|
Dig
|
 |
« on: September 11, 2009, 02:40:02 PM » |
|
#1 Priority!!!!!!!!!!
They have 2 CFR left/right morons agreeing that the 10th amendment has no effect, it does not exist, it was not a part of the foundation of this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW WE GOT THEM BY THE BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First they ignore you...CHECK!
Then they ridicule you...CHECK!
Then they fight you...HAPPENING NOW!
Then you win...SOON!
THE QUEEN BITCH cvnt's MEDIA NETWORK HAS SAID VIA HER MINIONS...
"YOUR CONSTITUTION IS TOILET PAPER AND I WIPE MY HAIRY ASS WITH IT!"
"You are my slaves!"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
sociostudent
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2009, 02:41:12 PM » |
|
#1 Priority!!!!!!!!!!
They have 2 CFR left/right morons agreeing that the 10th amendment has no effect, it does not exist, it was not a part of the foundation of this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW WE GOT THEM BY THE BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First they ignore you...CHECK!
Then they ridicule you...CHECK!
Then they fight you...HAPPENING NOW!
Then you win...SOON!
THE QUEEN BITCH cvnt's MEDIA NETWORK HAS SAID VIA HER MINIONS...
"YOUR CONSTITUTION IS TOILET PAPER AND I WIPE MY HAIRY ASS WITH IT!"
"You are my slaves!"
And we say: "THE ANSWER TO 1984 IS 1776!" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2009, 02:43:21 PM » |
|
Now the "deathers" and "judasers" are calling people who respect the constitution "tenthers"
Hey "judaser's" stop kissing the queen bitch's ass, she will Hitler SA you in the long run.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - MLK
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
sociostudent
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2009, 02:45:50 PM » |
|
Now the "deathers" and "judasers" are calling people who respect the constitution "tenthers"
Hey "judaser's" stop kissing the queen bitch's ass, she will Hitler SA you in the long run.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - MLK
"Judasers" wtf are those |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2009, 02:56:33 PM » |
|
They were mocking Governor Palentey who said he could use the 10th amendment to block unconstitutional healthcare insanity...
Here was how they framed the argument...
David Schuster...
"The 10th Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
But their is one problem, Article I, Section 8 states:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
See how Article I Section 8 talks about taxes and general werlfare? Sorry tenthers, you are completely trumped by Article 1 Section 8."
Then both the fake left and fake right pundits jump in AND COMPLETELY 100% AGREE THAT THE 10TH AMENDMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE.
Well, let us see if Schuster's argument holds water (remember that he is the same guy who said Ron Paul is the 'Al-Qaeda' of the GOP so I am not betting money on him)...
Well #1 Schuster did not quote Article I Section 8, he quoted a subset of Article I Section 8. So you might say, "so what he kept the context by quoting the most important sentence". NOPE, he did not even quote an entire sentence. And the second half of the sentence that he did erased from the constitution's first word is "BUT". Now I do not know about you, but any lawyer will tell you that if you remove a part of a sentence that has litigious effect (in this case the constitution which is the "law of the land" according to the white house website) and that part of the sentence begins with the word "BUT" you are pretty much changing the entire legal ramification of the sentence. You are not only changing it, but you are probably proposing the opposite meaning intended. Well let us see if this is true with good old slave to the British Empire Schuster...
Here is Article I Section 8's entire first sentence...
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
In addition, Article I, Section 2 States:
Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers [leaving off non essential stuff after where there is no BUT]
So all taxes must be apportioned and representative and all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform.
OK DAVEY BOY....
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO AMERICA THE QUEEN BITCH'S STAKE IN THE PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE IRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU WANNA PLAY CONSTITUTION MORON?
LET'S PLAY CONSTITUTION...
HOW THE F*CK IS THE IRS/TAX SYSTEM ENSURE THAT TAXES ARE APPORTIONED?
DO YOU WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME TO ANSWER THAT ONE?
HOW DOES THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW FOR NON APPORTIONED TAXES TO BE INCREASED FOR A "HEALTHCARE" PLAN THAT HAS NO VERIFICATION OF PROVIDING WELFARE? AND HOW IS THAT WELFARE APPORTIONED? AND WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF WELFARE? HOW DOES WELFARE = EUGENICS BASED AND DARWINIAN CULTIST HEALTHCARE? WHEN DID THIS TRAVESTY OF LOGIC ENTER YOUR CRANIUM? AND WHY DO WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2009, 02:57:42 PM » |
|
"Judasers" wtf are thosePeople who act like judas and stab freedom in the back to get riches from the caesers/pharaohs/kings. NO KING BUT KING JESUS! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
sociostudent
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2009, 03:00:39 PM » |
|
People who act like judas and stab freedom in the back to get riches from the caesers/pharaohs/kings.
NO KING BUT KING JESUS!
Oh, ok, so people like bill o'reilly, glenn beck or the redeye team, or every single person at msnbc or cnn. ok. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ES
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2009, 03:22:10 PM » |
|
Hey Scuster here's a bitch slap from James Madison. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - Federalist Papers, No. 45, January 26, 1788 Owch that's gotta hurt.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"My heroes are people who monkey wrench the new world order". - Jello Biafra
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2009, 03:30:24 PM » |
|
JT's insights are very fitting... There were punctuation changes to the original Constitution that were done around the time of the Civil War. The first glaring example can be found at Article I Section 9 Clause 4: The Tax Clause. "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless
in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore
directed to be taken." The comma after the word "direct" is so clumsy it is obvious, as is the removal of the comma after the word "herein". This, comma was absorbed into a curved horizontal line attached to the curved leg of the "n" in the word "herein with a long curled half loop. It forms what appears as a strange run together word "hereinbefore"... The reason for these changes was to inject a bit of ambiguity into the clause, so it could then be interpreted to support a graduated income tax. It successfully removes "No Capitation, or other direct..." as the modifiers for the word "Tax" and creates this four word phrase after the comma that gives power... "Tax shall be laid..." The covering up of the comma behind the word herein, again creates ambiguity giving this clause a wide latitude for interpretation... this gives power in this case to lay tax, without the proportion to the census or enumeration, where no such power existed before the changes. The clause as I see it, originally read, "No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or the enumeration herein, before directed to be taken." The new word "hereinbefore," refers back to the phrase, "Tax shall be laid." So, by the inclusion of one comma, and the obscuring of another comma by the creation of what appears to be a run-on word where a comma was obscured by the right leg of the "n" in the word "herein", it completely changes the meaning of this clause. Let's read it again without the changes. "No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless
in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein,
before directed to be taken." There is another punctuation change that interjects ambiguity by the addition of two commas... this is the Second Amendment. Now if any group of people would have an understanding of the Second Amendment it would be the organized militia. Here is a scan from the "Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States", published in 1825 under the authority of the War Department. This scan shows "the 2nd Amendment [ Page 14, Article II] properly presented as ratified and as shown in all presentations until after the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction, without the extra commas after the words "Militia" and "Arms". The only source properly presented today is that for the United States Senate on the United States Government Printing Office site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html" --Oldyoti "The reason for the Second Amendment may not be
fully understood until such time as it is needed."
~Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2009, 03:53:02 PM » |
|
More from constitutional scholar JT... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Note: The following text is a direct transcription of the amendments. Out of the twelve articles that were proposed these Ten Articles were ratified in there original form and together with the 1787 Constitution as part and parcel were fully ratified by at least 3/4 of the States on December 15, 1791. These 10 Declaratory Articles form what is known as the "Bill of Rights." THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
" Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Attest, Frederick Augustus Mechlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives.
John Adams, Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You see that part in Blue Davey Boy? You know what that means? That means that the constitution prior to the bill of rights was a generic framework and then the bill of rights were debated for FOUR YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOUR YEARS! The Bill of rights are the only reason that the states ratified the constitution, the rest is just organizational stuff by the states to create an agent. The only reason there is a bounding constitution between the states to create an agent is the bill of rights! There is no other reason, it is in the federalist and anti-federalist papers. You know what else Davey boy? When the body of the constitution mentions taxes, they are taxes paid by the state to the federal agent on behalf of the states to be used for what the congress deems appropriate (as long as it is apportioned). THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL TAXATION IN THE CONSTITUTION YOU MORON! IT DID NOT EXIST UNTIL AFTER THE PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE CAME INTO PLAY FROM YOUR QUEEN BITCH EMPLOYER! BOTTOM LINE ACCORDING TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR ON THE PLANET (Who is not a member of the CFR): The bill of rights trumps anything and everything else in the constitution, specifically the 9th and 10th amendment. Please do not call the most important part of the "law of the land" (according to the White House Website) a "bunch of baloney"! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Cywar
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2009, 04:19:12 PM » |
|
a "bunch of baloney"! They really said that?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
—Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
JTCoyoté
Guest
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2009, 04:31:08 PM » |
|
a "bunch of baloney"! They really said that?
Yes... in a panel discussion on a bona fide news network... the most insane thing is they are expecting you to believe it! Oh, and there is so much more... but I have to run to the range, have a couple of guns I must test, and get them sent off... we are coming up on another sale date in our dilemma... it's supposed to be sold a week from today on the 18th... I am working my ass off and we are nowhere close enough to the amount of money we need to stop this whole thing... if you have a few extra bucks guys, please give us a hand... click on Duke. I will be back in about two hours and we will remove all the ambiguity, and the political pundit dissembling from OUR Constitution... --Oldyoti "The personal right to acquire property, which is a
natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a
right to protection, as a social right."
~James Madison 
Click on Duke |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Overcast
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2009, 06:07:05 PM » |
|
Yes... in a panel discussion on a bona fide news network... the most insane thing is they are expecting you to believe it!
"bona fide news network" - That's debatable JT  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains. ~ Patrick Henry
Our founding fathers, if they met the current politicians in office; would either kick their asses good or just shoot them dead. ~Me
|
|
|
|
JTCoyoté
Guest
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2009, 06:52:53 PM » |
|
"bona fide news network" - That's debatable JT Yeah, I suppose I should've put that bona fide part in quotation marks.  --Oldyoti "What we meant, in going for those redcoats was this --
we had always governed ourselves, and always meant to...
they, didn't mean we should."
~ An old New England militia
captain, after the battles of
Lexington and Concord
April 19, 1775 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cywar
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2009, 01:08:44 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
—Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
JTCoyoté
Guest
|
|
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2009, 03:11:02 PM » |
|
Thanks for this link Cywar... I left a pertinent comment... I would love to see this whole thing from end to end, I'm sure we could do a whole thread on the misconceptions and inconsistencies, of not only David's arguments but the obviously controlled opposition as well... ...and thank you for the other gift also... JTCoyoté "...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution." ~From HJR-94-1035, The First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994 
Click on Duke |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DireWolf
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2009, 05:48:37 AM » |
|
If there is no public outcry over this and their opinion is allowed to stand, might they then turn that into a legal decision and if so what part of the Bill of Rights is next?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.
|
|
|
|
Cywar
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2009, 07:29:30 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
—Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
SP LIT
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2009, 11:02:02 AM » |
|
He is just another in a long list of traitors to this country. Your words speak volumes, Mr. Schuster. The days are getting shorter for your kind. I LOVE my country and you have said something that deeply offends me, and many others. GTFO and go back to Russia you communist trash!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JTCoyoté
Guest
|
|
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2009, 11:49:48 AM » |
|
He is just another in a long list of traitors to this country. Your words speak volumes, Mr. Schuster. The days are getting shorter for your kind. I LOVE my country and you have said something that deeply offends me, and many others. GTFO and go back to Russia you communist trash!!!
Schuster conveniently parses Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution about half way through clause 1 in his lead up to the panel discussion... Art. 1 Sec. 8. Cl. 1. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" This is where he stopped. His attempt was to show that the myriad taxes and impositions foisted upon the people is somehow justified under this welfare statement... Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 continues... "but all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States;" ... In this clause there is no mention of taxation of individuals, or taxation of the people, only the states are mentioned by the words "the United States." As Sane points out in one of my posts which he placed above, pointing out the shenanigans that took place with regard to article 1 section 9 clause 4 of the Constitution, the so-called tax provision... even with the addition of the comma behind the word "direct" and the addition of the fancy loop on the letter "n" in the word "herein" hiding an original comma between it and the word "before", making it appear to be the run-on word hereinbefore. In this clause as well, there is no provision for a direct taxing of the people by the United States of America... only by the state can this occur... and up until 1913 that is the way it was done... all taxation was directed through the state paid to the federal government and remained such until the passage of the Federal Reserve act in the wake of the dubious ratification of the 16th amendment, and then the subsequent ratification of the 17th amendment which removed state representation from the federal government by making the Senators from each State elected by the people... the clumsily changed Article 1 Sec. 9 Cl. 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless
in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore
directed to be taken." I digress... the point is that in 1787 the only way the Constitution could even be tentatively ratify by the required number of states to become law, was on a contingency that work would begin ASAP on crafting a Bill of Rights... as the founders put it: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure
the beneficent ends of its institution." The preamble to The Bill of Rights, spells out the fact, that the Constitution which contains article 1 section 8 would never have been fully and finally ratified in 1791, had the Bill of Rights not been included. And further, as insurance against any possible misconstruction or shenanigan by any future federal powers to attempt the usurpation of rights belonging to the people, and powers belonging to the states, the founding fathers included the 9th and 10th amendments, which are clear, concise, and beyond misconstruction: The law is quite clear... [Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."
[Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
I don't believe that it gets much more concise than that. In other words, Mr. Shuster... is full of Shuster... since these two final clauses in the organic Constitution... give power of interpretation, of this eighth-grade level document back into the hands of the people and the states... So back to law school Mr. Shuster... or should I say "color of law" school. JTCoyoté "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not
as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law
and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
~John Adams |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Optimus
Globalist Destroyer
Global Moderator
Member
 Offline
Posts: 11,170
The banksters are steaming piles of dog shit!
|
|
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2009, 11:59:10 AM » |
|
Darnit! Youtube removed the video. I wanted to see JT's comment on that.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry
>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<< |
|
|
|
Georgiacopguy
|
|
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2009, 12:58:56 PM » |
|
"Judasers" wtf are thoseYeah, I prefer the term "Hopers." It flows off the tongue much easier, and after all, its a nicer turn of phrase using their own slogan... teehee! It's also interchangeable with Change-ers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The resistance starts here. Unfortunately, the entire thing is moving beyond the intellectual infowar. I vow I will not make an overt rush at violent authority, until authority makes it's violent rush at me and you. I will not falter, I will not die in this course. For that is how they win.
|
|
|
|
africknamerican
|
|
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2009, 12:37:33 PM » |
|
It takes a special kind of talent to
1) Read painstakingly explicit provisions in the Constitution as "vague," "doubtful" or "obsolete," while
2) Reading a vague and general throat-clearing statement in a preamble (which is merely an introduction) as authoritative, and moreover, as an unlimited grant of authority. If this were actually the case, then Madison could have simply written the preamble, rested his pen and saved himself a lot of trouble.
Black is white, white is black.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2009, 01:07:00 PM » |
|
It takes a special kind of talent to
1) Read painstakingly explicit provisions in the Constitution as "vague," "doubtful" or "obsolete," while
2) Reading a vague and general throat-clearing statement in a preamble (which is merely an introduction) as authoritative, and moreover, as an unlimited grant of authority. If this were actually the case, then Madison could have simply written the preamble, rested his pen and saved himself a lot of trouble.
Black is white, white is black.
Concerning 1) Yes, Schuster is talented. Concerning 2) not really sure what you are talking about. You have read the preamble to the Constitution right? You are saying that was a throat clearing "intro", like an Ed McMahon kind of thing? Additionally, what does that have to do with the fact that the bill of rights is the ultimate authority on infringements by the state's agent (the fed) on individuals or the states themselves and the right of the state to reaffirm that these infringement are a direct violation of the law of the land. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the united States of America."
nothing to see, move along, just a throat clealing "heeeeeere's Jooooohny" intro... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
vcif
|
|
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2009, 08:23:04 PM » |
|
The Anti-Federalists (the actual federalists) argued that Article 1 Section 8 would be used for these exact purposes. As with most things, the Anti-Federalists were 100% correct. Madison defends Article 1 Section 8 in Federalist 41 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.aspHe provides the original and absolutely scathing dismemberment of the argument that A1S8 allows the federal government to do anything it wants under the guise of "the general welfare". Unfortunately, while he is completely correct in his interpretation, he is also naive beyond repair as to what the powers that be will say it means. Enjoy... It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sociostudent
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2009, 08:26:45 PM » |
|
Schuster conveniently parses Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution about half way through clause 1 in his lead up to the panel discussion... Art. 1 Sec. 8. Cl. 1. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" This is where he stopped. His attempt was to show that the myriad taxes and impositions foisted upon the people is somehow justified under this welfare statement... Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 continues... "but all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States;" ... In this clause there is no mention of taxation of individuals, or taxation of the people, only the states are mentioned by the words "the United States." As Sane points out in one of my posts which he placed above, pointing out the shenanigans that took place with regard to article 1 section 9 clause 4 of the Constitution, the so-called tax provision... even with the addition of the comma behind the word "direct" and the addition of the fancy loop on the letter "n" in the word "herein" hiding an original comma between it and the word "before", making it appear to be the run-on word hereinbefore. In this clause as well, there is no provision for a direct taxing of the people by the United States of America... only by the state can this occur... and up until 1913 that is the way it was done... all taxation was directed through the state paid to the federal government and remained such until the passage of the Federal Reserve act in the wake of the dubious ratification of the 16th amendment, and then the subsequent ratification of the 17th amendment which removed state representation from the federal government by making the Senators from each State elected by the people... the clumsily changed Article 1 Sec. 9 Cl. 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless
in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore
directed to be taken." I digress... the point is that in 1787 the only way the Constitution could even be tentatively ratify by the required number of states to become law, was on a contingency that work would begin ASAP on crafting a Bill of Rights... as the founders put it: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure
the beneficent ends of its institution." The preamble to The Bill of Rights, spells out the fact, that the Constitution which contains article 1 section 8 would never have been fully and finally ratified in 1791, had the Bill of Rights not been included. And further, as insurance against any possible misconstruction or shenanigan by any future federal powers to attempt the usurpation of rights belonging to the people, and powers belonging to the states, the founding fathers included the 9th and 10th amendments, which are clear, concise, and beyond misconstruction: The law is quite clear... [Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."
[Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
I don't believe that it gets much more concise than that. In other words, Mr. Shuster... is full of Shuster... since these two final clauses in the organic Constitution... give power of interpretation, of this eighth-grade level document back into the hands of the people and the states... So back to law school Mr. Shuster... or should I say "color of law" school. JTCoyoté "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not
as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law
and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
~John AdamsJTCoyote's a well of information regarding the U.S. constitution--It's actually a very attractive quality.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2009, 08:49:11 PM » |
|
The Anti-Federalists (the actual federalists) argued that Article 1 Section 8 would be used for these exact purposes. As with most things, the Anti-Federalists were 100% correct. Madison defends Article 1 Section 8 in Federalist 41 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.aspHe provides the original and absolutely scathing dismemberment of the argument that A1S8 allows the federal government to do anything it wants under the guise of "the general welfare". Unfortunately, while he is completely correct in his interpretation, he is also naive beyond repair as to what the powers that be will say it means. Enjoy... It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! oh shit, the obamanoids are gonna have a book burning soon.. bwwaaaahahaha WTF, how is this not overly obvious? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
africknamerican
|
|
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2009, 09:11:11 PM » |
|
Concerning 2) not really sure what you are talking about. You have read the preamble to the Constitution right? You are saying that was a throat clearing "intro", like an Ed McMahon kind of thing? Additionally, what does that have to do with the fact that the bill of rights is the ultimate authority on infringements by the state's agent (the fed) on individuals or the states themselves and the right of the state to reaffirm that these infringement are a direct violation of the law of the land.
Meaning: The preamble is a statement of intent, and does not in itself grant any powers. Although it does contain the "We the People ... do ordain and establish," which elevates it above throat-clearing status. Yet in terms of specific powers, there are none. No "The President shall..." or "The Congress shall ..." To rephrase what I said above, if the Preamble granted all the powers the liberals think it does, it could have served as the entire Constitution -- and the Framers could've saved a bunch of good hemp paper. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Silveryminnow
|
|
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2009, 09:38:29 PM » |
|
The Constitutional Convention of the Federalist papers regarding the powers of the Federal government and the States. The question of power
So there were lots of ideas on how to fix the government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. One thing everyone agreed on was that the current Congress did not have enough power. But they were almost all wary of giving the federal government too much power. Madison's famous line is "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." But men are not angels; they desire power, and if there is power to be had, someone will aspire to it. So power is necessary to get things done; too much power is corrupting. Finding a way to balance the power would be needed.
One thing each of the Plans had in common was a division of the government into "departments." An executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. For a more of a discussion on this Separation of Power, see the Separation of Power Topic Page. In addition to this separation on the national level, there was an additional level of separation the delegate had to work out - that between the states and the national government.
Some advocated giving the federal government almost total power; with the ability to overrule or approve all state legislation. But most agreed that the United States was too large to follow the European model of central control. The interests of the people of the states would be best served by allowing considerable control of the law to remain with the states.
But how to grant power to the federal government? Again, there were two schools of thought. One was to grant the federal government general powers, with interpretation left up to the congress of the time. The other was to grant specific powers to the federal government. The first choice was deemed too general, with the possibility of too much abuse; the second was considered too strict, with a congress with more power than it had currently, but unable to adapt to changing conditions. The Virginia Plan opted for the former option, considering it the lesser of two evils. With a body consisting of the executive and judiciary, some control over the legislature was provided for; it also allowed the federal government to overrule the states in some cases.
But even the authors of the Plan were not satisfied with this aspect. Madison and Edmund Randolph both spoke out against this detail, but seeing nothing better, this detail remained unchanged. Not until July 16, when the issue of equal suffrage in the Senate was settled, did the subject reappear in the Convention. Now that smaller states had what they wanted, and were more confident that this new Constitution would work out, they were more willing to discuss expanding the powers of the new government. But what emerged from the debates was still the Virginia Plan's general grant.
Then, on July 23, the Convention established a Committee of Detail to take everything discussed thus far and put it into a rough draft. As delivered on August 6, the Committee, which included Randolph, disregarded the general grant and proposed a list of powers (or enumeration). Surprisingly, the surreptitious change came and went with no debate. The enumerated powers were taken up on August 16, and for the next several days the enumerated powers were discussed, including one seemingly small detail at the end of the list, which allowed Congress to make all laws deemed "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the powers listed previously. There was no debate on the point; was this the result of another compromise? Were the delegates just tired and did not see the implications? The reasons this clause passed by so smoothly is unclear. But today, it is clear to us how much power the Necessary and Proper clause grants to the federal government.
With the question of the powers of the national government resolved, the next question was what to do with the states. The utter disregard of some of the states for the weak authority of the Congress was a great concern. It was a situation the delegates wanted to resolve once and for all. Again, the Virginia Plan proposed a national veto over onerous state laws, but the potential for abuse was easily recognized. The Southern states were especially wary of a national government's ability to upset slavery. Many worried that so powerful a national government would turn the populace against the Constitution. Despite these reservations, the provision remained, and several proposals were made to expand the Virginia Plan's provision.
But on July 17, the tide suddenly shifted. Swayed by arguments that the provision was simply not palatable, that state laws would be held in check by the state and national courts, and the prospect of the national legislature being forced to review the legislation of 13 states (not to mention 50), a vote to remove the provision passed. That, plus the idea of Luther Martin to adopt language from the New Jersey Plan that made all national laws and treaties the "supreme law of the respective states," provided some control over the states while not going overboard.
Constituion online Best site I know for understanding the Constitution. Can even get answers from the site masters. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Capitalism and Communism ... are merely their twin mechanisms to destroy the sovereignty of Christian nations. They will merge them into the projected superstate ... They are selling us into slavery and using our material resources for their own nefarious world-wide purposes. -CK Chesterton-
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2009, 09:40:28 PM » |
|
Meaning: The preamble is a statement of intent, and does not in itself grant any powers.
Although it does contain the "We the People ... do ordain and establish," which elevates it above throat-clearing status.
Yet in terms of specific powers, there are none. No "The President shall..." or "The Congress shall ..." To rephrase what I said above, if the Preamble granted all the powers the liberals think it does, it could have served as the entire Constitution -- and the Framers could've saved a bunch of good hemp paper.
and we can use that paper right now! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Silveryminnow
|
|
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2009, 09:44:25 PM » |
|
The Virginia Plan, foundation of the 10th amendment. Good reading regarding Federalism: Two kinds of FederalismResolutions proposed by Mr. Randolph in Convention May 29, 1787
1. Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, "common defense, security of liberty and general welfare."
2. Resolved therefore that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the Quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases. [1]
3. Resolved that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches. [2]
4. Resolved that the members of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every — for the term of —; to be of the age of — years at least, to receive liberal stipends by with they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service; to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the first branch, during the term of service, and for the space of — after its expiration; to be incapable of reelection for the space of — after the expiration of their term of service, and to be subject to recall. [3]
5. Resolved that the members of the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of — years at least; to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure their independency; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service; and to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch, during the term of service, and for the space of — after the expiration thereof. [4]
6. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress by the Confederation and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof. [5]
7. Resolved that a National Executive be instituted; to be chosen by the National Legislature for the term of — years, to receive punctually at stated times, a fixed compensation for the services rendered, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the Magistracy, existing at the time of increase or diminution, and to be ineligible a second time; and that besides a general authority to execute the National laws, it ought to enjoy the Executive rights vested in Congress by the Confederation. [6]
8. Resolved that the Executive and a convenient number of the National Judiciary, ought to compose a Council of revision with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature before it shall operate, and every act of a particular Legislature before a Negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said Council shall amount to a rejection, unless the Act of the National Legislature be again passed, or that of a particular Legislature be again negatived by — of the members of each branch. [7]
9. Resolved that a National Judiciary be established to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature, to hold their offices during good behavior; and to receive punctually at stated times fixed compensation for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution. That the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be to hear and determine in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine in the dernier resort, all piracies and felonies on the high seas, captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizens of other States applying to such jurisdictions may be interested, or which respect the collection of the National revenue; impeachments of any National officers, and questions which may involve the national peace and harmony. [8]
10. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of Government and Territory or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the National legislature less than the whole. [9]
11. Resolved that a Republican Government and the territory of each State, except in the instance of a voluntary junction of Government and territory, ought to be guarantied by the United States to each State. [10]
12. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Congress and their authorities and privileges, until a given day after the reform of the articles of Union shall be adopted, and for the completion of all their engagements.
13. Resolved that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary, and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto. [11]
14. Resolved that the Legislative Executive and Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union. [12]
15. Resolved that the amendments which shall be offered to the Confederation, by the Convention ought at a proper time, or times, after the approbation of Congress to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of Representatives, recommended by the several Legislatures to be expressly chosen by the people, to consider and decide thereon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Capitalism and Communism ... are merely their twin mechanisms to destroy the sovereignty of Christian nations. They will merge them into the projected superstate ... They are selling us into slavery and using our material resources for their own nefarious world-wide purposes. -CK Chesterton-
|
|
|
|
Silveryminnow
|
|
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2009, 10:06:01 PM » |
|
Constitutional Interpretation Two concepts, static and living document. Also read Marbury vs. Madison. The law is clear, that the federal government is obligated to uphold the rights of the States in accordance with the law of the Constitution. MSNBC=MicroSoft National Baloney Channel.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Capitalism and Communism ... are merely their twin mechanisms to destroy the sovereignty of Christian nations. They will merge them into the projected superstate ... They are selling us into slavery and using our material resources for their own nefarious world-wide purposes. -CK Chesterton-
|
|
|
|
JTCoyoté
Guest
|
|
« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2009, 02:51:41 PM » |
|
Constitutional Interpretation Two concepts, static and living document. Also read Marbury vs. Madison. The law is clear, that the federal government is obligated to uphold the rights of the States in accordance with the law of the Constitution. MSNBC=MicroSoft National Baloney Channel. The interesting thing about your link above, is that it proposes the latter of your two concepts... it also invents the term "constitutional democracy" when describing our form of government. (I might point out here, that almost to a man, the founding fathers were dead set against democracies, be they pure, or even the slightly limited parliamentary variety. They went so far as to ensconce at article IV section 4 of the Constitution the type of government that each state had agreed to provide, namely a republican form, which may include a democratic process, but in no way mandated it... you will not find the word democracy in the Constitution and Bill of Rights even one time.)Another thing I find interesting in your link, is its development of new forms of logic to interpret the document that was purposely written at an 8th grade level so no deep interpretation of what it says would be necessary. You must realize that Marbury vs Madison (1803), is an attempt by the court to grab power... which it succeeded in doing by giving the Supreme Court "extra-constitutional power" as sole arbiter of all constitutional interpretation... this is not a slippery slope, this is a greased pole! Four years prior to the Marbury vs Madison ruling, founding father, Charles Pickney wrote the following in 1799: "On no subject am I more convinced, than that it is an unsafe and
dangerous doctrine in a Republic, ever to suppose that a judge ought
to possess the right of questioning or deciding upon the constitutionality
of treaties, laws, or any act of the legislature. It is placing the opinion
of an individual, or two or three, above that of both branches of Congress,
a doctrine which is not warranted by the Constitution, and will not, I hope,
long have many advocates in this country." Within four years this understanding, was shattered by Justice Marshall, with Marbury vs Madison. It was done by mixing the idea of judicial review, with the idea that, any law -- (notice the use of the word law only, no mention of court rulings) -- the idea that any law repugnant to the Constitution is on its face not a law. And it follows that no agency within the federal, State, or local governments need abide by it. Until of course the Supreme Court through a ruling, makes it constitutional... this is the two edged sword aspects of Marbury vs Madison... You might want to supplement your above linked reading with a more constitutionally encompassing view which you can find here. http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/21-judicial-review.htmlJTCoyoté “Government, even in its best state,
is but a necessary evil; in its worst
state, an intolerable one.”
~Thomas Paine,
Common Sense |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Silveryminnow
|
|
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2009, 04:13:25 PM » |
|
Government must have the ability to amend the Constitution, or we would still have slaves. Democratic elections are necessary to choose our representatives, or we would have Tyranny or anarchy. The Constitutional duty of the Supreme court is stated; The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution.
This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Capitalism and Communism ... are merely their twin mechanisms to destroy the sovereignty of Christian nations. They will merge them into the projected superstate ... They are selling us into slavery and using our material resources for their own nefarious world-wide purposes. -CK Chesterton-
|
|
|
|
JTCoyoté
Guest
|
|
« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2009, 06:06:59 PM » |
|
Government must have the ability to amend the Constitution, or we would still have slaves. Democratic elections are necessary to choose our representatives, or we would have Tyranny or anarchy. The Constitutional duty of the Supreme court is stated;
This is of course all BS, there is no constitutional authority granted to any branch of the federal agency to amend the Constitution... and there should never be... all you have spelled out above is the unconstitutional "duty" of the Supreme Court as derived from the wholesale commandeering and ongoing federalization of the Constitution began in 1803... The form of judicial review being argued in the Federalist papers, gave no such power to the federal court... This power was inculcated and included, after the heady arguments that were engaged in the Federalist papers, at the 10th amendment to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, duly signed and ratified in convention on December 15, 1791... The idea that somehow, had the Supreme Court not been given this godlike usurped power of judicial review, we would still have slavery is ludicrous on its face, since we never have not had slavery even today... it's just called the different thing. With the original 14th amendment as laid out by Abraham Lincoln in the early 1865, it makes it unlawful for one man to own another man... we now call it the 13th amendment. That is because behind the scenes, the courts ruled against a long standing duly ratified original 13th amendment, in the favor of the royalist conquerors. With the NEW 14th amendment (originally the 15th amendment by the way), the royalist conquerors then enslaved the entire population of the United States into perpetuity as, the soon to be citizen property of the United States Inc. This corporation was unduly created and chartered on the 21st day of February 1871... Now, what is your definition of slavery there silveryminnow... The founding fathers had already figured out how to eliminate slavery, but the Royalists took control of much of the federal infrastructure, including the courts just after the War of 1812 by subterfuge... Andrew Jackson came in to clean part of the infestation out... Had the founders methods been used, slavery as an institution, would have been history by 1840. And had the constant meddling of the British royalists and the traitor sympathizers here not been ongoing, there would not have been a civil war. Thus the Corporate/banking oligarchs would have never gained control... As it turns out... the very instrument that was used to prolong the institution of slavery, to the globalist advantage, was the Supreme Court of the United States. --Oldyoti "The mind once enlightened
cannot again become dark."
~Thomas Paine
Common Sense |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JTCoyoté
Guest
|
|
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2009, 01:55:22 AM » |
|
It takes a special kind of talent to
1) Read painstakingly explicit provisions in the Constitution as "vague," "doubtful" or "obsolete," while
2) Reading a vague and general throat-clearing statement in a preamble (which is merely an introduction) as authoritative, and moreover, as an unlimited grant of authority. If this were actually the case, then Madison could have simply written the preamble, rested his pen and saved himself a lot of trouble.
Black is white, white is black.
I will agree with you as far as the court reading of explicit provisions as being vague, doubtful, or obsolete, this is the kind of routine garbage they traffic in. However the preamble is the enabling clause, it was proposed by the people through their states, and expresses the desires laid out in the preamble... it confers no power beyond that, it is an expression of the people's desire to create a compact with the sister states, and by which the document was forged... Anytime the federal power attempts to use the preamble as a precedent for a federal power grab... it's time to grab that justice or legislator or president by the neck and give them a good throttlin'. The defense and welfare clause the bastards always use for this kind of thing... is found at article 1 section 8 clause 1, it's the one that is always used to create welfare states and crap like that... a good strict constitutionalist could shoot this kind of ploy down in 20 seconds though... look at the mess this kinda interpretation created in the 60s with Johnson's Great Society... what a crock shit that was... This is one of the reasons why the founders were very explicit about strict adherence to the enumeration of powers of each branch of the federal agent. What sealed the bargain was the inclusion, at the very end of the 1791 Constitution, of the 9th and 10th amendments in order to make it perfectly clear. However with Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall's infamous Court opinion/muddy the works, dichotomy/power grab, he made it to where any unconstitutional law passed by Congress could be made constitutional by merely a majority vote of the Supreme Court... This is why this statement by Sonia Sotomayor, regarding the questionable idea of court interpreted corporate person-hood... has raised so many eyebrows. Will we finally get a Constitutional court? The fact is, we will have constitutional federal government one way the other, if the states choose to enforce the 10th amendment, and test constitutional litmus within their state legislatures, the dirty parts of Marbury vs Madison would disappear from the books in a New York second, I would bet my 1891 edition of Blacks Law Dictionary on it. JTCoyoté "Not long ago, America produced 96 percent of all she
consumed and was the most self-sufficient republic
in history. With statesmanship and sacrifice, we can
become so again. With leaders like we once had, we
can chuck the empire. For what good has it done us?"
~Patrick J. Buchanan |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
