congress which has been selling us out for over 100 years. CONGRESS will appoint the delegates. CONGRESS will thus be in control of the con con.
“Oh, don’t worry!”, we are told, “nothing can get ratified unless 3/4 of the States agree!” Oh really? That is what our present Constitution provides. But a new Constitution may set up any new method of ratification. It might provide that the new Constitution will be effective upon majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Constitution we have is glorious. It is based on God’s Model of Polity as set forth in the Bible. But everybody has ignored it for a very long time.
Any new Constitution will be one which suits the big government statists b/c statists control the Congress, and have for a very long time. And THEY WILL IMPOSE THEIR NEW CONSTITUTION ON US.
AND THEN WHAT THEY DO WILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL AND “LAWFUL”. And we will have given up all grounds on which to object.
We presently have both legal and moral justifications for attacking the federal government b/c what they do violates our Constitution; thus their acts are unlawful and void. But with a new constitution which permits them to do whatever they please, we will no longer have any basis on which to object.
Henry Lamb and Phyllis Schlafly of the National Eagle Forum have written some great papers on this. Here is Henry Lamb’s short & magnificent paper: http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/268253/ Phyllis’ papers are on her website: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/
My Dear PH. Thank you for this explanantion and clarification. I thank you from my heart for helping me to learn to think correctly about the consititution. I am learning to see. I am learning to hear. It is taking a serious paradigm shift to shake off the incorrect teaching of my younger years. I have known something to be wrong for a long time but have not had a teacher to help me find it. Thanks for you patience while I am learning. DP
Dear Douglas,
You made my day! Really! And I know about paradigm shifts – I went thru a major shift when I converted from secular humanism to Christianity some 20 years ago. I love paradigm shifts – when the cobwebs in my brain get swept out and the light shines thru.
Has anyone read, “The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson” by David Barton? I just ordered it…
I haven’t read it – I don’t read biographies b/c there is no one whom I trust enough to write an accurate bio. Biographers attribute motives, make assumptions, draw unfounded conclusions, make value judgments w/o sufficient basis, etc., and it makes me want to throw the book at the author. But I love Thomas Jefferson very much. I even smile as I type his name.
About David Barton: I don’t know what kind of historian he is (how accurate, etc.), but be very careful when he speaks about Our Constitution. He gets some things very very wrong.
And no, I don’t believe that Jefferson took advantage of a young woman who was under his power to have an (ahem) intimate relation with her! THAT would be ungentlemanly. And he was a gentleman.
I love to read biographies. When I was little kid growing up in IL I read everything I could on Lincoln. My mom drove me to all the locations of the of Lincoln-Douglas debates where I did a rubbing of all the plaques and took pictures. I have his “mean speech” that he gave in my hometown of Monmouth, IL memorized.
Anyhow, I ordered the book because it supposedly sets the record straight on the two “Jefferson Bibles”, which I have only heard rumors about. I have tried to buy copies on several times, but always get outbid.
What a GREAT Mom you have!
Did Jefferson ever write about his Bibles or his theology? I understand that Jefferson rejected the doctrine of election to salvation explained by John Calvin.
According to what I have read he actually made two books from the Bible. One was called “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” and can be found all over the Internet. If you look it up on wikipedia it says that miracles or supernatural events were taken out, this is not true. The Federal Government, under Jefferson, actually funded missionaries to spread the word of God to the Native Americans. Jefferson compiled his book for the missionaries to use. He supposedly wrote a second book just on the moral teachings of the Bible, but did not like it.
I found an original copy signed by Jefferson and four other people, thought to be missionaries, inside the front cover. The signature was authenticated. It was at an auction in Harrisburg, PA. I was outbid at $5,600. I have three Lincoln signatures and my dad has a Ben Franklin.
Was the original copy you bid for “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”? Did you actually see the book with Jefferson’s signature?
No, it was a leather bound set of papers simply called “The Morals of Jesus”, but it was signed and largely penned by Jefferson. It had two leather covers with the papers on the inside all held together by three metal tacs with the ends bent over and then looped around with leather.
This is the best source of information that I found on it:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefJesu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
Glenn Beck has a copy of “The Life and Times of Thomas Jefferson,” by Henry S. Randall which includes several quotes from it. He talks about this every now and again.
Look what showed up on theblaze.com today…
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-you-know-the-real-story-behind-the-jefferson-bible-david-barton-shared-it-with-beck/
Very interesting, Brearly! Thank you.
The Founders and Framers of the country and their ideas of a more prefect government are not the problem we face today. In the late 1800′s the progressive movement really took hold in this country. Two things they believed and continue to believe today, that the Declaration of Independence is a good document if you ignore the preface and that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted to fit the circumstances of the day or whatever they want it to mean. I would bet that almost every political science course taught in colleges and universities are taught by the true believers of this doctrine and that goes for the law schools too. The politicians, lawyers, and judges of this country are the graduates of these courses and practice these principals. Therefore we hear things like, the law or the Constitution means what I say it means or unconstitutional laws passed by politicians because they fit the circumstances of the day. We are far better off to go back to our Founders way of government. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is by far a better life then the slavery of progressives.
So, are you agreeing that the Founders and Framers had a ‘common agreement’ that there was a God, in the secular sense, whether named the God of Creation, the Universe, of Nature, regardless of any personal adherence to a particular dogma, or are you dismissing the POINT I made because I write in a manner that dumbfounds you…?
The larger point of the “Age of Enlightenment” being that the “secular” methods of inquiry by use of logic and reason had lead the wiser minds to conclude that God was the architect of Creation and that the Laws that built existence were self-evident when reasoned and logical observations of their affects on men and nations were made.
To suggest that the Founders and Framers referred and resorted to the works of such writers for Political cause without taking note of what the writers had said in regard to 1st Principles kind of misses the point.
The object of the previous post was to make the point you made at the end of your last post, that the Indoctrination system of Education has redefined the meaning of “secular” in a manner that removes the need to acknowledge God as the source of ALL Principles that sustains and informs humanity.
Steven, I can’t discuss issues with you when I don’t know what you are trying to say. Why not use plain, simple, clear & unpretentious English?
In 1835 famed historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:
“Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention…
In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country…”
De Tocqueville continued:
“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other…
They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion.”
Secular???? The framers….I think not!
Now, I understand every word you wrote, Spense.
Oh Lord! Give that Spirit & understanding back to us!
One can not attempt to interpret the thoughts and intents of the Founders and Framers without a modicum of understanding of the Laws of Nature and Natures God as they affect the affairs of men and nations.
The observations of the various tenets of the “self evident” exploded with the advent of the Gutenberg Press, but even those writers of the Age of Enlightenment acknowledge that they stood on the shoulders of the ancient philosophers applying logic and reason in the SECULAR manner while paying homage to the God of Creation.
And therein lies the rub, the bastardization of the true meaning of “secular”, not to describe agnostics and/or atheists but rather to hold fast to the 1st principle of Gods existence without the dogma’s of any given set of theological religious practices.
However, we are forced to accept the way things are in order to make attempts of correcting the course, so “secularism”, as it is now understood and practiced, makes it very difficult to get to a ‘common understanding’ of anything to do with the Constitution.
Well, I can’t follow everything you say; but Dr. Alan Keyes has said in effect (link in one of my posts on this thread below) that we must understand God as The CREATOR of all and the recognition of that fact in our Declaration of Independence in order to understand The U.S. Constitution.
With that understanding, The Federalist Papers, an old American dictionary, Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention, and Logic, we can usually figure out precisely what the objective meaning of the Constitution is. Precisely! Sometimes, but this is fairly rare, we need to look at other authorities with which our Framers were familiar – e.g., Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” – which we need to get the definition of “natural born citizen” our Framers had in mind when they drafted Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5, U.S. Constitution.
The problem is that our People have been poorly educated and indoctrinated into the method of reading known as “deconstruction”. That evil theory holds that it is impossible to find an “objective” meaning in any text, so one is free to read in his own interpretations. According to THAT evil theory, it is impossible to find an objective meaning, and one person’s “opinion” is as good as another’s. So while I look to The Federalist Papers to find the original intent; others just look into their own precious little selves and come up with what in their own eyes seems right.
Thank you for your comments on Judge Andrew Napolitano, I thought I was only one of the few that felt that he did a lot of talking without any idea of what the Constitution says. I have listened to him many times on Fox News and read his book ” The lies the government told you” and all I can figure out is, that he like the politicians, constitutional lawyers, and judges have separated the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence and ignored the Federalist Papers. By doing so they can define the Constitution to fit their needs.Thank you again..L.E. Liesner
You are right, L.E.: If Our Constitution is separated from The Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers, it is mere putty in the hands of those with the Power.
I think this is one of the many things that we need to STOP doing. We need stop attacking people who are on our same side. We have to stop attacking Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and others who at least consider the Constitution and are talking about it in public forums. We don’t exactly have a lot of people who espouse Constitutional Values and talk about them on a national platform. The few people whom we do have, we should support, and try to have a discussion with them when we think they are wrong, not attack them or call them crazy. These people are our friends, not our enemy.
Is Judge Andrew Napolitano on our side? How do you know? Why does he want a con con? How can he “espouse constitutional values” when he wants to get a new Constitution altogether?
I would never attack someone who is on my side. But we must attack wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
Yes, he is on our side, and frankly I am little disappointed that you don’t recognize this.
The only perfect person that I personally know of died approximately 2012 years ago, in fact we just recently celebrated his rising from the dead.
First, I believe we live in a divine nation and that the Constitution (and other foundingdocuments) is a divine document, inspired by God. I believe that God has given us the tools and the people to protect what he helped to create.
You have some of the best analysis that I have seen anywhere regarding the applicaton and intent of the Constitution and the founding documents. Your writing is the primary reason that I am in law school and the primary reason that I living my life with the intent that I am. However, I think you have failed to recognize the fact that no matter how brilliant your analysis is, how inspirational your writing, it doesn’t matter if no one ever reads it.
Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of the people that led me to start thinking about the Constitution actually is, what it means, and why the United States is so different from other countries. He along with Ron and Paul, Lew Rockwell, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and even Glenn Beck are the ones that “Go Tell It on the Mountain”! All of these people can be crackpots at times, but their general body of work is helpful. Who else that has a national platform continually talks about the Constitution and its meaning? Even if their analysis is wrong, they are still on our side.
I’m a student of history, but I obviously don’t know everything, but did all the Founding Fathers have the same opinion and agree with one another on everything?
I also have a BS in Theology that I generally don’t talk about or publicize, and as a result of my studies I very much disagree and dislike the LDS faith and pretty much everything about it. I, however, respect those that practice it. One of these practitioners that I respect is Glenn Beck. He can be a goofy crackpot at times and doesn’t have the best of manners, but he is a good messenger. Every implementation of facism, socialism, or communism that I have studies starts with dividing and conquering. This is what literal SOB in the WH is currently doing. He is dividing us by race, class, religion, and intelligence. Our Founding Fathers recognized the rights of the individual, but also recognized the need for unity – E pluribus unum. This is a central theme with Glenn Beck that teaches every single day.
In summary, what I am trying to say, is don’t attack the people on our side. You might not look, think, or even agree with everyone on our side, but you should learn to recognize them. Have a dialouge with them, make them think, make them defend or change their view, improve them! You have me.
Who would have thunk it, that a little old lady could help inspire me to go back to school, again, and debate my 230 classmates on the merits of the Constitution. In the beginning I stood alone, now I have probably 1/3 of the class arguing with me. I have Sandra Day O’Connor and her son Scott asking me questions in class and even agreeing with me. I have been called a crackpot, I have been called wrong, I have even been called an idiot; am I on our side? You betcha I am!
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I love you Publius Huldah! and I will speak out!
rant over…
1. Be very careful whom you trust. Someone may seem to be a good guy, but stands for one thing which would destroy us. The technique is to gain your Trust with the 99%, so that you will trust them on the 1%. The 1% which counts.
When people without academic & professional backgrounds advocate such things, I put it up to ignorance. But when people with the academic & professional backgrounds to know better advocate such things, I put it up to evil intent. There is no possible innocent reason for a lawyer of many years experience to advocate for a con con. This is not an issue of “disagreement” – this is THE fundamental issue: they want to trash our Constitution and replace it with something else.
There is a group of people in this country, who are determined to get rid of our Constitution. The Goldwater Institute, law prof. Randy Barnett, and his friend Andrew Napolitano, etc.
I, PH, have many failings. Probably all of them can be overlooked. BUT if I were selling heroin and crack cocaine to grade school children, that could NOT be overlooked. THAT would not be a mere area of “disagreement” – THAT would be a fellowship breaker.
2. Sandra Day O’Conner: I wrote a paper extremely critical of her and another judge in their decision on Arizona’s Proposition 200. Here is the paper – it’s technical, but I had to make it so to respond to their tortured decision: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/arizonas-proposition-200-what-the-constitution-really-says-about-voter-qualifications-exposing-the-elections-clause-argument/
If you read it carefully, and study it, you will know more than just about anyone else in the Country about the original intent of the “elections clause”. IF you can do so without jeopardizing your standing in the class and in your law school, think about showing it to her. She needs to learn the Constitution before she writes on it. The decision is disgraceful. And demonstrably so. This is not a matter of “opinion”, but of provable FACT. She needs to write a public apology for that decision. She is supposed to know better.
You just made my point, you don’t have a mountain, but in this case I do. I will ask her the next time she is here. I’m not worried about getting in trouble here at school, I have several advocates and am making more every day.
I don’t trust anyone, for no one is perfect. Has anyone bothered to bring up the points that you make about a Con Con to him? From my understanding he advocates for a Con Con in order eliminate the 16th Amendment.
Can you comment on this article? http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo74.html
I don’t understand your first sentence.
1. Before you talk to O’Connor, make sure you fully understand the opinion she signed and my paper. This will take some time. Start by studying my paper and checking it out in The Federalist Papers – and you will learn the original intent. THEN when you read the 9th Circuit’s opinion, you will see how she betrayed Our Constitution. It will be excellent preparation for when you start practicing law. But be careful to protect your position.
O’Conner stays inside the box when she writes and speaks – she is very conventional. There is not an independent or original thought in her entire head. She goes with the flow. She follows supreme Court precedent.
But I am always outside the box. I reject supreme Court precedent when it conflicts with the original intent as revealed by the Federalist Papers, etc.
2. To say that we need a con con to get rid of the 16th Amendment is like saying I need to burn down my house to get rid of the dust. Judge Napolitano knows quite well that Congress can propose an Amendment repealing the 16th Amendment. We have 27 Amendments to our Constitution. Every one of them was initially proposed by Congress. We the People need to elect to Congress people who will support an amendment repealing the 16th Amendment. Anyone who says we need a con con to get rid of the 16th Amendment is either profoundly Ignorant or is Lying. A con con would result in the repeal of our present Constitution. I haven’t written on this b/c others have already done such great work: Phyllis Schlafly at the National Eagle Forum and Henry Lamb. Here is Lamb’s short and magnificent paper: “No, no con-con”: http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/268253/
3. From your photo, posts, and reports, I surmise that you have the kind of personality which allows you to be bold and outspoken w/o causing offense. You seem to have the kind of personality which converts instead of alienates. That is a very valuable trait – use it to save our Country and restore our Constitutional Republic.
4. DiLorenzo is a rattlesnake. I am busy with several papers now, but when I have a breather, I’ll fix a drink and read the nasty bit of venom you linked to.
One of our Framers did say something to the effect that our Constitution was designed for a moral people – it is totally unfit for any other. So my proposed solution is a moral regeneration of The People. De Tocqueville did comment, correctly, that America was Great b/c Americans were good – but when they ceased to be Good, they would cease to be great.
Trashing our Framers and our Constitution and replacing it with a new constitution which sees all power as emanating from the Government instead of The People, is not the solution. I was in and out of E. Europe and the former Soviet Union for some time during the cold War, and the American People have no idea what is ahead for them unless they shape up very quickly. They have no comprehension of what a totalitarian dictatorship looks like.
And there is no lack of wolves wearing sheeps’ clothing ready to lead us into such a totalitarian dictatorship. But first, they must get rid of Our Constitution.
Actually, I make a lot of people very angry when I speak. My only exceptional characteristic is my tenacity, I do not give up, EVER! This is how I beat cancer, after it took over my body, I wore it down and kicked its butt. If I am beaten I come back swinging in the next round or in the next fight. I wear people down and then build them back up. In person I have great skill and luck that I can call someone out directly to their face, make them hate me, and then make them love me and even follow me. I convert people. This is what I have done in class, this is the skill that I am honing.
I just need help formulating the correct stance to fight for, that is why I come here.
O’Connor is as liberal as one can get. Her son Scott is pretty liberal too, but I working on him.
I would love to learn about your history. For some reason, although I am only in my late 30′s, I know exactly what lies ahead. From reading Rand and Solzhenitsyn, talking with my grandparents and my old girlfriends parents from Cambodia (her dad was the PM of Cambodia during and after the Vietnam War) I have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen. This why I like Beck and why I use the Pastor Martin Niemöller poem all the time.
Ryan, I have been worrying about your challenging O’Conner on her disgraceful vote in the Arizona Proposition 200 case. Even though the 9th circuit’s opinion is disgracefully dishonest or stupid (I never know which of these people are); she is a liberal, and will not take kindly to correction. I never knew a liberal who was willing to look at Facts and Reason.
What is her position at your law school? If she has any power over your grades or status in your law school, perhaps you better say nothing. One useful thing lawyers gain from experience is this: Whenever you can, choose the time and place of your battles.
I have a fascinating history! I love Rand & Solzhenitsyn also, particularly the latter. He has long been one of my few heroes. Do watch the German film, “The Lives of Others”. It won the best foreign film at the Academy Awards in 2006 or so. You can get it from Amazon and it has English subtitles. The setting is E. Berlin during the early 1980s. I was there some years before the time of the movie, but the film accurately depicts the horrors of European style totalitarianism (after the mass purges are over).
I can not imagine the horrors of a totalitarian system such as Cambodia where the communists didn’t have that tiny remaining shred of Christian culture to modify to some extent their barbarism.
But there has long been a move to eradicate all vestiges of Christian culture from this Land.
“All of these people can be crackpots at times, but their general body of work is helpful. Who else that has a national platform continually talks about the Constitution and its meaning? Even if their analysis is wrong, they are still on our side.”
No, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are not on “our” (I’m assuming you mean the conservative) side. These two guys are hateful, disgraced “Blame America First” libertarians who, moreover, clearly don’t understand the Constitution. They claim that it’s a Big Government document (even though clearly it is not), believe that the federal government has no constitutional duties or any constitutionally legitimate functions, and (following their ideological father, Murray Rothbard), they want NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT ALL.
But they are clearly wrong, because the Constitution is not a Big Government document, authorizes a LIMITED federal government only, and DOES assign some DUTIES and legitimate functions to it, chief of which is defense, which, of course, Paul and Rockwell staunchly oppose.
And actually there are a lot of people with a “national platform” who pontificate about the Constitution and its meaning. But it doesn’t mean anything. Most of those who do are DEAD WRONG about the Constitution.
zbigniewmazurak,
I think you are wrong and WE will all be in the gulag if we follow your thinking. The other side has come together, they are organized, and they know how to get what they want. If we don’t stop arguing over words and get together over ideas we will all be in the gulag…
Try actually reading some Rand or Solzhenitsyn… I would also suggest Being George Washington: The Indispensable Man, as You’ve Never Seen Him
We can not win unless we are together.
Gentlemen:
I expect we all agree with The Principle that we ought not attack those who are on our side, even when they are wrong on this little point or that.
What we are arguing about is “who is and who is not on our side?” THAT is an issue of FACT, and rational men do not argue over issues of FACT – they gather the Evidence one way or the other, and reevaluate their positions based on the Evidence.
The Bible says we know men by their fruits. So someone might claim to be on my side & might claim to support the Constitution. But if he is calling for a con-con, then he is either very stupid or he is my deadly enemy – a wolf wearing sheep’s clothing. It doesn’t matter what else he says that sounds good.
Someone who calls for a con-con is no more on my side that is a person who sells heroin to grade school children. It doesn’t matter WHAT else he claims. As long as he is calling for a con-con, or selling the heroin to the children, he is my deadly enemy.
I do not know so much about Ron Paul’s positions b/c I found him incoherent on domestic issues; and his position on dealing with the islamic jihadists (“it’s our fault”) dangerously ignorant and naive. BUT I do know of some who have joined his camp – or who claim alliance with him. They are anarchists who spew hatred of our Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, etc. These are the idiots who claim that Our Constitution is a “statist document”, that we were better off with the Articles of Confederation, that Alexander Hamilton was a “statist” and wanted a monarchy, and they are glad he got shot in the gut and had a long painful death. They are the ones who say the Federalist Papers are all wrong – the antifederalists are the ones with the right idea. These are profoundly EVIL, IGNORANT, VICIOUS LITTLE HATERS. And stupid, as well. They are the resentful squint-eyed souls. And their god is that rattlesnake Thomas DiLorenzo.
The enemy doesn’t have the same conception of morality that Christians have. To Christians, Morality is the First Principle. But the Marxists, the Progressives, the Muslims, & the anarchists have no such conception of “morality”. To them, the end justifies the means. They will say or do anything to deceive us.
I expect our friend, ZM, is well read. He probably even has an interesting history, and perhaps first hand knowledge of material things.
Dr. Alan Keyes is the one who opened my eyes about our Founding Principles. He is a genius and one of the great political thinkers of all time.
Read this discussion at the dailypaul.com http://www.dailypaul.com/152960/dr-alan-keyes-ron-pauls-anti-constitution-vote-final-update?page=5#comment-1617958
It is a series of letters between Dr. Keyes and a Ron Paul libertarian. Dr. Keyes shows WHY the Ron Paul libertarians and the hard left so often come down on the same side of the issues! They are singing off the same sheet of music! They just use different rhetoric to deceive different groups of people.
Dr. Keyes’ letters here are so important that I copied them into MS Word.
BTW, I read this interchange when it was current. Some of the comments the Ron Paul libertarians posted about Dr. Keyes’ WIFE and DAUGHTER were so vile & disgusting that I commented and invited those people to take a look at themselves! They may have since removed the vile comments.
YES, ZM, Ron Paul did support that radical lefty loon & fellow 911 truther for president! I had forgotten that.
“The other side has come together, they are organized, and they know how to get what they want. If we don’t stop arguing over words and get together over ideas we will all be in the gulag…”
Ron Paul, TDL, and Lew Rockwell are NOT on our side. They are on Obama’s side. They’ve already proclaimed that they have more in common with Obama than with mainstream Republicans, and most of their policy positions are indeed stridently liberal. Furthermore, in 2008, Ron Paul (after being clobbered in the GOP primaries) endorsed the extreme liberal, his fellow 911 truther, Cynthia McKinney for President, after saying he “could not find anything in common” with the 2008 GOP nominee, John McCain.
Plus, as PH has eloquently pointed out, it doesn’t matter on how many issues someone agrees with me if that person vehemently disagrees with me on the few issues that matter most.
Furthermore, all three of these guys are totally ignorant about the Constitution and blather nonsense about it. Oh, and stop scaremongering me about the gulag. I come from the former Communist bloc, and I know what gulags are and what Communism is first-hand. I don’t need lectures on that subject from you or from anyone else.
And just for the record, the GULAG (Glavnoye Upravlyennie Lagerney) was actually the name of the office supervising the labor camps, not of a single camp.
“Try actually reading some Rand or Solzhenitsyn…”
Too late, I’ve already done that, as well as reading the Black Book of Communism.
I think this demonstrates the point Ryan was trying to make. I read this article this morning, Tea party petering out in South Carolina. I find this quote very interesting:
“I’m not surprised,” said Allen Olson, founder of the Columbia TEA Party. “We’ve pretty much been maligned. We’ve been attached to the libertarian faction, so-to-speak, and they’ve been trying to use the tea party to push their agenda.”
See; we are not organized like the left is. They are not fighting against one another, instead they are all teaming up, collectively, and pushing a general goal. We should stop fighting about our differences and start fighting for the things we can agree on!
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/tea-party-petering-out-in-south-carolina/#ixzz1t5kpM6Ov
The problem is that the progressives are infiltrating the tea parties and are planting progressive ideas: a BBA, a con con, etc. These are very destructive ideas. There are vicious attacks on our Framers and the Constitution from the anarchists who have attached themselves to the Ron Paul camp.
The few constitutionalists are not infiltrating the progressives. We are too busy trying to teach basic principles to the tea party people, and undoing the damage the progressives are doing to the people on our side.
The people “on our side” have no discernment. They have very poor judgment. They can’t think. They do not know our Founding Principles and are not willing to trouble themselves to learn them. They jump on every bandwagon which drives by. They just want to spout off what they “think”. But they think they are experts.
The Left is monolithic: The rank and file follow orders. They get their talking points from on high. They are stupid, but at least they follow orders.
The people on our side are sheep who know nothing and can’t think. But they are not willing to learn. So they are manipulated by the progressives into supporting progressive goals.
What DO the people “on our side” agree on?
I think that this whole conversation is dwelling too much on WHO is right vs. WHO is wrong instead of trying to discover WHAT is right and wrong. We should each be striving to seek truth in order that we can practice freedom. Every premise should be examined against the “original intent” which was as far as I can tell miraculously developed from a group of men holding vary different opinions about what was right and what was wrong as far as how to establish freedom. None of the Framers had all the right answers and none of the wrong biases (prejudices). Let us spend our efforts in trying to analyze rather than stigmatize. Many of the opinions of the “best” of us actually run counter to the concept of freedom and need to be changed.
Huh? Shall we all just muddle around in a sea of non-judgmental mush b/c no one knows what is right and what is wrong, or who is right or who is wrong; but everyone is basically good?
THAT attitude is the problem: The abandonment of fixed Principles and Standards, and the substitution therefor of feel-good mush. And the denial of the obvious facts that some people are evil, and most of the others are easily deceived.
You seem to have misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. Let me try again. Rather than concluding that someone is “right” and signing on to everything he says or judging that he is on the “wrong side” and rejecting everyting he says, my suggestion is to take each principle he discusses and examine the truth of that statement. For example take the statements made by Alexander Hamilton each on their own value rather than painting the man as a “consolidationist” and weighing all his statements on that label.
To me that is a lot of what Hamilton himself was talking about in Federalist No. 1 where he describes the overall plan in submitting the Federalist Papers to print in the newspapers.
I have done a paraphrase of Federalist No. 1 from which I include an excerpt [http://www.freedomformula.us/articles/federalist-1-paraphrase/] (paragraph 4) where I see Hamilton making the same essential point:
It is not my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to dismiss the opposition of any set of men by labeling their views “interested” or “ambitious”. We must assume that such men may be motivated by upright intentions. I don’t doubt that much of the opposition which has been expressed, or may hereafter be expressed, will spring from sources which are at least blameless, if not respectable—the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. The causes which serve to give a false bias to our judgment are so numerous and so powerful, that many times we see wise and good men on the wrong side as well as on the right side of questions which are most important to society. This circumstance would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are persuaded that they are right in any controversy. And furthermore, we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their opponents. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many similar motives, are as apt to influence those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Even without these inducements to moderation, nothing could be worse than that intolerant spirit which has always characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either realm can rarely be cured by persecution.4
I see on the news and the internet that Obama is diverting 500 Million dollars to the IRS in preparation for the implementation of ObamaCare. I thought that the purse strings were held by Congress, or have they changed the Constitution without the due course of an Amendment. He also gave the Egyptian military one billion dollars, Brazil another billion dollars for oil research. Where does this money come from and why isn’t it monitored by a responsible agency.
You are 100% correct, L.E.: CONGRESS is supposed to control the purse. Rush commented on this today: Apparently, Congress did not appropriate the 500 Million, but the illegal alien in the white house took this out of his illegally held stash.
I don’t know where the money came from to give to the Egyptians [i.e., Muslim Brotherhood] or to Brazil. Nothing is supposed to be spent unless Congress has appropriated funds for that specific purpose (Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 7).
If Congress had any spine, they would impeach this pretended president and kick him out of office. [Then deport him to Indonesia.] In Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para) and No. 77 (last para), Hamilton shows that usurpations of power are sufficient to impeach & remove a President.
The Democrats in Congress go along with this b/c Democrats are, by their nature, stupid. The Republicans in Congress go along with this b/c they are weak and cowardly.
Hey, you seem to have some problem with me for some reason and that’s fine………
Try re-reading it realizing that much of it is indeed ‘”copy and pasted” from the Constitution, Acts of Congress and SCOTUS opinions with interposed narrations attempting to explain a posited legal analysis showing that the “definition” of natural born Citizen is indeed among those “laws” that are covered under the Supremacy Clause………..
You do agree that it is often necessary to interprete Statutes by their various ductible parts don’t you…………?
……….
I don’t know who you are – how could I have “some problem with you”? Other than what you wrote makes no sense.
You sent me a list of stuff you cut and pasted from here and there, and strung it together with incoherent phrases.
And for goodness sake: Drop the pompous speech! “a posited legal analysis” – “various ductible parts”. Huh? The only people I know who use such pompous, meaningless & incoherent speech are people with Masters or Ph.D.s in education.
Come on: Can you do better? Good thinking and good writing are hard work. I do not accept any less.
Steven, can you state your question in simple, plain English? I do not understand what you write.
“Come on: Can you do better? Good thinking and good writing are hard work. I do not accept any less.”
Well, let’s see, as far as I know no one other than me has “posited”, nor asserted, that the “legal”, (enforceable), definition of natural born Citizen was “established” by and within the uniform Rule and provisions emanating from the 1790 Act and its replacment Act of 1795.
The Rule did not change with the Repeal of the 1790 Act and was continued with elaboration in the 1795 Act.
Without analyzing the deducitble parts again here suffice it to say for now that “resort” to sources beyond the Constitution and the “Acts” is not necessary to ascertain the Constitutional definition.
However, it is necessary to acknowledge the John Jay letter in order to attach the full “intent” of its usage, that being of National Security interests.
Steven,
Try again. This time, leave out “posited”.
I have some questions:
(1) How does a “provision” “emanate” from an Act?
(2) What is a “deductible” part of an Act?
You also seem to assert that it is not necessary to consult authorities outside the Constitution in order to ascertain its meaning [you are quite wrong]; but then you say we must consult John Jay’s letter. You contradict yourself.
Now you’re back to a subject I’m familiar with and offer the following “excerpts” to suggest that “resort” to sources outside of the Constitution and authorized Acts made under its authority is NOT necessary when the priciples of “statutory interpretation” are fully engaged;
……………..
Slcraignbc:
Huh? I could not follow what you were saying. You seem to have copied & pasted from various places. Also there was extraneous stuff in there which made no sense.
Do you want to try again? But instead of copying and pasting from here & there, think it thru and say it in your own words.
And remember: BREVITY is always best.
Wow Steven Lee, I couldn’t help but notice that NBC at the end of your name… do you really work for NBC?? I’m impressed, are you a film editor? I wish I could get a job there….
I read the Constitution and didn’t find anything directly repealing the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution says it only required 9 States to be ratified, but according to the Articles of Confederation amending the Articles of Confederation required all 13 states. So, if the Constitution was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, are the Articles still in force except as amended by the Constitution, or did the Constitution replace the Articles in toto?
In all practicality the point is moot, but my ignorance is not blissful.
JRD
Dr. J. R. Donaldson
The Constitution was not an Amendment to the Articles of Confederation, even though amending them was the original purpose of convening the Const. Conv. in Philly. James Madison convinced the delegates to scrap the Articles and start over. The AoC are now invalid.
Well, well, Doc!
You put your finger on why a constitutional convention (con con) today would be so dangerous. Proponents of the con con say, “Don’t worry! A new Constitution wouldn’t get ratified unless 3/4 of the States agree!”
But just as the Federal Convention of 1787 ignored their Instructions (which were merely to amend the existing Articles of Confederation);
a con con today would result in a new constitution completely divorced from what we now have. While our existing Constitution required 9 of the States to ratify it before it became effective; and while Article V requires 3/4 of the States to approve any Amendments to Our existing Constitution; a new Constitution created by a con con could set forth any standard for ratification the proponents want!
They could provide, e.g., that the new Constitution would become effective upon approval of half of the Blue States.
Proponents of a con con tell us that there is no danger of a bad Constitution coming out of a con con b/c Art. V. of the existing Constitution requires approval of 3/4 of the States.
BUT a new constitution could do away with the requirement of 3/4 of the States! Those people who want a con con are LYING to us. L Y I N G.
Henry Lamb wrote a magnificent short paper on the dangers of a con con: “No, no con-con” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/268253/
The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the New Constitution of 1787 when it was ratified IAW with the instructions set forth at Art. VII, cl. 1.
No, this issue is not moot! You raise an important issue! Thank you.
I wonder if your 10th Amendment work might apply to ignoring the 17th Amendment within a given state?
NO! The 17th Amendment is now part of the Constitution. It supersedes any previous language in the Constitution to the contrary.
This Obamacare debate has brought into focus something I haven’t really thought of previously. As a conservative, I have always waved the Enumerated Powers in the face of those who believe that the people themselves are not capable of being free and responsible citizens and for the sake of protecting the stupid, the Nanny State is essential for the greater good. ‘Even if the intelligentsia were up to the task of controlling everyone’s lives and they are not, the Constitution does not give them the authority’, I would confidently inform them.
What I was totally ignorant of is how the Court has interpreted the taxing and commerce clauses of Art I, Sec 8. Totally ignored are what I always thought were the explicit limits on their power. The power to tax and regulate commerce are considered the ends themselves rather then the means to an end. The Entitlement programs have skated through constitutional muster under the power to tax, not a non-existent power to provide retirement or healhcare. And, as the argument goes in the case at hand, if only they had called the penalty, a tax, even this may have skated through under the power to tax.
So, no attention is paid to how those taxes monies are spent or the ends of regulations imposed as long as the Congress passed and the President signed it, the Court has deferred to their wisdom as to what is appropriate. This seems to fall directly under the label of ‘tyranny of the majority’ and blatantly incompatible with a free society. It has become all too obvious that the Courts that are, after all, a branch of the federal government, should not be relied upon to define the limits on their own powers or protect our liberty.
I hope you straighten me out if my thinking is erroneous on this key point for, If we continue to rely on what is not reliable, i.e. the Supreme Court, to protect our liberty, we are doomed. I really appreciate your hard work on the 10th Amendment and whatever help I can be, I am available.
To see how the supreme Court has interpreted the “interstate commerce” clause, read this: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/82/ I cited only the Wickard v. Filburn case, but that is THE pivotal case in the supreme Court’s “interstate commerce clause jurisdiction”. I also prove the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause in that paper.
I haven’t written on the so-called “taxing power” – just never got around to it. Properly understood, it is the power to tax ONLY so that the federal government is able to carry out its enumerated powers. Obviously, to claim that the “taxing clause” authorizes Congress to tax for any purpose whatsoever, undermines the concept of enumerated powers. But I expect you have heard the statists advance the latter position.
Of course we can’t rely on the supreme Court! That is what I have been showing in all my papers! I have been showing that we must look to The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention, and other original documents from our Founding Era to learn the genuine meaning of Our Constitution.
No, I wasn’t ‘venting’, though I do have a tendency state things in as provocative ways as I can to elicit more interesting responses. It turns out, after a little research, it is the ‘spending power’, that heretofore I was unaware of and is not even mentioned in the Constitution, that opened the door to using the ‘General Welfare’ clause to mean anything Congress determines it means to justify more federal spending to affect it.
This ‘spending power’ was discovered by the SC… “In 1936, the Court construed the Spending Power Clause as giving Congress broad power to spend for the general welfare (United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477). According to the Butler decision, under the Spending Power Clause Congress was not limited to spending money to carry out the direct grants of legislative power found elsewhere in the Constitution; rather, it could tax and spend for what it determined to be the general welfare of the country. Because Congress has discretion to determine what is the general welfare, no court since Butler has ever invalidated a federal spending program on the ground that the general welfare of the country was not being promoted.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spending+Power)
Again, this past Friday, in a column by your favorite judge, Andrew Napolitano, he referred to the ‘open-ended’ spending power as it relates to Ponzi scheme known affectionately as Social Security. Now, on reflection, I have been aware of the Butler case and the legal history of this out-of-control government we have but it just never quite fixated on the non-existent ‘spending power’ as the key to so much trouble. The words themselves didn’t seem to jell in my mind till just recently and that was what I was asking you to confirm. Is it just me that finds this so odd, that such a malicious power was not even mentioned by the Framers?
Be careful, Larry,
There really is a need for good teachers to steer students in the right direction and to bring them back on course when they stray. People who try to teach themselves – especially in the early stages – have a tendency to go off on tangents, and to get their “information” from un-authoritative sources.
One of the most important things a good teacher can do is to guide students to authoritative sources of information. To learn the original intent of The U.S. Constitution, the authoritative sources are the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention, an old American Dictionary (I use Webster’s 1828 b/c it is readily available), and other original source documents from the Founding Era and before. THAT is how one learns the original intent.
Supreme Court jurisprudence is an entirely different matter. That is a body of Opinions which has nothing to do with The Constitution. It takes special training, learning a new vocabulary, and years of practice to learn how to read – with understanding – supreme Court opinions. But laypeople read a bit of this opinion and a bit of that opinion and think they know all about it!
I explain the original intent of the “general welfare” clause here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/does-the-general-welfare-clause-of-the-u-s-constitution-authorize-congress-to-force-us-to-buy-health-insurance/
When James Madison wrote Federalist No. 41, he was responding to concerns which had already been raised about the “general welfare” clause.
I don’t know what good it does for laymen to write about their understandings of supreme Court jurisprudence; when the crying need is for Our People to learn the Original Intent of the Constitution our Framers gave us. So, I’m hoping you will turn from trying to understand supreme Court jurisprudence (which you will never be able to do unless you get a law degree, learn the new vocabulary, and spend years reading all the *rap which comes out of that court; and even then, you will only be able to focus on a few issues, b/c supreme court jurisprudence is so extraordinarily complicated and VAST. There is not enough time for anyone to read all their opinions and to sort them out).
I’m cautiously optimistic about the supreme court decision, I don’t know how they could possibly rule in favor Obamacare but you never know. We owe people like you a great debt for educating the public…. thank you for caring!
I am cautiously optimistic also but am so afraid to hope. Scalia did say at oral arguments on Tuesday that Congress has only “enumerated powers” – and that the States have most of the powers. I never thought I would hear that said by a justice on the supreme Court! I even checked it out in the typed transcript.
I would give my life to be able to write the majority opinion.
Hi PH, I have to share this statement by President Obama with you; it stultifies Obama. “The president said that for the court to strike down the individual mandate would be “unprecedented,” because the law was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
How can we have a President so ignorant or is it that he believes we are stupid enough to believe his lies… CONGRESS is NOT all powerful, they cannot lawfully pass laws on any subject.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/219547-obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-healthcare-law
Oh, Spense, How did it come to this? But I have been pleased to see that Rush Limbaugh has been very good on this whole issue of the supreme Court’s review of obamacare.
I expect our Framers are weeping that the great country they gave us has come to this.
Comrade zero is an idiot.