I think that it is important that I declare a few truths that cannot be denied, so that all who read this can be enlightened about the correct path to true stability. In order to live forever, there needs to be a circle, where the distance between itself (the center) to the ends in which it is established (outer point). To be central, legislation that is necessary and proper, must be equally in effect and obligations to all members. No member should be favored over others.
(Say What?)
The laws of Government should affect the members of that Government equally, and only for the purpose of establishment. If a Government is to Govern conduct between it's members, and uphold the laws equally upon each, as well as those rights that exist in the absence of government. It is the duty of the United States to govern the Conduct between the states, provide for their common defense, and maintain Justice between each. All of which can only be enforced upon members by way of law to acheive the intended end, as long as such an act does not exceed the means to the end.
The Government of the States (The United States) has blurred the perception of the Constitution, which is in effect the "Creator" of that government. It is blurred to take powers never granted during its own establishment from the Government of the People (The State) which has it's own "Creator" it is obliged to observe, and restrict its laws for the purpose in which the existance is necessary. The "God" of one, is not the "God" of the other. They both have members in which they are established to govern, but the governed are exclusively so governed and cannot be within the jurisdiction of the other. A sovereign state must exist before it can be a part of the United States. The sovereignty of the United States relies on the sovereignty found in the state in a related proportion, as is the case with a state.
The political body must always protect the constitution so the principles are maintained and not altered. As the Constitution fixes the Principles, and amendments should only fix any deviations that might come into existance and harmful to liberty, and more. (See Preamble)How a person thinks, believes, or conducts himself away from the public cannot be the objects of state legislation, but how a person conducts himself with all other persons equally, as long as they contain some form of retribution that is necessary for those acts, should they be found guilty.
How a state enacts policies related to the Government of the People cannot be the objects of Federal Legislative Powers. States are direct members of the Union, and the intended target to be governed. Those conducting business with another state (or modernized, persons in another state other than their own) are bound to respect laws relating to conduct as well as State laws in personal or indvidual affairs.
Those laws that are passed must be passed by the two interests affected by the legislation. (Laws relating to race have historically targetted the difference between "white" and "black". If there is no legislative bodies that represents these two groups seperately, then such laws are Unconstitutional, as they do not have their own house under the legislative branch that must have the ability to veto any proposal. There are benefits to an existance of gay persons in the world, because their taxes pay help pay for a part of the education your kids will receive. In order for tax to be Constitutional, the use of such a tax must support the purpose of the Government, as well as result in equal propotions to all states, whose members benefit from Justice maintained between each state.
The word of "God" is Supreme over all others, as is the same with the Constitution that establishes a government. In order to evolve into a better species of Government (People as a whole), they must first treat the space that divides them equally to all, regardless to how small or large, good or bad, respectful or otherwise... The only conduct that should be punishable by law is conduct that infringes on the rights of another. The laws relating to restricting conduct based upon distinct qualities shared by any number less than all should have no place in legislation originating from a government based on the principles of liberty.
Slavery is found in a number of ways, and economic slavery is one of the worst kind to every find a place in this government. The great pyramids in Eqypt being the oldest man made structures in existance gives strength to the concept that exists in nature, and if a global existance is to prevail, it must be based upon the same principles behind fractal art. (geometry) Day should be respected equally to night. Summer to Winter, Spring to Fall. Regardless of preferences that exists, seasons exists, so there is no use in making laws enforcing temperate climates, as they will not likely have an effect.
It seems as if all of what I keep trying to explain is complicated, but there is no simpler truth that exists in nature. Rather than ignore the word of God (that which exists in nature, not claimed by religeous establishements) embrace it, and let those principles guide your judgement, and the judgement of those who will Constitute your administration. My thoughts tend to work much faster than I can ever hope to type, so my apologies if this post has a few grammatical errors.
Thank You for taking the time to associate the circle of life in relation to any existance that should be everlasting.
Federalist No. 29: "If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism (absolute power or control, tyranny), what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs."
We've already discussed the ratification process used as being unconstitutional. So what else? How much is it going to cost us?
If the United States had been under the control of a Monarch, the head of state (King) would have never invaded Iraq. Why? Because the money necessary to carry out a war is way too expensive. And that makes the King poorer. So what happens when China calls in the loan? Do we sell 1/2 of the country to satisfy the debt? Nuke them? I believe there is only 1 true solution to the debt and state of the union. 1. All members of the house and congress will have their accounts frozen. All assets whatsoever should be confiscated to relieve that debt. And then we Auction each and every one of them off to the highest bidders around the world. No limits. I think that would give America many years of free oil from Dick & George alone. Let their victims determine their fate, as the current administration suggested with Saddam. Or maybe we'll go after some creditors enemies... I'm sure Al-Qaeda will arive as soon as we do.
There is definitely a lot more by the way of usurping their powers. And the most recent FISA issue only proves that Congress either a) doesn't know what the Constitution says; or b) Knows, but figures they've never had to follow it before, why start now. But they cannot pass "ex post facto" or retroactive laws in any case. Congress and the President have bent over backwards to assist banks because they would have a significant affect on the economy. That didn't seem to stop these banks from making campaign contributions. If you or I are having a rough time, we're on our own. This is ridiculous. I can tell you that while our men and women are dying to enforce freedom upon Iraq, our only freedom is a mirage.
A lot of people think that Capitalism and American Economics have worked for and our many years of wealth are proof of that. Well, that is incorrect. Early in the 20th century, after establishing the federal reserve, paper money was no longer backed by gold or silver. Not too long after, America was introduced to inflation. The Federal Reserve is privately owned by the elite, the same elite that caused the Stock Market crash that occurred in the 1920's and 30's. In order to establish enough fear in people that they would welcome this new plan for stability. But you have to ask yourself, how much does it cost to provide your basic necessities? You should (at the very least) be able to provide for you and your family. Instead, many Americans are in debt. Some of them having an increase in pay which lead to an increase in property values, and large mortgages. It also increase the amount you paid for property taxes, Everything becomes inflated, and without realizing it, you've taken a pay cut, which was the purpose behind the federal reserve. The more in debt you are, the more likely you are to skip out of higher education to work in a factory job, or other undesirable employment just so that you can make ends meet. Whether you realize it or not, this has directly affected the liberty the Constitution was constituted for. We're not in danger of losing our liberty by the hands of terrorists in the Middle East, they've already been destroyed by terrorists right here in the U.S.A. And they live in Washington D.C.
Federalist No. 36: Alexander Hamilton writes, "As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"
If you have kids, put aside the global warming concerns long enough to read the constitution, and should any part of it cause inquiry, the Federalist Papers can help explain the true intentions of our founding fathers. Some of which I have added below to establish my statements.
In the Federalist No. 85, Paragraph 11, Hamilton refers to the amendment process by writing, "By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "On the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, which at present time amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by convention in three fourths thereof. The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress 'shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air." He goes on to ask, "Can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people? We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."
Federalist Paper No. 22 also states, "It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system, that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers, and has, in some instances, given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a PARTY to a COMPACT has a right to revoke that COMPACT, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority."
"The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call INTERNAL and EXTERNAL taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities. Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined. I believe it may be regarded as a position warranted by the history of mankind, that, IN THE USUAL PROGRESS OF THINGS, THE NECESSITIES OF A NATION, IN EVERY STAGE OF ITS EXISTENCE, WILL BE FOUND AT LEAST EQUAL TO ITS RESOURCES."
And on my final note, we know that people in the news media have received money for supporting the views of President Bush in the days leading up to the war, during his campaign for 2nd term, and most likely everyday he's been in office. This is an infringement on the Freedom of the Press. The press being a source of news or information that is made available to a wide audience in order to detract from certain beliefs and goals. If a President needs to manipulate the information made available to the people in order to establish a just cause, then it's obvious he would not stop at anything in order to accomplish his own ambition, which had been to have Saddam killed, and his financial interests secured at the cost of the U.S. Citizens for generations to come. There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 would not have happened if Bush had not been President of the United States. But don't let this confuse you, the monster created by our own ignorance and faith in the good of others has created a monster. Democrats and Republicans alike are giving a show and dance, while keeping most of us too busy with work and/or family. Meanwhile, they've got deals with phone companies and oil companies flying around in their corporate jets.
Justice, Equality, and Security are all gone. And if you take any time to watch C-Span You can easily see how one might come to the conclusion that life is but a stage.
The people in a given state don't always agree with their legislators. Nor do the state legislatures agree with the majority of people within their states. The United States was created with this in mind when they created both houses within Congress. One elected by the people, the other by the legislatures of each state. When the U.S. Constitution was created, only the essential powers necessary to carry out its reason for existing were granted to each branch of the Federal Government How is it that Congress can violate the Constitution? Good Question. I'm still trying to figure out when accepting a bribe became legal. But here is some information as to why a violation of power occured.
During the Conventions of 1787, many wise and noble men were appointed by each state in order to amend the Articles of Confederation. Upon review of the Articles, it was found that in order to accomodate the objective before them, they would need to make drastic changes. These changes, in order to be binding, would need the approval of the same body that approved the Articles of Confederation, though there had been no provision for this method of handling.
The Preamble of the Constitution begins with "We the people of the United States" and continues to state the intentions of the Constitution. Justice, domestic Tranquility, providing common defense, promote the general welfare, secure liberty, to ourselves and future generations. Expressing the individual reasons for creating the U.S. Constitution establishes intention, or motive, and gives affect to what follows. In Contract Law, (a constitution is merely a contract between two parties, in this case, the contract is created for the establishment of a Federal Government by the people amongst the several states.) the parties who formed the agreement, or are formed by the agreement, are obligated to fulfill the obligations therefor mentioned. In order to make changes to a contract, the parties affected by such change must give consent. As an example, the Bill of Rights were passed by the legislatures of the states. By ratifying the amendments, they agreed to honor them in accordance with the Preamble.
Article V. of the Constitution allows for 2 modes of ratifying amendments. I have broken down the paragraph to show logic to its purpose. It is mentioned that form is important, but not as important as the substance itself.
The Congress shall call a convention for proposing Amendments. a. whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary. b. on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states.In either case: shall be valid to all intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution a. when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states b. by Conventions in three fourths of the several statesas the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.Provided that no state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It is important to think about how much power had been granted by the "People" of the United States to the Federal Government. First, are the acts of the Legislative, Executive. or Judicial branches meeting the purpose the Constitution was created for?
Within the jurisdiction, does the act provide: a. Justice - the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment. b. domestic Tranquility - Do you feel at ease with such acts? c. providing common defense - Do these acts ward off attacks or protect the common people and their rights? d. promote the general welfare - Do these acts further growth or progress of the people as a whole? e. secure liberty - do these acts secure the liberties of the people?
When establishing the constitution, certain powers were specifically denied to the federal government by the "People" and can only be granted by the same through a state convention. States were only allowed Direct Taxation of the people if their Constitutions (which were also formed by the people of the settlements) allowed for such. Forming a Corporation is done under similar principles, which create laws and bylaws, often consists of an 'Executive Sfaff' and a Board whose supposed interest is suppose to be relative to the common shareholders. While the executives may have relatively free reign, certain circumstances require votes in order to change any corporate bylaws or other circumstances that may affect the value of the company. In a sense, Tax Payers invest in the U.S. Government when they pay taxes, though Unconstitutional, and besides funding the general expenses of the Federal Government, other appropriations of Federal funds must meet the standards set forth above.
In the Federalist No. 85, Paragraph 11 refers to the amendment process through until the end of that publication. Hamilton wrote, "By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "On the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, which at present time amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by convention in three fourths thereof. The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress 'shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air." He goes on to ask, "Can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people? We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So what happens now?
Not only have our rights been violated, the rights of people worldwide have been violated. We the people have no right to spread democracy. Democracy is what the U.S. Constitution replaced. It was found that Total Democracy continually failed time after time. Since the start of the Great War, Government has used tax-payer money to spread patriotic propaganda. Seems the Germans picked up on this. They supposedly used the same techniques in World War II. Part of the American Declaration of Rights sent to the Crown in England to express grievances. If you read up on it, you'll realize that American Independance was fought for the same reasons we're seeing now. The only reason I can conclude we actually got involved in WW I, was that the U.S. had been the primary source for weapons and supplies, and ultimately the only reason they weren't conquered for so long. But when they began to lose, it was realized that they would never be paid for much of the supplies which were on the Credit of those soon to have been conquered.
Everything I have stated is information available to anyone who looks for it. I highly recommend if you care about your future, look it up before dismissing my statements as false. The most alarming part of my research is that most of Congressman have law degrees. I firmly believe that a person with a degree in law should have been able to recognize of these encroachments. Instead, the federal government speaks of what it is doing for the people, and give tax breaks, etc, etc... but what they are really doing is keeping your mind off of what you might disapprove of. Everything said by a Presidential candidate is malarky. The President can suggest laws to Congress. But Congress is the true holder of any power. We've already let the government get out of control. We can't let it continue until nobody is left. If the Government is empowered solely by the people, then the people are responsible for the actions of the government. Continuing on as we are, we are only welcoming another attack.
It wasn't until about 9 months prior to this date that I was feeling cheated out of a significant amount of money which was due to me by an established employment contract. Much to my dismay, after speaking with over a dozen attorneys, each declined to represent me after finding out who the employer was. Even more to my displeasure, not one could explain upon what grounds my case was lacking. I'm not wealthy by any means. Though I could have definitely had an easier time if the terms of the contract in which I speak had been honored. I have always been loyal and exceeded expectations. After my employer was bought out by another High-Tech corporation, certain assurances were made, and all employees involved relied upon those assurances in continuing employment. Regardless of what Contracts and Merger Agreements were signed, there's really only 1 law in which I apply to myself. "Do onto others as you would have done on to you." Added attention to behavior that disrespects others without cause only promotes it. All men are created equally with uninfringable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Corporations seem to be the most significant benefactors of the legislative authority that in itself illegally usurped powers not granted by the Constitution. And I still cannot believe how long it has been happening and why more people aren't upset. Let us assume for a moment that we as human beings tend to derive our morality by those of whom are given the honor to serve in public office of this country by the sovereigns they were elected to represent. It would explain why marriage doesn't last, why killers don't seem remorseful for a death they were directly responsible for, and the complete and utter disrespect that seems to linger about amongst both the young and old.
The United States government no longer exists under any Constitiution. A friend once told me that much occurred in Congress that the people will always be oblivious to and before long, people might never have heard of our U.S. Constititution, Liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Happiness consists of being able to eat at least one meal a day, and staying warm through the Winter months. Though people may consider that my posting is just another one of those "Consipiracy Theories" that seems to come along more and more often, I assure you this is information I have read several times from many websites, most of which were .gov sites.
I have always enjoyed learning, but that in which no interest exists, wastes precisouls brain drive space. Legal documents are difficult to read through because it has always been the intention of law-makers to ensure their private sector counterparts remain employed so that contributions to their campains continue to grow in order to secure the services of the Nations best Marketing Firms. When was the last time you had faith in how this country was being run? Do you actually know what is going on in the world?
First, let me refer you to our Founding Fathers who discussed the ratification process in "The Federalist Papers" so that an educated and well thought out determination could prevail. In Paper No. 85, Hamilton wrote the following:It appears to me susceptible of absolute demonstration, that it will be far more easy to obtain subsequent than previous amendments to the Constitution. The moment an alteration is made in the present plan, it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each State. To its complete establishment throughout the Union, it will therefore require the concurrence of thirteen States. If, on the contrary, the Constitution proposed should once be ratified by all the States as it stands, alterations in it may at any time be effected by nine States. Here, then, the chances are as thirteen to nine2 in favor of subsequent amendment, rather than of the original adoption of an entire system.
This is not all. Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent States are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence, also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a final act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties.
But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or ompromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.
In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed. For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated. I also think there is little weight in it on another account. The intrinsic difficulty of governing thirteen States at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged ``on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.'' The words of this article are peremptory. (leaving no opportunity for denial or refusal; mperative: a peremptory command.)
The Congress ``shall call a convention. "Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of a mathematical demonstration. Those who see the matter in the same light with me, however zealous they may be for amendments, must agree in the propriety of a previous adoption, as the most direct road to their own object.
The zeal for attempts to amend, prior to the establishment of the Constitution, must abate in every man who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of a writer equally solid and ingenious: ``To balance a large state or society Usays hee, whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty, that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labor; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they INEVITABLY fall into in their first trials and experiments.''3 These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience. It may be in me a defect of political fortitude, but I acknowledge that I cannot entertain an equal tranquillity with those who affect to treat the dangers of a longer continuance in our present situation as imaginary. A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.
The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of the thirteen States, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.
PUBLIUS.
1 Entitled ``An Address to the People of the State of New York.''
2 It may rather be said TEN, for though two thirds may set on foot the measure, three fourths must ratify.
3 Hume's ``Essays,'' vol. i., page 128: ``The Rise of Arts and Sciences.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9 of Article I states: No bill of attainder shall be passed, nor any ex post facto laws. How Congress can consciously violate the constitution and there be no news anywhere on this important issue is unfathomable. But I do believe this brings light to the fact that the News Media has intentionally neglected to inform the people of the United States of America that the proposed law to be passed is nothing more than a violation of constitutional law. And if it be true that the lack is due to ignorance, it should additionally cause alarm to the American people. But I do believe that there is more occuring behind the scenes. Any person who has voted to approve the law, or voted against, and switched votes while at the same time receivng money to their campaign should be removed from office and tried for treason.
If people don't start looking into what has been happening, then you are only welcoming additional 'terrorist attacks'.
Liberty seems to be a word that isn't heard as often as one might expect. Often times we take for granted what we think we have, and have no clue about freedom. When we invaded Iraq, it wasn't for liberty, but for democracy. These are 2 very different things. The Confederacy was a Democracy that did not provide freedom those who were captured into slavery. So why exactly are we trying to spread democracy? Because the United States turned itself into a Democracy in order to take away your freedoms. The new constitution allowed for the senators to be elected by the State Legislatures instead of by the people. The House of Representatives was created seperately to be elected by the people. Why else would there be two houses within Congress? Election to both houses by the people has locked in Aristocratic Principles in Government. If you know a little history, you know that most people within a country are manipulated into believing one thing or another about their Kings, Rulers, or Religious Head. God appointed. People as a whole are easier to manipulate when they do not take part in government legislative activity. Keeping the election for Senators in each states legislative branch provides a checks and balances that cannot be changed by amendment. In order to change the principles of the Constitution (including apportionment of direct taxes) you MUST do so by convention. Amendments to be ratified by the states are only those in which no powers are granted or removed. It is a method of clarification to be added to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not change the constitution, it only enumerated those rights that people feared most of losing, and were added as reassurance that their rights could not ever be taken away. And the Federal Government cannot take away any rights or privilidges without calling a convention. And it should be noted that there is no reason to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to make something law in your state. The Federal Government was created in order to act in the best interest of all of the states. Which is why it's powers were restricted to commerce and defending against invasion. The power is otherwise held by the people, and what the people have allowed in the last century is nothing short from disgraceful and in direct contract to the Constitution. It's up to the Supreme Court of the United States to correct a wrong. And they need to do it now. They are not restricted to cases that they are subjected to, they have a responsibility to the people to ensure the principles of the U.S. Constitution remain intact. Read below about the Judiciary Branch and you may better understand. WE PROCEED to an examination of the judiciary department. In unfolding the defects of the existing Confederation, the utility and necessity of a federal judicature have been clearly pointed out. It is the less necessary to recapitulate the considerations there urged, as the propriety of the institution in the abstract is not disputed; the only questions which have been raised being relative to the manner of constituting it, and to its extent. To these points, therefore, our observations shall be confined.
The manner of constituting it seems to embrace these several objects: 1st. The mode of appointing the judges. 2d. The tenure by which they are to hold their places. 3d. The partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other. First. As to the mode of appointing the judges; this is the same with that of appointing the officers of the Union in general, and has been so fully discussed in the two last numbers, that nothing can be said here which would not be useless repetition.
Second. As to the tenure by which the judges are to hold their places; this chiefly concerns their duration in office; the provisions for their support; the precautions for their responsibility.
According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of theState constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
The simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; (1) that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." It proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such an union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its coordinate branches; that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as PERMANENCY IN OFFICE, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and, in a great measure, as the CITADEL of the public justice and the public security.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution.
By a limited constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such for instance as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenour of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void because contrary to the constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void must necessarily be superiour to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the grounds on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenour of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore contrary to the constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be recollected from any particular provisions in the constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It must therefore belong to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular net proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superiour obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; in other words the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute; the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does the conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superiour to both; and that where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws rather than by those which are not fundamental.
This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation: so far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done: where this is impracticable it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first.
But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a role not enjoined upon the courts by the legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an equal authority, that, which was the last indication of its will, should have the preference.
But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivating power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us, that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter, and disregard the former.
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretence of repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGEMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it proved any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
If then the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution, against the legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit of the judges, which must be essential to the faithful performance of a so arduous a duty.
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the constitution and the rights of individuals, from the effects of those ill humors which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the mean time, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established constitution whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness; yet it is not to be inferred from that principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing constitution, would on that account, be justified in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.
That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.
Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government. The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution. PUBLIUS. 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: ``Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' ``Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. 2 Idem, page 181. 3 Vide ``Protest of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania,'' Martin's Speech, etc.
And if anyone reading these past few posts have had someone close to them killed in the war, I am sorry if what I have said sounds too fantastic to be true. I've already heard the news stories of parents that tell politicians to make sure their childs death isn't in vain. That's been advertised as a reason to win the war and not pull out until all enemies are gone.
WRONG! It means we need to stop now, realize the corruption in our government, and fix it. The Constitutional Amendments that removed the safe-guards are invalid, and an amendment that changes anything in the Constitution can only be changed by a Federal Convention.
That makes the Income Tax illegal. The sooner people realize it, the sooner we can put an end to tyranny. Stop being ignorant! If not for yourselves, for your kids. People 100 years ago weren't as i debt as people are now. Debt is just another word for slavery. That means that your kids or grandkids will be in even greater debt. Please WAKE UP!
Many people have a poor concept of what slavery is. Slavery comes from the Slavs who when defeated by the ottoman empire, become servants and sold into servantry. Later took on the name Slavery since most of the Slav's were sold off... into Slavery.
In many cultures, when you committed a crime against someone, or your country committed crimes against another, you were expected to pay for taking, and pay interest with additional work. Meaning... if you want a loan, that loan has interest. If you're employed and not breaking the law, you're paid... but you don't get interest for each day of work that goes by that you're not paid. (Not do you get interest back on your taxes for the amount refunded. Where does that go?
It's interesting to note that in many religions, charging interest was considered a sin. Though very little attention is ever given to that fact. When owe taxes, I am responsible for paying interest and fees all because I did not properly estimate my tax liability. (Though Tax is an assesment of what is due for the services your government offers for the common good of it's citizens. Not citizens of a foreign country.) The American Revolution revolved around the crown taxing the American Colonies a great deal on Tea in order to pay for it's war debts it incurred against france.
During the American Revolution, at times when the colonists were losing, they received help and support from France, Spain, and the Ottomans. Their intention was to keep the fight going so that Britain would send more of their forces to the United States, so they could invade and take over. As soon as the Colonists began winning, they started helping the other side, but Great Britain realized what was happening and retreated. Thus, the colonists gained their independence.
In all wars that are fought, the true motives are never given to the public. But the public always seems to listen and fight. Often times wars were waged because another country offended your king. Or because one of the kings ships were destroyed, and the other king did it. Someone killed the king, and it must have been such and such. (though often times when royalty is murdered, it was usually someone close to him, and likely the next person in line for the throne. (Which is why the throne was usually handed down to the kids.)
More often than not, the king who engages the war is usually after something else. In the past it's been the trade route, or exclusive trade with india, because of all the things they had to offer. Many times the countries wouldn't have a whole lot of money to buy the things offered elsewhere in the world, but by grace of the king, he extended them credit which was usually paid with more trade, but more debt because of the low price of the tea vs what they were charged for the goods from abroad. Ultimately, it pays to have something that is widely liked, but nobody else can provide.
The people who supposedly attacked America did not belong to any country. (Because we have treaties either with that country, or with a country that has a treaty with the other.) The only countries left are a few in Asia, (Which there could be treaties not to now after vietnam) and the Middle East. In each war, religious issues become a factor because people have this anger inside for anyone who might be opposed to their way of life. That's the goal, make the enemy so different, so unlike ourselves in order to establish the evil. Religions also teach us that "Satan" actually translates to accuser. Beware of the accuser. For it's the way evil will take shape. And as many people have even noticed local to them that we're skeptical of people who claim to be victims. In the U.S., in order to be tried for Treason, the testimony of 2 different people on the same act are necessary.
Why is it that nobody seems to be speaking up about what really happened? Is it because we're afraid to admit that we could have made a mistake? It's an even bigger mistake not to have him impeached, because it means that every member of the House who votes against impeachment, and every Senator that votes against impeachment are guilty of treason.
I am angry because this isn't being said on the news. This is being suppressed because most Americans don't realize the full context of what has happened. And as long as they avoid voting on the impeachment with what they know, they can be tried for treason.
The media doesn't cover this because real change doesn't suit their financial outlook. The way it is now, the American people pay for them to exist. When you buy products it goes toward the advertising for that product, which pays for a part of the TV Shows that you watch. And all the media has to do is send a signal to your home. The more popular the show, the more money they're paid for commercials. The more you watch tv, the better off they are. It does them no good whatsoever to have people picketing. Since women have had to work, there are fewer people watching TV during the day. These are all things that affect the economy. Imagine if companies didn't advertise ever. They were just responsible for producing for their state or community the services they provide, making enough to employ the employees and pay off the machinery. But there is a math here that doesn't work out. Somebody has to suffer in order to keep the status quo amongst the american people. So since we can't take advantage of the Hispanic population anymore, we're moving to Iraq. They would have a need for agriculture that we can provide. In order to offload our agricultural exports.
Ultimately, it's a game of extending credit, and if you're honorable, you'll pay it back. If you don't, we'll send in the troops and take what we want. And we'll 'help' after all the damage we did and help you rebuild, but you'll owe us + Interest.
The thing is, only a handful of people end up winning. And anyone with kids who are hopeful they will succeed in life, don't realize that the only real success is to not become heartless and greedy.
It used to be that Churches would be your insurance for everything, and you would contribute 10-20% of your salary. Imagine all of what the Federal Government takes in, they should be able to offer services up the ying yang.
What kept the people in the south enslaved was the fact that farmers were able to come together and fix the price of food as to not drive down their prices. And all they had to do was keep the slaves fed, and housed. While there is nothing unusual about trading labor for a place to live and some food, the tragedy of American History was the treatment of other people. So for Congress to give themselves a pension, the best insurance (which could be provided by military doctors for free) and then tell people tough luck? Over 500,000 Middle Easterners are Dead, 4000+ americans killed overseas... and all we get is tough luck?
There are too many people that know about this that aren't interested in people connecting the dots. And how can such intelligent people who have been educated more than most, not know? The Governments have failed all of us, and they still want us to elect them into office? Bull.
There have been a lot of changes in the past 100 years. Not only have we seen gang activity increase along with crimes, but so has energy consumption. The other change I realized was the recinding of the "Sunday Laws" across the united states.
Originally, the sunday law were instituted to make sure that people wouldn't have to choose between work and church. Often, the nobility would use financial enticements toward the religious heads of households in order to coherce them to work in order to increase his own financial gain. This was unfair to those who needed money, feared losing their means of supporting themselves, and without such a law banning people from working (though I don't believe it applied to you working for your own business), people would be further burdened.
I have to wonder if there weren't more benefits to this. First, without businesses being open, your kids would have nowhere to go for entertainment. Parents would have at least 1 day they could spend with family & friends without having to align work schedules. Decrease in gas use across the board. Less crime (since parents are home on Sundays, there is no reason why you can't keep an eye on them.) Fewer homeless people begging in the street (Since there are no people to beg from). Less Police would be necessary (if any at all... They could go on an "On Call As Needed" basis so they might be able to spend time with family. Neighbors would have time to get to know each other. How well do you know your neighbors now? Have you had any barbecues? Right now, I would guess that most people who may have barbecues, are only hanging out with people who are white collar regardless of the neighborhood you live in. Our work schedules can determine what class you relate to and hardens those lines even more.
So perhaps we should consider enacting a Sunday Law. Not to restrict people from working, but to give liberty to those who can't choose. And imagine the tax dollars that would be saved?
Problem is, I don't believe that this would be acceptable in Washington D.C. and states that collect an Income Tax. That's the real reason why the Sunday Laws were lifted. People could be forced to work more days, some part-time workers without insurance.
Speaking of Insurance... When you are seeing a doctor, you are paying for his time. The amount he charges is dependant upon how many appointments there are. Have you noticed that people have appointments with doctors booked up? Do you think that medical insurance might be the cause of that? Are you more likely to make an appointment when you have insurance or don't? Most of the time when I go to the Doctors Office, there are Seniors filling up the waiting room. In order to maintain the busy schedules, Seniors need health care insurance. This keeps the price of their time up.
So what is the only real solution to the health care issue is? not insurance because you know they make a lot of money from the work they do and have locked in prices lower than what's available to cash paying customers. The truth of the matter is, when you think about it, in order for a person to do well financially, several people have to do poorly. It's not an opinion, it's the truth. If you start a business and are the only employee... either you get paid, or the company get paid. not both. Either you receive a larger portion, or the business does.
Originally when businesses were created in each state, they were granted a franchise to provide a service. They would pay a franchise fee for it, and competitiion was determined by the contract they signed related to the type of business. They were also limited to only that business. The country has changed drastically in the past 100 years... And if you ask me, The American people have been paying so that elected officials can enjoy the step above socialism.
Congress has become what we fought for. There's no denying it. And if people disagree, it's likely because they envision aristocrats to be worse than they were. They don't have to spit in your face, to spit in your face.
Liberty seems to be a word that isn't heard as often as one might expect. Often times we take for granted what we think we have, and have no clue about freedom.When we invaded Iraq, it wasn't for liberty, but for democracy. These are 2 very different things. The Confederacy was a Democracy that did not provide freedom those who were captured into slavery. So why exactly are we trying to spread democracy? Because the United States turned itself into a Democracy in order to take away your freedoms. The new constitution allowed for the senators to be elected by the State Legislatures instead of by the people. The House of Representatives was created seperately to be elected by the people. Why else would there be two houses within Congress? Election to both houses by the people has locked in Aristocratic Principles in Government.If you know a little history, you know that most people within a country are manipulated into believing one thing or another about their Kings, Rulers, or Religious Head. God appointed. People as a whole are easier to manipulate when they do not take part in government legislative activity. Keeping the election for Senators in each states legislative branch provides a checks and balances that cannot be changed by amendment. In order to change the principles of the Constitution (including apportionment of direct taxes) you MUST do so by convention. Amendments to be ratified by the states are only those in which no powers are granted or removed. It is a method of clarification to be added to the Constitution.The Bill of Rights did not change the constitution, it only enumerated those rights that people feared most of losing, and were added as reassurance that their rights could not ever be taken away. And the Federal Government cannot take away any rights or privilidges without calling a convention. And it should be noted that there is no reason to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to make something law in your state. The Federal Government was created in order to act in the best interest of all of the states. Which is why it's powers were restricted to commerce and defending against invasion.The power is otherwise held by the people, and what the people have allowed in the last century is nothing short from disgraceful and in direct contrast to the Constitution. It's up to the Supreme Court of the United States to correct a wrong. And they need to do it now. They are not restricted to cases that they are subjected to, they have a responsibility to the people to ensure the principles of the U.S. Constitution remain intact. Read below about the Judiciary Branch and you may better understand.WE PROCEED to an examination of the judiciary department.
In unfolding the defects of the existing Confederation, the utility and necessity of a federal judicature have been clearly pointed out. It is the less necessary to recapitulate the considerations there urged, as the propriety of the institution in the abstract is not disputed; the only questions which have been raised being relative to the manner of constituting it, and to its extent. To these points, therefore, our observations shall be confined.
The manner of constituting it seems to embrace these several objects: 1st. The mode of appointing the judges. 2d. The tenure by which they are to hold their places. 3d. The partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other.
First. As to the mode of appointing the judges; this is the same with that of appointing the officers of the Union in general, and has been so fully discussed in the two last numbers, that nothing can be said here which would not be useless repetition.Second. As to the tenure by which the judges are to hold their places; this chiefly concerns their duration in office; the provisions for their support; the precautions for their responsibility.
According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.
But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a role not enjoined upon the courts by the legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an equal authority, that, which was the last indication of its will, should have the preference.But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivating power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us, that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter, and disregard the former.
Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government. The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution.PUBLIUS.1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: ``Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' ``Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.2 Idem, page 181.3 Vide ``Protest of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania,'' Martin's Speech, etc.
You know, it seems a shame that it takes this long for a candidate to be picked, and we only seem to hear the same thing over and over and over again... As a thought... Wouldn't you think we could get more out of the whole political run by putting all running democrats in a house together along with all of the Republican in another house. They have 6 months to discuss amongst themselves ideas, issues facing the country, etc. etc.
Once the candidate is chosen from each party, then move them in along with all the other party nominees, and provide 2 hours a night on major topics, arguments... furniture throwing.. etc. Rather than going to each and every state, they can be in every american home. Everyone will have the chance to get to know the candidates on a more daily basis. We can even do online voting on how we feel about each view.
It seems each candidate only discusses what they know people want to hear. They often don't discuss their views if they believe it will conflict with too many people. Is that what we want? People telling us what we want to hear? The other bonus to this type of arrangement would be to allow non major party candidates to become more known. Perhaps also to give each other ideas they never thought of before. And also to cut out marketing schemes.
Sounds like a great idea.
I hope Mr. Obama has read the writings of a distant relative of ours named James Madison. The Federalist lays down the ground rules, and how the system should work.. but it hasn't worked for a very long time. The whole point for having a House and Senate is to have representation of the People, and representation of the several states. But what do we need checks and balances for anyhow?
I found the family tree information from the New England Historic Geneological Society very interesting. I am also related to James Madison, John Adams Jr., and the Captain of a ship that transported people to the new world. It's always fascinating to learn about your history. As a matter of fact, some relatives (if records are correct) actually relate me to a Finnish God. (Kings were Gods back then I guess, but a relative helped to overthrow the King of England to bring King Edward I (If memory serves me.)
Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee.
Nifty.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Article about U.S. & Drugs
Another Article about U.S. Plane carrying drugs.
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.
MSNBC Article: U.S. Involvement in 9/11 Attacks
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
Pearl Harbor Information
We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.
--------------I'd like to point out that a lot of what we've read or heard in the past few days have been clips combined together to sound like 1 large rant against america. I read some transcripts here and there (which I cannot find at the moment) and given the time of these speeches, and the circumstances involved, Can you honestly claim that he was out of line? I do not doubt a politician will lie in order to protect his image. I do not doubt that such a person is capable of ordering the deaths of American Lives. Especially true when our government was designed to limit war to 2 years.
The 9/11 Commision's only purpose was to keep people from revolting. Keep them from seeking their own answers too soon. 5 years is a long time to investigate. Imagine if that's how long it took police to investigate your car being stolen.
I think it's sad that because someone chose to speak out, raise to the surface the possibility of indecent acts being committed, we are forced to distance ourselves from him. I think it would be invaluable for us to consider all possibilities.
When was the last time you watched a court case where the accused murderer is acquitted by stating, "I'm Innocent, I was framed, and 7 of my friends investigated the case and agree!"
And as for the Palestinians in Israel. This is an extremely sensitive situation. But in a Country where Church & State is seperated, I am bewildred that a person could say "Well, it's in our Bible." The Bible also has 10 commandments but they must be more suggestive than an order from God. I guess the question I would have to ask is, What would we do if the Native American's came together and provided us with a copy of their spiritual texts which says God gave them all of the lands currently occupied by the United States.
It really irks me when people quote the Bible to reason their terrible deeds, yet seem to have missed many of the intended lessons it teaches.
Shortly after 9/11, I was angry too. I would have ripped apart the person responsible if they had been in front of me. And if it was a conspiracy by people within the U.S. and we let them get away with it, they'll only get better at it. Why Bin Laden hasn't been 'found' is yet another thing to keep in mind. I cannot blame Rev. Wright for believing that America has become evil. We threw out the checks and balances almost 100 years ago. And shortly after, we entered the first World War.
And when he says "The Rich White Man", is he wrong about the people who control the financial world, the media, oil? These are people with Billions of Dollars. And if they were true Christians, they would have a need for so much.
What do you think?
The poor use of grammar in the post title was intentional. The Education of this countries youth has been on a continuous downfall for many years. Why? Because it's much easier to control the uneducated. If you and I were raised to be ignorant, how would we know?
While I believe myself to be an intelligent person, I've come to realize that there is a lot I didn't know. I have been educating myself in American Politics and the Established government which had the Articles of Confederation, adding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I've even read most (if not all) of a newspaper called "The Federalist", whose soul purpose was to answer questions about the proposed changes that eventually formed the USA.
I have to say that I am surprised that we got rid of the Checks & Balances with the 17th Amendment, which assured all of our freedoms. But it explains why we are where we are. Education has been replaced by the TV. And the TV tells us what we want to hear. There's freedom of the Press, so no worries about news being all lies. The only purpose for the Press to lie would be to serve it's own interest. How can there ever be a conflict of interest?
Political Campaigns cannot be run without money to advertise, travel, produce leaflets, buttons, etc. So it's only obvious that an elected official would accept bribes in order to maintain his/her position. If an elected official doesn't show results to the highest contributors, then you can kiss the next term goodbye. But that is how it is. It's much easier for corporations to help manipulate the voting citizens, than it is to manipulate a smaller group of people that make up your state Legislature. (Washington State has one of the first states to report an attempt by a Senator to bribe the state legislature, which lead to several other allegations across the country.)
I think a good start to making sure kids understand the real process of government by modeling the process in schools to be the same process any other adult would expect. This would include trial by jury. Election of Grade Governors and making their own Constitution that will follow them throughout their education. (Similar to the U.S. Constitution). We need to teach and then apply. So why not employ these students to survey land (Trigonometry) be translators for those needing assistance. Perhaps run a cafe to earn money for a Senior Trip.
Certainly this idea needs additional planning before it can be implemented, but I am certain this would produce a better educated and experienced group of young people. A better tomorrow. What more could we ask for?
In the past few months I have been uncertain as to who I trusted more. While all politicians automatically get marked as being untrustworthy, I think I have a better idea of who Barrack Obama is. Though the resent press regarding Rev. Wright portrays certain statements in a bad light, and though the words spoken by Rev. Wright could be misinterpreted as racist, I heard something completely different.
What is it I heard? I heard the same thing I keep thinking and seeking. The Truth. I have been very dissenchantized in what has occured in this great country over the past 100 years. It appears that many of us cannot fully dismiss the actions and excuses given by the current administration. What wish do I have? I wish the truth. And I've decided the only person capable of providing the Truth is Barrack Obama.
Semper Equidem
I'd like to start this posting by stating that I am not opposed to Barrack Obama, nor do I support any current candidate thus far. It's been a difficult decision. But one question I DO have is... Is Barrack a Natural Born Citizen?
Natural to me means through nature. If we were to assume a person is naturally a citizen of the United States by nature. Barrack is obviously a mix of many races (like myself) and if his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, but his father was not a citizen, would that not make him only 1/2 natural citizen? Thus, not a true natural citizen? I bring this up now, because I know that it will become an issue later. McCain is planning to use this against Barrack in the coming months assuming he should beat hillary. And with our government outsourcing our military equipment to foreign countries that obviously never supported our engagement of Iraq... do you not doubt that this will happen?
America is relying on us remaining stupid. And yes, we are stupid, otherwise, most of what has happened wouldn't have been tollerated. I hope this get attention, because the fear I currently have is that McCain could win. I fear McCain more than I fear Bush. Because he was a POW, and in my opinion, could have unresolved feelings toward the enemy of the time, toward the enemy of today. This is a valid point.... please please... make sure we are ready.... They obsolved McCain of any issues toward natural citizenship... I need to know.
Thanks.
